Jäger Report

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Jäger Report

Postby Kingfisher » 5 years 5 months ago (Sat Apr 19, 2014 9:54 am)

Just came across a reference from a believer in a YouTube comment section to the Jäger Report.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A4ger_Report
http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/document/DocJager.htm

Wikipedia makes no mention of the provenance of this document, though the fact that it is now in the Lithuanian state archives would suggest the Soviets.

Does anyone have any hard information on this?

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9865
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Jäger Report

Postby Hannover » 5 years 5 months ago (Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:11 am)

See all the 'related topics' below. This fraud has been debunked repeatedly.
Note the wiki document is just typed paper, typed by anyone with a German typewriter, no provence whatsoever.

This typical of the claimed but never shown 'holocaust' documents'.
some points:

The communist Soviets found the 'Jaeger Report' fifteen years after the alleged event.

Karl Jaeger curiously 'committed suicide' on 22 June 1959, how convenient.

Absolutely no mass graves have been shown to support the 'Jaeger Report'.

The so called 'Jaeger Report' has the smell of yet another communist Soviet forgery for which they were notorious.

It's all part of the unsupportable '2,000,000 Jews shot by the Einsatzgruppen' tale.
So, is that:
100 graves of 20,000?
200 graves of 10,000?
400 graves of 5,000?
500 graves of 4,000?
1000 graves of 2000?
2000 graves of 1000?
The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who debunk it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent racist Jewish supremacists demand that there be no legitimate, open debate.

The tide is turning.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2497
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: Jäger Report

Postby borjastick » 5 years 5 months ago (Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:25 am)

Kingfisher,

I have just taken a quick look at my copy of Richard Rhodes' Masters of Death. Karl Jager gets a lot of page space. Have you got this book?

It appears that Jager was different from other Eisatzgruppen leaders in that the claim of Rhodes is that he murdered jews for fun just for being jewish, and did not require them to have been charged with any misdemeanor or partisan action etc. He tricked Jews into exposing themselves to him for work and then marched them off for execution.

He managed to 'escape' justice until 1959 when on trial for his actions he committed suicide in his cell.

As with all Einsatzgruppen claims the numbers are barely believable. The Jager Report apparently states the unit killed 7523 jews on 28 August 1941! And almost never did the tally drop below 1000 a day.

Yes the locations are listed in the report so I wonder how many of these sites have been found, excavated and proven, perhaps by Father Dubois.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9865
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Jäger Report

Postby Hannover » 5 years 5 months ago (Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:39 am)

As Kingfisher posted, we have this site: http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/ ... cJager.htm
citing the laughable book called 'The Good Old Days', E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The Free Press, NY, 1988.
Read on for a complete demolition of this childish propaganda trying to pass itself off as a serious book.

http://codoh.com/library/document/2590
'Irrefutable Response' Falls Flat
Book Review
By John Weir
'The Good Old Days': The Holocaust as Seen by Its Perpetrators and Bystanders. Ernst Klee, Willi Dressen and Volker Riess, editors. Translated from the German by Deborah Burnstone. Foreword by Hugh Trevor-Roper. New York: Free Press, 1991. Hardcover. 334 pages. Photographs. Source references. Biographical appendix. Index. ISBN: 0 02 9174252

This book's dust jacket blurb promises a lot which I guess is its primary purpose, besides keeping off dust. The prospective reader is assured that "The Good Old Days" reveals "startling new evidence," and is "yet another irrefutable response to the revisionist historians who claim to doubt the historic truth of the Holocaust."

While interesting, this book does not live up to its promise, though unlike many other Holotomes it is not a whiny narrative history. Instead, it is a collection of contemporaneous reports, letters, and diary excerpts, along with numerous postwar statements obtained during Allied interrogation sessions. Apparently the editors of this work expect the documents here to speak for themselves. In fact, the editors have taken these documents from their historical context, assembling them to distort the historical record and mislead the reader.

