The CODOH Revisionist Forum

There’s understandably a lot of frustration from revisionists over the sheer volume of holocaust and WWII related films and media - see various threads on here.

In seeing the other side of this, I have noticed a fair amount of implicit (more rarely, explicit) revisionist themes or topics in very famous and prominent post-war authors and films.

Pynchon below was what initially stood out to me, but I’ve included others below.


Would be interested in others comments here or other examples, criticisms, etc.

----

George Orwell’s 1945 Essays


The famous English journalist, novelist and socialist wrote essays while working briefly in allied-occupied Germany in 1945.

In Notes on Nationalism he does not question the “extermination” of Jews during the war - although he states this was not a much discussed topic at the time. He states, “Is it true about the German gas ovens in Poland?” which appears to imply that the extermination narrative was separable from gassings at the time and that it was not considered highly controversial to question the reality of gas chambers.

----

From Anti-Semitism in Britain:

"Yet it is generally admitted that antisemitism is on the increase, that it has been greatly exacerbated by the war, and that humane and enlightened people are not immune to it…
It so happens that the war has encouraged the growth of antisemitism and even, in the eyes of many ordinary people, given some justification for it. To begin with, the Jews are one people of whom it can be said with complete certainty that they will benefit by an Allied victory. "

Interesting comment also on how prevalent antisemitism was in England and also that it was taboo prior to WWII (particularly among the elite):

"But now let me come back to that point I mentioned earlier—that there is widespread awareness of the prevalence of antisemitic feeling, and unwillingness to admit sharing it. Among educated people, antisemitism is held to be an unforgivable sin and in a quite different category from other kinds of racial prejudice. "

----

Orwell emphasises the scale of the destruction and hardship in 1945 Germany (from Future of a Ruined Germany):

It is quite true that the scale of the Allied blitzing of Germany is even now not realised in this country, and its share in the breaking-down of German resistance is probably much underrated. It is difficult to give actuality to reports of air warfare and the man in the street can be forgiven if he imagines that what we have done to Germany over the past four years is merely the same kind of thing they did to us in 1940.

----
The entire text of Revenge is Sour is now pure revisionism. The whole thing ought to be quoted, but some selected passages:

"Whenever I read phrases like 'war guilt trials', 'punishment of war criminals' and so forth, there comes back into my mind the memory of something I saw in a prisoner-of-war camp in South Germany, earlier this year. Another correspondent and myself were being show round the camp by a little Viennese Jew who had been enlisted in the branch of the American army which deals with the interrogation of prisoners…
In so far as the big public in this country is responsible for the monstrous peace settlement now being forced on Germany, it is because of a failure to see in advance that punishing an enemy brings no satisfaction. We acquiesce in crimes like the expulsion of all Germans from East Prussia—crimes which in some cases we could not prevent but might at least have protested against—because the Germans had angered and frightened us, and therefore we were certain that when they were down we should feel no pity for them…
Actually there is little acute hatred of Germany left in this country, and even less, I should expect to find, in the army of occupation…
Only the minority of sadists, who must have their 'atrocities' from one source or another, take a keen interest in the hunting-down of war criminals and quislings. If you asked the average man what crime Goering, Ribbentrop, and the rest are to be charged with at their trial, he cannot tell you."


Gravity’s Rainbow (1973)

Most famous novel by Thomas Pynchon, arguably the most critically acclaimed living American writer.
This is admittedly not the average WWII novel but it is remarkable what is left out and what is included here. The word, “Holocaust” is used several times but never in relation to “The Final Solution” - the latter being a phrase I cannot find in the book at all. Auschwitz and Buchenwald are mentioned: there is no discussion, not even a word on gassings in the whole book. The topic of a demented, continental genocidal scheme is a topic one would expect Pynchon to indulge in, but there is nothing there. Virtually everything else is discussed including peripheral facts such as the weather on specific days and synthetic rubber shortage.
Particularly intriguing is the large focus in the book on Allied psychological warfare units and propaganda during the war. There is even a fictional unit with a very suggestive name: PISCES—Psychological Intelligence Schemes for Expediting Surrender. This is still a semi-revisionist topic (with regards to the extent of the psych war activities), for this to be written about at length in the late 60s, early 70s is highly noteworthy.

It is evident from his books that Pynchon has an encyclopaedic knowledge of matters considered conspiracy theories by the mainstream. It would be very surprising if he is not acquainted with WWII revisionism - keep in mind this is considered the most important Cold War era American novelist.

