Scan barcode
tikimark's review against another edition
5.0
A haunting education on the years leading up to WWII, in the actual letters and documents of the actual participants.
I can not recommend it more.
I can not recommend it more.
lainecid's review against another edition
4.0
Really interesting take on history leading up to the start of WII. It took personal accounts, news reports and diaries from people all over the world to try and capture the mood, sentiment and struggle to head both towards and away from war. It's a really different format than most history books, with short paragraphs of related content and no chapters, just a chronological march towards the US's declaration of war. It seems especially pertinent now in the context of the anti-muslim sentiments and war-mongering that seems to be happening in many different areas.
paulfidalgo's review against another edition
4.0
A brief take from my blog Near Earth Object:
I’ve just read Nicholson Baker’s take on the first years of World War II, Human Smoke, and it is certainly unsettling. But I have come across a couple of reactions to the book of late that complain that Baker is trying to convince the reader that WWII was a bad war that should never have been fought, and that Churchill and Roosevelt were as bad as Hitler. This leads to a pretty much categorical dismissal of the entire work. Here’s a bit from the New York Times review:
What the book does do is to remind us that the events of World War II were not black and white, that Churchill and Roosevelt were not utterly pure and heroic in their motives or executions, and that there was a legitimate anti-war sentiment that pulsated at the time–one that was as well-intended and as based in honest principle as any opponent of, say, the Iraq invasion in 2003 (putting aside whether the opponents of battling Hitler were in that sentiment correct, which I think history bares out that they were not). The principled pacifists of that era deserve to have their story told, stories seldom told–how many World War II histories can you think of that feature Gandhi as a central figure and moral voice?
The book also reminds us, very often through primary sources such as diaries and direct quotes, how removed those waging war can be from those suffering unspeakably from its horrors. The prime ministers, presidents, ambassadors and generals often seem heartless and utterly out of touch in regards to the real world consequences of the war’s mass butchery of human beings.
Yes, Baker shows us the often-bloodthirsty and callous sides of Churchill and Roosevelt, but this aspect of such a giant figures needs to be aired, needs to be remembered. It is important that we are reminded that throughout history the good guys are not always good–a lesson which, to this reader, only made the bad guys seem even worse. As jaw-dropping as some of the Allies’ actions and sentiments were, the acts of the Nazi regime as recounted by Baker were so horrific, so awful, so monstrous, that Churchill at his worst never approaches the evil of Hitler.
Baker makes that very distinction clear without having to say it explicitly. Baker gives us the real human beings as they were in this chapter of the human story, and does not need to explain that, yes, of course, Hitler was far worse than any Allied leader. Perhaps some folks, still oversensitive and over-reverent of certain persons and eras, just need it spelled out more plainly, and have the same versions of history fed to them on slightly different spoons each time.
I’ve just read Nicholson Baker’s take on the first years of World War II, Human Smoke, and it is certainly unsettling. But I have come across a couple of reactions to the book of late that complain that Baker is trying to convince the reader that WWII was a bad war that should never have been fought, and that Churchill and Roosevelt were as bad as Hitler. This leads to a pretty much categorical dismissal of the entire work. Here’s a bit from the New York Times review:
Muddled and often infuriating, “Human Smoke” sounds its single, solemn note incessantly, like a mallet striking a kettle drum over and over. War is bad. Churchill was bad. Roosevelt was bad. Hitler was bad too, but maybe, in the end, no worse than Roosevelt and Churchill. Jeannette Rankin, a Republican congresswoman from Montana, was good, because she cast the lone vote opposing a declaration of war against Japan. It was Dec. 8, 1941.As “the reader” in this instance, I at no time felt “forced” to draw any such conclusion, nor any other proffered by this and other similar criticisms. If I felt that the book’s central message was so naively simplistic, I would likewise dismiss it.
[ . . . :]
Almost unbelievably, Baker includes multiple instances in which Churchill and Roosevelt rejected the idea of negotiating with Hitler. Although he offers no commentary on the matter, the reader is forced to draw the conclusion that negotiation was a sensible idea cavalierly tossed aside by leaders who preferred war to peace.
What the book does do is to remind us that the events of World War II were not black and white, that Churchill and Roosevelt were not utterly pure and heroic in their motives or executions, and that there was a legitimate anti-war sentiment that pulsated at the time–one that was as well-intended and as based in honest principle as any opponent of, say, the Iraq invasion in 2003 (putting aside whether the opponents of battling Hitler were in that sentiment correct, which I think history bares out that they were not). The principled pacifists of that era deserve to have their story told, stories seldom told–how many World War II histories can you think of that feature Gandhi as a central figure and moral voice?
The book also reminds us, very often through primary sources such as diaries and direct quotes, how removed those waging war can be from those suffering unspeakably from its horrors. The prime ministers, presidents, ambassadors and generals often seem heartless and utterly out of touch in regards to the real world consequences of the war’s mass butchery of human beings.
