Talk:Heinz Lammerding

Faulty information in article, correction rejected due to "no reliable source"
Alright, so we the correct info here:

"Actually Lammerding was never sentenced in Germany and did not serve a prison sentence there. The fact that he had been condemned to death in France on the one side and Germany's constitution on the other which forbid the extradition of Germans kept him free from further prosecution in France and in Germany."

AND:

"In fact, the order for Oradour cannot be blamed on Lammerding, contrary to claims which are often made, mostly by copying from one source considered as reliable. The role of Lammerding as the one who gave the order is neither likely nor proven by any kind of substantial proof or testimony, let alone written documents. Giving an officer the order for a massacre, and the massacre being carried out bringing that officer to court-martial because of having carried out the massacre would be the logic when holding Lammerding resposible for the Oradour massacre."

It's the lamentable but apparently ever-ongoing problem with Wiki entries of the by and large 'political' order: a faulty information, if published in a book written by an author who did not take the necessary care for solid reseach is nonetheless given priority to information which is based - in the case of the above lines - on the study of the original files of the German investigation carried out by the Dortmund/Germany state attorney for Nazi war crimes in 1962. Lammerding was never convicted in Germany, as that sloppily working author writes. He was convicted to death in France in absentia for the Tulle hangings, and was never called officially to court in France. When the French tried to have him extradited for their 1953 Bordeaux Oradour trial their request was unsuccessful due to BRITISH intervention/unwillingness, as Lammerdings responsibility was even in those early days doubted. Futhermore, it is said he had a "couple of good friends" at the American CIA. And besides, as has been said already, on top the new German constitution did not allow to extradite German citizens, even not suspected war criminals. It does not have the slighest use in establishing the truth when blatantly faulty information is presented as "Wiki proof". The horror that happened during those times should not be tried to be enlarged by faulty allegations. It is big enough without that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.34.229.212 (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia relies on proper sourcing. Please follow the link and read the page. I am not sure why you would think this article is deliberately trying to enlarge the horror. Please do point us to access to "the original files of the German investigation" so we can judge their value. We need proper sources for each claim anybody makes. It's not Wikipedia's aim to state what happened in truth if that relies too heavily on original research. We all have our own truths. Instead, Wikipedia's aim is to state what reliable sources have written about the matter. Mark in wiki (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)