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?