One doesn't have to read far before finding that the book breaks the promise made on the dust jacket. In his foreword, British historian Hugh Trevor-Roper (Lord Dacre) writes:

History is always liable to revision and there are indeed some unresolved problems of the "Final Solution." ... There are some genuine uncertainties about the exact structure and working of the gas chambers and the number of their victims. However, these reasons for questioning the evidence where it is weak are not reasons for rejecting it where it is firm: they are reasons for looking it in the face.

After reading this, I guessed I could forget about finding "startling new evidence" in the pages to follow. And so it turned out.

What did startle me was that three-quarters of the book deals with the activities of the Einsatzgruppen German security field police units, and various native auxiliary militia units, which operated during 1941-42 in the occupied Soviet territories, and especially in the Baltic countries. The remaining 60-odd pages are devoted to the "extermination camps" and their "gas chambers." This division is perhaps an indication of where Holocaust evidence is relatively firm, and where it is weakest.

Because most Holocaust accounts claim that "resettlement" was merely a Nazi code word for killing, I was surprised to find here (pp. 183 ff.) a July 1943 report by an SS officer complaining of a slavishly pro-Jewish attitude by Wilhelm Kube, Generalkommissar of German-occupied Belarus (White Russia). The report's author accuses Kube of being especially protective of German Jews who had been resettled there from the Reich.

Many of the documents in this book show that the Germans were particularly suspicious of the local Jews in the areas they occupied. For example, Kube reports (p. 180) in a confidential July 1942 letter:

It has become apparent during the course of all clashes with partisans in Belarus, in both the former Polish and the former Soviet parts of the region, that the Jews, together with the Polish resistance movement and the Moscow Red Army in the east, are the principal supporters of the partisan movement.

Consequently, Jews were subjected to harsh retribution for acts of sabotage or murder committed by partisans. Furthermore, as the Germans advanced in pursuit of the Red Army, local Jews were singled out for punishment in retribution for mass killings carried out by the Soviet secret police before their retreat.

This suspicion and severe treatment is further pointed up in excerpts from the diary of Einsatzgruppe officer Felix Landau (pp. 88 ff.), who recounts in one entry the execution of 20 Jews from the local ghetto because a group of Jews had failed to show up for work one day. Clearly, the Nazis meant business.

This book's final section, which deals with the "extermination camps," contains nothing new. For example, there are extensive excerpts from the familiar diary of Dr. Kremer, an anatomist and physician who was stationed at Auschwitz in 1942. [See: R. Faurisson, "Confessions of SS men who were at Auschwitz," Summer 1981 Journal.] Interestingly, Kremer's only mention of Zyklon B (p. 257), which allegedly was used to gas hundreds of thousands of Jews at Auschwitz, is "against lice" in connection with fumigating a barracks building. Most the diary entries given here deal with the typhus epidemic, food, travel, work, and other duties. Nowhere does Kremer mention gas chambers. For evidence of these, the book depends entirely on the familiar postwar statements of Rudolf Höss, Kurt Gerstein, Kurt Franz, and others. [See: R. Faurisson, "How the British Obtained the Confessions of Rudolf Hoss," Winter 1986-87 Journal; H. Roques, The 'Confessions' of Kurt Gerstein.

Among the many grim photographs in this book are two I found amusing. First, there is a photo of a power crane (p. 246) standing next to piles of sand and gravel. It is captioned: "Excavator used for corpses at Treblinka." What the editors fail to tell the reader that there was a gravel quarry at Treblinka. Maybe, just maybe, it was used for the obvious purpose of simply quarrying gravel.*

[* Here is a photo of said excavator from 'Surviving Treblinka', by Samuel Willenberg.
Image
and is captioned:
crane lifting corpses destined for cremation"
Do you see any "corpses"? This is what passes for proof of the so called 'holocaust'. And imagine this; you would be imprisoned in much of Europe for stating the obvious fact that the excavator's load is simply dirt.]

