Talk:Louis Barthou

message: "he was killed accidentally by a policeman reacting to the shooting"
How can we know it was done accidentally? It might have been a double strike: Chernozemsky murders King Alexander - a dishonest policeman, "reacting to the shooting", kills Barthou and remains unnoticed.77.122.109.237 11:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under the balance of probabilities, I would strongly suggest it was a accident. First, Barthou was only wounded by the shot, and had he received prompt medical treatment, would have most assuredly survived. But because of the confusion and chaos caused by the shooting of King Alexander, he was ignored, had to walk to the hospital, and by that time had lost so much blood that he later died the same day. If somebody wanted to assassinate Barthou, then they did an awfully sloppy job. Two, Vlado Chernozemski was right on the side of the car carrying King Alexander and Barthou, and had he wanted to kill Barthou as well, he could have easily done it, thus rendering the need for a second shooter irrelevant. Using Occam's razor as a guide, I would strongly suggest that since Chernozemski could have easily gunned down Barthou, that having a second assasin makes the plot all quite unnecessarily complex. Third, the idea that a dishonest policeman was working as a second assassin is only a hypothesis, which there is no supporting evidence for. A theory is just a theory unless evidence comes forward to support it. In all likelihood, one of the Marseille gendarmes was shooting at Chernozemski inadvertently wounded Barthou, who was then unfortunately was allowed to bleed to death. True, maybe we will never know for sure, but it seems to me, the scenario sketched above seems very more likely and probable then the theory of a policeman working as a second shooter, and accordingly, there is no more debate for this debate. The above theory seems to this reader to be an attempt to make the assassination of Barthou more complex then is warranted by the facts.--A.S. Brown (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A.S. Brown is correct, but unfortunately the world is full of  people bringing forth  conspiracy theories, and Wikipedia is no exception. And of course somewhere, someone will produce a "source" proving their "theory" is correct. And of course when all else fails, there is always Godwin's Law to fall back on. Have a nice day. Dr. Dan (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm afraid I've been misunderstood. I myself dislike those conspiracy theories. But if I was bringing it forth I guess I would state that everything happened just as I say while in fact I only suppose and am by no means convinced in my version. Still, one can't deny that some suspicious facts are present. A question of medical treatment. Minister of Foreign Affairs certainly is supposed to be treated more carefully than an ordinary citizen. Well, in this case we can see he was treated LESS carefully than an ordinary citizen (a bandage was placed right on the jacket and, moreover, below an injury which made bleeding even more intensive). Maybe it was not an accident. I agree it would have been easy for Velichko Dimitrov to murder Louis Barthou but it could have caused undesirable rumours about those who organized the assassination. As for a problem of the policeman - I don't know, he might have been a supporter of "Action Francais" and attempted to avenge suppression of 6 February coup or so. Again, probably everything I say here is no more than bullshit, but I daresay we can't completely reject a possibility it happened this way.77.123.133.67 (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Please allow me one general remark, not specifically aimed at this dispute. Whether someone  survives a shooting or not, that, by itself, does not define the shooting as an accident or an assassination attempt. People have been killed in accidental shootings and people have survived assassination attempts. Also, we cannot resolutely assert that "Chernozemski could have easily gunned down [Barthou]"; we can only subjectively assign some high probability to that, depending on known circumstance. That's because circumstances of events are typically chaotic. We can only refer to accounts of people of the period, particularly people involved in the event, eye witnesses, etc. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why "accidentally"? 

message: If a fabricated story about the Barthou's death is disqualified as a propaganda, then how it can be a part of his biography?
Please, do not pollute encyclopaedic articles with hearsays.
Proposal: remove the fabricated story from this article.--Juraj Budak (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Leaders of Ustashe, the Croatian terrorist organization which was behind of this asassination: How do we substantiate such a claim? How do we substantiate that it was even an assassination? Such claims need more than a bland assertion. In 1957, the East German newspaper Neues Deutschland ("New Germany") published supposed correspondence between Hermann Göring and Hans Speidel. ... According to the supposed correspondence, the death of Barthou was intentional, and the assassination was planned and prepared by Germans with Hitler's personal approval. ...  This claim has been disputed as propaganda. Both the claim that it was an assassination approved by Hitler and that it was not must be substantiated with specific references.-The Gnome (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Similarly, an article in an East German newspaper can't be considered a reliable source, because East German newspapers at this time are known to have been state-controlled propaganda machines.   So if the claim that Barthou's death was an assassination is to appear in this article, it needs to be sourced from some reliable secondary source; as it stands, it is unsourced, and shouldn't be in the article. Abhayakara (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This claim has been disputed as propaganda" 

message: *Re-write needed The whole "Death" section, as it now stands, is a bit of a mess. 
:Leaders of Ustashe, the Croatian terrorist organization which was behind of this asassination: How do we substantiate such a claim? How do we substantiate that it was even an assassination? Such claims need more than a bland assertion. In 1957, the East German newspaper Neues Deutschland ("New Germany") published supposed correspondence between Hermann Göring and Hans Speidel. ... According to the supposed correspondence, the death of Barthou was intentional, and the assassination was planned and prepared by Germans with Hitler's personal approval. ...  This claim has been disputed as propaganda. Both the claim that it was an assassination approved by Hitler and that it was not must be substantiated with specific references.-The Gnome (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Similarly, an article in an East German newspaper can't be considered a reliable source, because East German newspapers at this time are known to have been state-controlled propaganda machines.   So if the claim that Barthou's death was an assassination is to appear in this article, it needs to be sourced from some reliable secondary source; as it stands, it is unsourced, and shouldn't be in the article. Abhayakara (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: It appears the two paragraphs in the death section are contradictory. The first paragraph says Velicko Kerin assassinated Barthou and the second says an errant bullet from a French policeman killed Barthou.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel.sbateman (talk • contribs) 22:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death section contradiction