Talk:Walter Reder

POV tag explanation
There is much unreferenced material about the subject's military career and very little about the apparently substantial war crimes he committed. The article appears to be written from the point of view of trying to exonerate the subject. The problem is compounded by the failure to provide in-line notes to check the material sources for the statements.Mtsmallwood (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What an idiotic statement!! This is a biographical article - NOT an entry about the war crimes this person was responsible for. For that you will have to see the article about Marzabotto massacre. I also think that your demand for in-line references in this type of articles is strange. The article was written based on sources, which are clearly stated at the end of it. What more do you want? You want to check the facts in this article? Get one or all the books that were use as references and do so!! Finally, I don't know who has written the article, but under no circumstances it is in my view, he/she are trying to exonerate anyone. It is a short bio of the man. The war crimes he committed (e.g. was responsible as a commanding officer) happen over the period of two months in his 76 years of life!! How much do you want to analyze that in a bio? As said at the outset: Use your head when making comments like this...78.105.93.142 (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

To this stupid anonymous above: the crimes he committed over a period of two months in his 76 years of life? What does it means? If I murder people for only two months (in Italy 770 people: children mostly under 12 y.o. and women) and then I live until I'm 76 I'm less guilty?Your it's an idiotic statement!Greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.117.102 (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the truth of the issue, Reder has no honour at all and proved that himself. Nobody with honour makes an apology then retratcts it saying he only apologised for pragmatic reasons. One could go further and say how much of what he said could be trusted if he admitted he was prepered to lie for the sake of expediency ?--JustinSmith (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Really, they guy was unjustly imprisoned. Apologizing isn't lying. I somehow imagine that you've done the same in his position. Am I not correct? --41.151.28.178 (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Checked this up, the apology has to do with a letter Reder wrote to the community of Marzabotto, the letter was recommended by his lawyer. Reder just made this clear afterwards. Most likely in order to avoid this being abused to make the propaganda version of the Marzabotto incident more credible. --41.151.28.178 (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Would I lie and lose my honour ? No.


 * Excuse me, but you even do lie on the internet to further some hateful agenda. One can only speculate to what extent you'd have gone. --41.150.6.131 (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

There`s an interesting sidelight to this, many prisoners in jail are denied early release because they continue to insist on their innocence. So, we have the situation where "criminals" are more bothered about their honour than an SS Officer. I think that tells you everything you need to know about SS Officers, or, at the very least, this particular SS officer.--JustinSmith (talk) 08:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone boasting on the internet about his "honour", give me a break. In fact your honour isn't even enough to be honest in what you write on the internet. As pointed out previously, Reder wrote an letter of remorse to the people of Marzabotto. That's something different then admitting that the accusations are true. And let's face it. Most likely the people of Marzabotto did indeed suffer from the partisans and the responses to it, but that doesn't mean that there was any wrong-doing by Reder or any soldier whatsoever. So Reder just did set the record straight afterwards to avoid any misunderstanding. And "misunderstandings" are demonstrably a problem in that affair. --41.150.6.131 (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I know about honour and being true to myself, it`s one of the reasons I always use my real name.....--JustinSmith (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Prior version
I see that a lot of unsouced content was added back in 2007 (see this diff). I am going to restore to a more neutral version prior to the massive addition of the unsourced, non-notable information. I see that this was already discussed above, so I will just go ahead. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)