That is different than Stinnett's contention that they wanted a successful Japanese act of aggression. To buy into Stinnett's argument, one must believe that FDR intentionally planned the slaughter of thousands of Americans through acts of omission. By any definition, this is treason. In addition to branding FDR a traitor, it also ignores his close ties to the U.S. Navy, including his prior service as Assistant Secretary of the Navy.
Don't be naive
Don't be a Moonbat.
That is interesting, as the US was a declared neutral country prior to the Pearl Harbor attack.
And, yet, US ships (e.g., USS GREER) are torpedoed in the Atlantic, FDR orders the "pop up" cruises into Japanese waters, and Hart's "three little ships" get verbal orders to sail ...
Those do not seem like a "loves the Navy" kind of thing?
I would guess that FDR believed that, when 90% of the American public wanted to stay out of a war that he believed was a serious threat to American national security, only such an act of agression would galvanize the nation...the ends justify the means
What do you make of the dozens of intercepted messages from the Japanese in the weeks before December 7 that indicated they would attack Pearl Harbor? What do you make of Bill Donovan's statement that, when he met FDR on the night of the 7th...he seemed to welcome the attack
BTW...on a related subject...I will brand FDR a traitor...he took an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic...then he proceeded to enact the massive, unconstitutional, socialist welfare New Deal...what Judge Rogers-Brown of the DC Circuit has called "our own socialist revolution"