[BroJoeK]

"I didn't read the book as saying that FDR knew there would be an attack on Pearl Harbor. Only that the circumstantial evidence suggested that FDR was pretty sure the Japanese would do something on or about December 7 which would not endear them to the American public. "

I recommend The Pearl Harbor Myth by George Victor c2007:

Yes, there is no "proof." But there is a lot of suggestive evidence. It can begin conceptually, by understanding the difference between a "provocation" and "deterrence."

Page 168: "From a military viewpoint, the conceptual difference between deterrence and provocation is simple. A force powerful enough to be intimidating tends to deter. A weak force invites attack..."

[Mr. Silverback]

Hmmm...somebody’s ignoring the Congress’ role in our lack or preparedness...and generally making us look like tinfoil hat central.

[LS]

I've read most of these, including the newer ones with supposedly "better" evidence. It's baloney. The only thing to remember is for "FDR to know" mean willing and active complicity by hundreds of cryptanalysts and radio men THEN, and their lying about it for 50 years after the fact. Yet every single one of them tells the same story. There was no advance information.

These guys get a little irate when you start calling them traitors, and that's the ONLY way a conspiracy could have worked. Please check out my endnotes. Phil Jacobsen, a specialist in decoding and WW II radio signals, has written a number of debunkings on these myths.