Well the abundance of sources certainly allows the process of obtaining many sources easier compared to some niche topic with one or two books about it/hard to access sources. That's one thing. Plus you can read those reviews of outraged historians. And there's much on the internet to help you if you are confused. But I wouldn't set up expectations and assuredly say that it is 'relatively easy'. It depends on how you approach your assignment, how you use your sources (and how many you pick from the pool or resources?) and what you areas of the debate you plan to write about. Like most topics, some of the historians write a lot - some even actually tomes of work - so you'll have to get through that. I found it hard to sum up the points of my many sources without feeling sheepish at the fact that I didn't read the whole thing. Not exactly 'historiographically correct' but that's all that my endurance and eyes can handle. The major work eats a lot of time; researching all the key figures and events, specific contextual stuff, stalking the bios of the historians to glean something that is noteworthy, cutting it down etc... OK, I'm totally not answering your question and rambling about the general history extension experience...
You probably would have researched it but:
You should should add Gar Alperovitz in your work. Another good one is Tsuyoshi Hasegawa. He proposes an interesting thesis and he is Japanese - great for a perspective other than the American perspective.
And sure, I'll email you. Hopefully my replies are more substantial.
