The McCollum Memo

On October 7, 1940, Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum of the Office of Naval Intelligence submitted a memo to Navy Captains Walter Anderson and Dudley Knox (whose endorsement is included in the following scans). Captains Anderson and Knox were two of President Roosevelt's most trusted military advisors.

The memo, scanned below, detailed an 8 step plan to provoke Japan into attacking the United States. President Roosevelt, over the course of 1941, implemented all 8 of the recommendations contained in the McCollum memo. Following the eighth provocation, Japan attacked. The public was told that it was a complete surprise, an "intelligence failure", and America entered World War Two.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...


I think it would be good to have a forum 'historical conspiracies' for subjects like that. 'political conspiracies' seems to be closest...

Amazing stuff.

Seems little has changed...

From a an .edu site:

This is a difficult review to write for a number of reasons, especially for a historian not enamored with Franklin D. Roosevelt and his welfare policies, which were, in retrospect, disastrous. Nevertheless, while FDR is guilty of many sins, "setting up" the 7th U.S. Fleet at Pearl Harbor in 1941 to slip the United States into war through the "back door" is not one of them.

---snip---

There is no question that Stinnett has unearthed some documents previously unseen by most Americans. His familiarity with the markings of radio transmissions and his analysis of who could have known what is impressive and may have been valuable in another context. Lacking a historian's perspective, however, Stinnett fails to perform one of the most basic elements of historical research, namely to follow the footnotes. It leads him to a disastrous trap. At every critical point where Stinnett prepares the reader for a "gotcha" of FDR, he aborts his mission, and instead of proving his case, employs a host of "mush" terms that reveal that in fact he does not have the incriminating evidence that his title purports to contain. I have counted at least 23 such term uses, but I am sure there are many more that I missed.

---snip---

More serious problems abound. He begins with the premise that FDR's policy was completely driven by a low-level Navy commander in the Far East division of Naval Intelligence, Commander Arthur McCollum, and frames every action as conforming to McCollum's eight point memo. Yet Stinnett never directly links Roosevelt to any of the McCollum memo's points.

Stinnett places incredible stock in the notion that a mid-level commander in an intelligence agency somehow had the ear of the President of the United States. Intel groups generate these memos by the hundreds and few, if any, ever directly end up in the hands of the President. Further, Stinnett fails to mention Navy regulations required that any officer sending a memo forward first send it through his superiors, and that would have included Adm. Kimmel. One of the central lynchpins of Stinnett's argument---that FDR was engaged in manipulation behind Kimmel's back---thus collapses.

From:
Past...and Future

Look for the area called: The Book Nook for the review (about mid-way down page).
Amazing what people 'swallow' these days, despite the vast quantities of information to verify and compare.



seekerof

[edit on 7-12-2004 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Look for the area called: The Book Nook for the review (about mid-way down page).
Amazing what people 'swallow' these days, despite the vast quantities of information to verify and compare.
[edit on 7-12-2004 by Seekerof]

Nowhere they deny that the theory could be true, they even acknowledge the documents found were previously unseen by the public. Their criticism mainly stems from the fact that the naval pacific command was too unimportant to see their plot realized. But they don't deny that such a plot existed, and coincidentally history just went as the plot specified.

Look deeper, Seekerof.

You might want to read it again, maybe with some glasses this time?
Its apparent that you didn't read the bold I had marked? Allow me:

More serious problems abound. He begins with the premise that FDR's policy was completely driven by a low-level Navy commander in the Far East division of Naval Intelligence, Commander Arthur McCollum, and frames every action as conforming to McCollum's eight point memo. Yet Stinnett never directly links Roosevelt to any of the McCollum memo's points.

Stinnett places incredible stock in the notion that a mid-level commander in an intelligence agency somehow had the ear of the President of the United States. Intel groups generate these memos by the hundreds and few, if any, ever directly end up in the hands of the President. Further, Stinnett fails to mention Navy regulations required that any officer sending a memo forward first send it through his superiors, and that would have included Adm. Kimmel. One of the central lynchpins of Stinnett's argument---that FDR was engaged in manipulation behind Kimmel's back---thus collapses.

Past...and Future

...and, there is no need for me to dig any deeper. Contradiction and doubt are already placed.



seekerof

Is it even authentic ?

@Mokuhadzushi Uncle HO? WTF??? What's next Che?

Originally posted by Apollyon
Is it even authentic ?

The link posted by Seekrof seems to reluctantly confirm it's authenticity

@Mokuhadzushi Uncle HO? WTF??? What's next Che?

What's wrong with HO ?

"Yet Stinnett never directly links Roosevelt to any of the McCollum memo's points."

Read that to yourself seekerof, it doesn't debunk anything, it says that the man never demonstrated a link to FDR, but the ones he does draw correlation to are pretty damn close to the offices of FDR's administration eh? Your not likely to find Donald Rumfeld's signature on any Gharib related material fifty years from now, but does that exonerate the folks in charge? You aren't likely to see George Bush's or Ronald Reagan's John Hancock on any Iran/Contra information either, but you'd be a blind man not to see where I'm going here...

WAY OOT! but In reply to What's wrong with HO? Nothing except like many Communist figures they are overly romanticised to the point of cannonization...Che seems to suffer this the most. Ho did during the 70's but Vietnam is no longer the flavor (flavour) of the month. I will admit my ignorance of your current avatar. I don't get you, You are very critical of the West and it motives are you as critical of other nations?

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi

Originally posted by Apollyon
Is it even authentic ?

The link posted by Seekrof seems to reluctantly confirm it's authenticity

@Mokuhadzushi Uncle HO? WTF??? What's next Che?

What's wrong with HO ?