"
The problem is the lead of the article suggests the facts are not in dispute yet we have the same paper that started the claims (NY Times) also running an article that says the S Strategy is a myth.  That alone should justify the claim ""alledged"".  Furthermore, I see that previous attempts to add references that dispute the claim that the events are ""true"" have been removed.  For example, why was the Revision as of 05:01, 31 December 2014 revision undone.  Adding a section that disputes the claims is justified in an article such as this.  129.59.79.123  "