The Fuehrer in Perspective (1974)

Review of a Hitler biography by the famous novelist and intellectual, Colin Wilson.
Supportive comments are made in the article about Richard Verrall’s revisionist booklet, Did Six Million Really Die? Wilson expresses his surprise at the article and finds it rational and does not contain fervent anti-semitism as he expected. Wilson summarises:
"We know that he [Hitler] detested the Jews. We know that his treatment of the German Jews was appalling – brutal and inhuman in the extreme; there is plenty of evidence from post-war Germany to prove that. But still, it is worth asking the question: Did the Nazis really exterminate six million Jews?"



White Noise (1985)

Major novel by one of the most acclaimed living US writers, Don DeLillo. Satirizes a neurotic, bored, Middle America.
Main character is the premier American expert in “Hitler Studies”, a subject he founded, although he cannot read German. It reads like a parody of the ongoing post-war obsession with Hitler and National Socialism - in this case, the leading academic doesn’t know what he is talking about. There is even a very unsympathetic Jewish character in the novel (interestingly, portrayed by a black actor in Noah Baumbach’s film adaption).
As with Pynchon above, DeLillo is fascinated by matters that are characterised as conspiracy theory. It would be surprising if he has not come across revisionist material.


Schindler’s List (1993)

The famous shower scene - where water comes from the faucets and not pesticide. This attracted a lot of angry commentary at the time. It still continues to confuse audiences (Google and view the confusion on Reddit, etc). There is smoke depicted coming from a crematoria chimney but nothing directly in the film explicitly depicting gassings or even the aftermath of gassings. There is even a scene where interned Jews dismiss the idea of gassings, depicting the fact that these stories were widely shared by Jews but generally not taken seriously. It is difficult to determine Spielberg’s intentions here.


Downfall (2004)

This may be the most widely viewed German film outside Germany since WWII, at least in part due to the ubiquitous memes of a now famous bunker scene.
Much commentary at the time over its supposed humanising of Hitler. Much less commented on is that the holocaust is not mentioned until the end credits, where the director felt it necessary to make it clear that “Six Million Jews were killed in camps”. During the actual historical depictions among Hitler’s close circle there is no discussion of an ongoing or prior massive campaign to murder Jews. It was acknowledged at the time that the film’s depictions of Hitler’s last few weeks and months was historically faithful.
Part of an interview with Hitler’s last secretary is also included in the end credits (see interview on YT below). She talks of how she knew nothing about extermination until the Nuremberg trials. She states there was also no widespread preoccupation with the Holocaust after these trials until the 1960s.

[

Churchill wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 1:47 pm
Schindler’s List (1993)

The famous shower scene - where water comes from the faucets and not pesticide. This attracted a lot of angry commentary at the time. It still continues to confuse audiences (Google and view the confusion on Reddit, etc). There is smoke depicted coming from a crematoria chimney but nothing directly in the film explicitly depicting gassings or even the aftermath of gassings. There is even a scene where interned Jews dismiss the idea of gassings, depicting the fact that these stories were widely shared by Jews but generally not taken seriously. It is difficult to determine Spielberg’s intentions here.

Agreed.

On the surface, it could be said that Spielberg was simply using the gas chamber mythos as a literary device to build dramatic tension in that scene. However that is very shallow and unsatisfactory given the context and totality of the movie, and indeed Spielberg himself being Jewish and his comments on why he even made the movie!

This is absolutely non-falsifiable, but I often feel that Orthodox proponents have no hesitancy in making contradictory or nonsensical claims if they ultimately lead to a muddying of the water for a lay audience. What I mean here is, this scene absolutely muddies the water to a lay audience - "Huh? I thought the gas came from the showers?" Spielberg then has the plausible deniability of not spreading misinformation, knowing full well that very few of the viewers will follow up on their curiosity, and if they do, they'll consult other laypeople (like you said they will go to Reddit and receive terrible explanations!)

Its still a net-positive for the story-tellers, and in dissident RW circles they sometimes refer to antics like this as pilpul, although that doesn't match exactly 1:1 with the historical definition. We could also call it chutzpah!

Churchill wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 1:47 pm The Fuehrer in Perspective (1974)

Review of a Hitler biography by the famous novelist and intellectual, Colin Wilson.
Supportive comments are made in the article about Richard Verrall’s revisionist booklet, Did Six Million Really Die? Wilson expresses his surprise at the article and finds it rational and does not contain fervent anti-semitism as he expected. Wilson summarises:
"We know that he [Hitler] detested the Jews. We know that his treatment of the German Jews was appalling – brutal and inhuman in the extreme; there is plenty of evidence from post-war Germany to prove that. But still, it is worth asking the question: Did the Nazis really exterminate six million Jews?"

Here's the relevant part from Wilson that appeared in Books & Bookmen, a British literary magazine. He made the comments about the Harwood booklet at the end of a review of Fest's Hitler bio. It provoked a lot of angry response letters from Jewish activists including Simon Wiesenthal.