The Pacific theater of operations during the Second World War was a terrifying and exciting place to be. The naval actions that took place there have never been seen in history and likely will never been seen again for some time if ever. The men and women who put their lives on the line in this war fought bravely against odds many would deem predatory at a race track. Colby Mocarski’s paper on the actions that took place there was intended to be an homage to the people that fought and died there, detailing their actions and painting them in a brave and historically significant light. Colby is an Interdisciplinary Liberal Studies Major at James Madison University, and is therefore not expected to be an expert, but the issues with this work are glaring. Discrepancies between historically recorded events and events that took place according to Colby’s “research” are either groundbreaking or terrifyingly, stunningly, grossly wrong. Assertions such as: 'the Doolittle raid was the operation in which the United States deployed the first two atomic bombs,' negates nearly two and a half additional years of conflict and loss of human life between when history says those two operations occurred. Which is interesting given that Colby gives special highlight to the Naval Battle of Midway Island, which occurred in the interim between the Doolittle Raid and the dropping of the atomic bombs. Usage of primary sources was limited in the research and almost all credibility was lost at the point that this glaring issue arises. For the sake of fairness, it is not clearly stated that Colby means the atomic bombs in the paper, but she elaborated that it is what she intended in an audio interview. If this issue is omitted from the paper, there are still glaring problems. In the historical context section of the paper, there is mention of a gunboat deployed to ease tensions between china and Japan that the Japanese sank prior to the U.S. entering the war. The ship's name is never mentioned, and its casualties are never discussed. In a paper whose thesis obviously points to the sacrifice and bravery of those that took part in the fighting, mentioning specific examples like this cannot be constrained to simply saying, "Japan once again made tensions rise when they sunk America’s ship." That is neither gripping nor interesting nor grammatically correct. Other issues quickly arise in the writing and research. The "Magic" code-breaking machine was not a machine but a group of people whose job was to decode Japanese transmissions. All in all, the work is disorganized and painfully, devastatingly wrong. It cannot be applied to other scholarly work, it can't be considered correct, and given that the development time was adequate to produce works of good quality only hurts the paper's case. To other scholars, avoid this paper. Its usage within any other work detracts from credibility and you will be basing your assumptions on false information; jeopardizing your work in the process.