Talk:Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory

Changing title of article

I propose that the title of this article should be changed. The term 'conspiracy theory' is now a very loaded one, often applied by people to stances which they wish to discredit. Removing the word 'conspiracy', and just leaving the title as 'theory' is more in line with WP:NPOV; it does not assert that the theory is correct - many theories clearly are not (indeed, the very term means a conjecture which is unproven). 109.157.172.79 (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

This conspiracy theory deserves maximum derision and does not deserve any deference. Not my opinion. Fact. The origin is with the same group of treasonous, entitled, right-wing Republican filth who attempted to use this to put Dewey in the White House which literally put this info in a newspaper to be read by anyone. A secret so secret no real historians had access to good resources until the 70's. Ask yourself a question. If the Japanese had attacked and only managed to sink a dingy because nothing else was at anchor, would the foreign policy result have been the same--namely war? If you answer yes, and if you're reasoned, you must, then everything else becomes ridiculous hot air. But, as always, if entitled right-wingers see value in pursuing such slander, then we are doomed to re-hash pure (and as I've just demonstrated, easily demolished) self-serving fabrications for eternity. Finally, any right-wing twit who claims to honestly believe this garbage must then concede that FDR was the greatest naval strategist in history. The carrier was not yet proved ascendant. Indeed, hulls were still wasted during the war building battleships. Only the fact that carriers were the only means of offensive for the U.S. navy that were left after the raid led to the rapid turnaround in fortunes, and strategy in the Pacific. Do you expect any such concessions? Yeah, me neither. 47.39.198.184 (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)