A second photo shows a pet dog, "Barry," that belonged to Treblinka deputy commandant Kurt Franz (p. 248). According to the caption, Franz "used to set [the dog] on prisoners ... 'Barry' tore many Jews to pieces, on numerous occasions biting off their genitals." One might expect "Barry" to look like something out of "The Omen," but what the photograph shows is a real disappointment. Too bad no "action" photo is available, because it's difficult to believe that the rather scruffy, medium-sized, retriever-mix mongrel shown here was capable of doing what's been claimed.

In a postwar statement (p. 249) about "Barry" and his own role in the camp, Kurt Franz hit the nail on the head:

"It is true that I had a dog called Barry. Or rather – to be precise – this dog was a stray from [the work and training camp of] Trawniki that attached itself to me in the camp ... I never set this dog on a Jew. I never killed a person or beat anyone. I would like to correct myself – the latter may have occurred once. Basically I have never done wrong to anyone, nor would I ever have wished to do a wrong. I vehemently deny these attacks against me. I state that the entire thing is a sham. I believe that I am now being maligned for the sole reason that I was a member of the SS. I wore the uniform of an SS officer and for this reason alone was a familiar figure among the prisoners."

Although it is promoted as an "irrefutable response" to the revisionists, The Good Old Days is a sham. It simply ignores the work of revisionist scholars.

Most of the text, by far, is devoted to the activities of the Einsatzgruppen, but as early as the mid-70s Dr. Butz acknowledged that this is the only aspect of the Holocaust story that contains a grain of truth. The remainder that deals with the camps is a rehash of material that has been thoroughly discredited for years.

In short, there's no "response" here, irrefutable or otherwise. In fact, the book's editors book appear entirely ignorant of revisionist scholarship.

This book might be of some value as a reference work, but don't pay full price for it.

Also see:
Nizkorite Taubner

'The Good Old Days' is sliced & diced here:
'The Razor and the Ring'
By John Weir
http://codoh.com/library/document/364

This is too easy.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
PotPie
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:04 am
Location: Here

Re: Jäger Report

Postby PotPie » 5 years 5 months ago (Sat Apr 19, 2014 1:17 pm)

"Crane lifting corpses"? I see a crane lifting dirt. Excavating dirt. Nothing else.

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: Jäger Report

Postby hermod » 5 years 5 months ago (Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:36 pm)

The Jäger report by the Hunter ("jaeger" means "hunter" in German) and Haman (the Persian anti-Jewish exterminator of the Book of Esther - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haman_(biblical_figure)). :lol:

The so-called Jaeger report may or may not be genuine, IMO. One would have to examine the post-war statements as well as the trial records pertaining to Karl Jaeger, the alleged author of the report. While much of the material seems damaging, it would be a mistake to rush to judgment based upon the scanty material the authors have presented for our inspection. There is much in the report that would seem contrived, or coincidental, such as the names of two alleged perpetrators of crimes against the Jew: Jaeger and Hamann.

Jaeger means "hunter" in German, and Hamann, of course was the Persian who wanted to exterminate the Jews in the book of Esther. Either this is a prophecy come true, or it was God’s way of exacting a terrible and sardonic punishment upon the innocent.

The authenticity of the report could only have been commented upon by one person--Jaeger himself, but also coincidentally, he committed "suicide" while in custody in 1959.

http://www.cwporter.com/goodold.htm


(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollkommando_Hamann)

IMO, the Jäger report is just a Soviet forgery as the Einsatzgruppen documents introduced as evidence at Nuremberg. In what field other than the 'Holocaust' are Soviet documents regarded as evidence of anything by today's historians anyway?

READER: Hello Mr. Porter. [...] Now, what I am trying to find out is: Do the wartime Einsatzgruppen documents exist in the archives, or just negative photostats? I am trying to determine if these historians have used only these photocopies, or if they've used the originals. This seems very odd. Why do you think the originals from which the photocopies derived have vanished? (if that is the case).

