The idea that Franklin D. Roosevelt knew a whole lot more about Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor than he ever let on publicly is hardly novel, even if his apologists give new meaning to the word "denial." After WWII, it was revealed that by late 1940, we had access to Japan's diplomatic code, and many of their military codes, as well. Given this intelligence, how COULD a surprise attack have occurred?

From November 1945 through May 1946, a joint congressional committee investigated the matter, with ambiguous results.

Now, Robert B. Stinnett, a decorated Navy veteran of the war, and former journalist for The Oakland Tribune, has produced the results of a 17-year search for documentary evidence on this important historical question, aided by the Freedom of Information Act.

The basic conclusion of his new book, "Day of Deceit: The Truth About F.D.R. and Pearl Harbor" (Free Press, $26, 386 pages, illus.), is this: Not only was the "surprise attack" no surprise to Roosevelt, but also the effort to provoke Japan into military action was the principal policy of the Roosevelt administration for the entire preceding year.

Remember that in 1940, fully 88 percent of the American electorate was against involvement in foreign wars. And, when running for his third term, FDR stated repeatedly that he would not send U. S. troops into a foreign war. Yet, as he saw it privately, war with the Axis was inevitable. What to do?

That's where Lt. Cmdr. Arthur H. McCollum comes in. McCollum conceived an eight-point plan to facilitate and justify America's entry into the war. The naval officer devised a series of measures that would force Japan to make a first strike against the U. S. As such, we would be acting in self-defense, and our troops were not being sent to fight a foreign war. A Japanese attack would surely unite Americans and end isolationism.

One of the items was to relocate the Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Hawaii. The final measure, an embargo of trade with Japan, made war a certainty.

OK, but even if the codes WERE broken, what difference would that have made, given the long held notion of complete radio silence by the Japanese fleet? So solly. It turns out that several Japanese naval broadcasts, intercepted by American cryptographers in the 10 days before December 7, confirmed that Japan intended to start the war at Pearl Harbor.

Among the Japanese who made radio broadcasts were Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto, commander of the Japanese Imperial Navy, and Vice Adm. Chuichi Nagumo, commander of the leading element in the Japanese Pearl Harbor strike force. Mr. Stinnett writes that their messages were intercepted, deciphered and provided to Washington by a coded transmission procedure known as TESTM. Roosevelt, Stinnett says, would have been provided the TESTM documents, but they were not given to U. S. top brass in Hawaii--Pacific Fleet Commander Adm. Husband Kimmel and Lt. Gen. Walter Short.

To add insult to injury, these same officers were then scapegoated for allegedly failing to anticipate the Japanese attack (in May 1999, the U.S. Senate cleared their names). In fact, Kimmel moved his fleet into the North Pacific, actively searching for the suspected Japanese staging area, but naval headquarters ordered him to turn back.

Stinnett also describes how the cover-up began immediately after the attack. He identifies the admiral who ordered "Destroy all notes or anything in writing" and closes his book mentioning the subterfuges, lies, and perjured testimonies that still try to distance FDR from the conspiracy.

Perhaps now, as we close in on the end of the 20th century, we can finally get to the truth. No doubt, emotions will run high. After all, what do you say to the relatives of the 2,273 American soldiers and sailors who died on December 7th?

For some, like New York Times book reviewer Richard Bernstein, a definitive case will never be made. There will always be another logical, less radical explanation. FDR's complicity is just too horrible to contemplate. Besides, where would that leave Tom Brokaw, George Will, and their "Greatest Generation"?

But for those of us, including this writer, who consider FDR one of the worst presidents in American history, Stinnett's piling up of what evidence remains extant allows only one conclusion:

A power-mad chief executive, hell bent on getting us into the war, had little problem sacrificing thousands of American lives in the process.

I wonder. Just whose freedom DID they die for?