My point with Makasin is that HE THINKS the cryptographers colluded to conceal the "warnings" that they knew were there, and in so doing protected FDR.
I want HIM to say it, not refer to "Safford" or someone else---this is a typical media trick, ascribe to someone else what you really think.
Once he admits what he thinks, he must either conclude they are traitors or conclude that they were idiots and incompetents. There is no middle ground, given his perspective. Since I don't think they ever intercepted the stuff (which wasn't sent) in the first place, I have no problem seeing the cryptographers as honorable men who did their job to the best of their ability.
And such collusion is utterly inconceivable.
On such a rock, revisionist theory founders.
Why has history become no longer good enough for the historians. Why do some feel compelled to rewrite it?