Germany Shines Light on Rape by Troops Who Beat Nazis - New research by a German academic alleges that rape by U.S., British, French and Canadian forces was more commonplace than previously believed.

It's funny that you mention Suvorov's Icebreaker as an example of discredited history. It's so thoroughly discredited that most of the Wiki page for it is other historians' rebuttals- something notably lacking on the Wiki page for Generalplan Ost.

Um ... that's why I used it as a comparison. From the Generlaplan Ost Wikipedia itself, second sentence ... :

  • Implementation would have necessitated genocide[2] and ethnic cleansing on a vast scale to be undertaken in territories occupied by Germany during World War II.[2]*

Repeatedly in the same article, the word "drafted" is used. Meaning it was still a work in progress. Again, from the Wikipedia article ... :

Nearly all the wartime documentation on Generalplan Ost was deliberately destroyed shortly before Germany's defeat in May 1945.[5][6] Thus, no copies of the plan have ever been found after the war among the documents in German archives. Apart from Ehlich's testimony, there are several documents which refer to this plan or are supplements to it. Although no copies of the actual document have survived, most of the plan's essential elements have been reconstructed from related memos, abstracts and other ancillary documents.[7]

Let me help you since you seem to think that this actually exists in any form that could, without question, lay out the designs that were being drafted and planned to implement ... :

Thus, no copies of the plan have ever been found after the war among the documents in German archives.

... like Eichmann's conviction for deporting half a million Poles as part of the gradual clearing of Poland of all the ethnic Poles living there.

Again, trying to attached historical events to Generalplan Ost is a spurious attempt to give you argument validity. Eichmann's conviction did not hinge on the notion that Generalplan Ost was in effect. Don't believe me? Maybe you should read the Nuremberg Trials transcripts ... oh, wait, you're an expert so you should be able to answer that without needing to reference them.

Your equivalence of Generalplan Ost and other contingency plans is a false equivalence if there ever was one- I can't think of any CENTCOM contingencies involving mass deportation of local populations for the purpose of freeing up arable land for American citizens, for example.

How the hell is it the idea of nations having contingency plans a "false equivalence"? That makes no sense. They exist and, sorry to tell you, they most certainly do include mass deportations and the incarceration of civilians. Which, surprise, is completely legal. That's why the Germans did it, the British did it, the Americans did, and the Soviets did it. Deporting and incarcerating people is not a crime during times of war.

Past that, again, the reasons for why a plan might exist are neither here nor there. It doesn't matter if American plans don't exist on the notion that freeing up arable land for American citizens. They exist and that's the point. You are the one making this a "false equivalence" by trying to insist that all contingency plans must be identical else they don't count and Germany's was just 100% terri-bad ... even though it doesn't even fucking exist for you or anyone else to actually know what it entailed.

Now, to the meat of your post, the Holocaust claims: You claim that most of the evidence was destroyed, yet a large portion of Auschwitz is still intact to this day. I'll let the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, possibly the largest public repository of evidence on this matter, make the rest of my argument for me. You haven't come out and said "The Holocaust didn't happen" but you have hidden behind weasel words and cautious statements to call into question the veracity of the most well-documented genocide in recorded history.

What denial have I made? There are no "weasel words" because I don't need to use them; I deny nothing. Quit trying to frame me as some villain just because you choose to believe everything without question.

I never said that Auschwitz wasn't intact. But the gas chamber shown was built by the Soviets after the war. That is fact. Past that, though, the point is that, if the Soviets liberated so many camps and took so much documentation and captured so many Germans and liberated so many prisoners (many of whom they turned around and shot, like Soviet POWs) ... why wasn't the evidence presented at Nuremberg and why was the lie of Katyn presented instead?

What is the US Holocaust Memorial Museum going to argue by proxy for you? I'm not denying anything, nimrod. You just don't know the difference and, in your limited capacity to grasp the whole historical event, you, instead, want to label me as a "holocaust denier". Nice. How about you learn to fucking read and stop attacking people who know more about subject than you as somehow being supporters of it as well. That's asinine. I know a whole lot about deep sea fishing, too. Does that make me a fish? Or a fishing boat? I know a whole lot about 20th century southern African wars, too. Does that make me a supporter? Grow up.

/r/worldnews Thread Parent Link - nbcnews.com