ME (Carlos Whitlock Porter): I'm not entirely clear as to the difference between the Einsatzgruppen reports and the Ereignismeldungen UdSSR (Event Reports USSR), event reports USSR, and (Ereignismeldungen UdSSR...), and the Tätigkeits- und Lageberichte.

I am quite certain that what I say is true because these facts -- particularly the disappearance of the original documents -- have been remarked upon by many people, revisionists and non-revisionists alike, including Pressac and Hilberg. There are no signatures, no letterheads, no originals and no sharp S. The original DID SIX MILLION REALLY DIE? written 30 years ago, remarks on all these points, except the sharp S. As I say, there must be authentic Einsatzgruppen reports, but nobody seems to know where they are.

There are no originals of any Nuremberg trial documents, except for a few, more or less insignificant documents. Even the "file copies" are photocopies. Many people have remarked that nobody knows where these documents are.

[...]

I suspect that the original Nuremberg Trial documents have vanished because the documents were mostly forgeries to start with, but they may have vanished for some other reason.

To me, engaging in complicated arguments about the "content" of apocryphal documents is putting the cart before the horse. To me, the first question is, is it an original? What kind of document is it? Where did the copy come from? What kind of copy is it? And so on. Then we'll argue about what they say. There are no originals, as a rule, especially, no Nuremberg Trial originals, or very few. And no rules of evidence, no chain of evidence. No requirement that original documents be presented.

Very few people visit the archives. They write for photocopies. If the photocopy is a positive, they don't know whether the original is there, or not. But most of them are negatives.

...Why don't you try an experiment? It's easy enough. Pick any of these documents at random and write to any archive for a photocopy of it. If the photocopy is negative, you know they don't have the original. If the photocopy is positive, ask them if they have the original. If they say no, ask them where the originals are? See what they say.

You might also ask how many originals they have. And even if it is possible to come and look at them.
I think you'll find that what I say is true.

[...]

It is very easy to alter an existing document but fairly difficult to fake an original out of whole cloth, i.e., without a model to copy.

[...]

I think this is the way most of the Nuremberg documents were produced: by altering a single word or inserting a paragraph or page or occasionally an entire text, retaining the headings, if any. Faking an entire document is far from easy, but alteration is child's play; note the second paragraph above. That way, if necessary, you have the references, everything, so it fits into an entire file of authentic documents, if necessary, and may never be noticed, especially if the originals are never examined. As I have said, I consider the Himmler secret speech an altered speech on the military situation. That's just one example.

Most forgeries require a model of some sort. For example, the Kujau "Hitler diaries" were faked by copying the Hitler Table Talk, or something similar; it was the text (and the album covers) that gave him away. The handwriting was perfect (copied from Werner Maser's HITLERS BRIEFE UND NOTIZEN, published in 1973). If you look at www.crimelibrary.com there is a whole section on famous forgers, and you will see that very few of them produce original texts out of whole cloth; only signatures, which are often sold to private collectors and are never discovered. Almost the only successful exception was a Mormon who faked an original Emily Dickinson poem which was still being sold as authentic, certified by literary experts and handwriting experts, even after the guy had been in prison for almost 30 years. But that is very rare, in fact unique. A lot of people can fake a signature by Abraham Lincoln, for example, but when they try to fake a sentence or paragraph by him, they fail miserably, and get caught, because Lincoln's style in English is almost impossible to imitate.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mi ... index.html
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mi ... index.html
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mi ... index.html
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mi ... index.html
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mi ... index.html


http://www.cwporter.com/letter25.htm

"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3336
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Jäger Report

Postby Hektor » 5 years 5 months ago (Sun Apr 20, 2014 7:25 am)

I recall the Jaeger Report from debating long time ago.
Is there any way one can recognize forgery from the document itself?


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 6 guests