Yes, Baker shows us the often-bloodthirsty and callous sides of Churchill and Roosevelt, but this aspect of such a giant figures needs to be aired, needs to be remembered. It is important that we are reminded that throughout history the good guys are not always good–a lesson which, to this reader, only made the bad guys seem even worse. As jaw-dropping as some of the Allies’ actions and sentiments were, the acts of the Nazi regime as recounted by Baker were so horrific, so awful, so monstrous, that Churchill at his worst never approaches the evil of Hitler.
Baker makes that very distinction clear without having to say it explicitly. Baker gives us the real human beings as they were in this chapter of the human story, and does not need to explain that, yes, of course, Hitler was far worse than any Allied leader. Perhaps some folks, still oversensitive and over-reverent of certain persons and eras, just need it spelled out more plainly, and have the same versions of history fed to them on slightly different spoons each time.
stevereally's review against another edition
3.0
A long, implicit argument for pacifism, it seems, in short, choppy snapshots. Baker doesn't make any explicit arguments, just presents brief (one to four paragraphs) accounts of the actions, words, and experiences of various people in (mostly) the U.S., Britain, and Germany. While Nazi Germany is still shown as here a vivid and horrible evil, leaving it difficult to see a justification for (hypothetically) standing idly by, Baker does succeed in portraying Churchill and Roosevelt as themselves pretty awful, rather than as heroes at all.
shnuggs's review against another edition
4.0
This is not light reading. Nicholson Baker immersed himself in the current media leading up to World War II and presents a book that reminds us that the here and now is so different from the history that is written after the fact. Baker provides little snippets from newspaper articles, journal entries, radio programs, and other ephemera from 1939-1941, providing a different perspective on how Germany, England and the US entered into war. Certainly the main tenet of the book is there is no "good war". Everyone comes off looking like a warmonger, particularly Winston Churchill. (He essentially starved Western Europe - no humanitarian aid was allowed past his naval blockades.) Despite the mythology of the US not looking to engage in war until Pearl Harbor happened, it was clear that Roosevelt was preparing for it for many years in advance of that event. Baker shines a bright light on pacifist efforts, stuff that generally gets swept under the rug in narratives about WWII. I felt I learned a lot from this book and it definitely gives me a new perspective on current events - sigh.
bookeboy's review against another edition
5.0
WWII from alternative angle. Well worth the read. Thought provoking and interesting. (Especially in these days while waiting for Trump.)
readingpanda's review against another edition
3.0
The subtitle for this book is "The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization." I love it when "they" keep subtitles simple, without overstating their case. The first part of the subtitle meant that I wasn't surprised when the book left off at the end of 1941, after World War II had been thoroughly begun, but before things got completely underway in involving the entire world. The second part is a little more problematic, since really it seems that from some of the evidence presented, civilization had ended before the war even started.
The format of the book was to give information and excerpts from a contemporary source, and then to give the date on which those events occurred or opinions were expressed. I imagine that's repetitive on the page, but in audio format, it also reminded me a bit of the "you are there" series of historical reenactments on TV. (Aside: I don't know when or where those actually aired; we only saw them in my 7th grade history class, but boy were they corny.) The through-lines of the information presented were these: 1. Nobody, including the governments of the US and the UK, were fans of Jews, and they weren't too shy to say it, at least in some contexts. 2. Hitler seemed like a weirdo, but the rest of the world tried to pull some sort of self-esteem-building, parental thing on him and just say publicly that they were sure he'd get a handle on things and stop beating up his own citizens soon. 3. The US (FDR, really) was spoiling for a fight with Japan, and essentially baited the hook of Pearl Harbor with the US Navy.
And here's a bonus thing I learned: Bombing things was a lot harder than you might think, particularly if you were trying at all to bomb the right things. On the other hand, that ultimately meant that you could make a lot of "mistakes." This was certainly a different perspective on things; whether the picture painted from various sources was entirely accurate, I'll leave for someone else to decide. I take everything I read with a grain of salt, and this is no exception. I will say that whatever interest the material provided was in spite of the format. I can't imagine many more tedious ways to write a book than "X diarist wrote Y about Germany. It was July 3, 1937. President Roosevelt said Z to the American people. It was August 7, 1940. Person A saw planes fly overhead blah blah blah. It was still August 7, 1940." With the right narrator (Ben Stein?), this could put you to sleep in record time.
(This is really a 2 1/2 star review.)
The format of the book was to give information and excerpts from a contemporary source, and then to give the date on which those events occurred or opinions were expressed. I imagine that's repetitive on the page, but in audio format, it also reminded me a bit of the "you are there" series of historical reenactments on TV. (Aside: I don't know when or where those actually aired; we only saw them in my 7th grade history class, but boy were they corny.) The through-lines of the information presented were these: 1. Nobody, including the governments of the US and the UK, were fans of Jews, and they weren't too shy to say it, at least in some contexts. 2. Hitler seemed like a weirdo, but the rest of the world tried to pull some sort of self-esteem-building, parental thing on him and just say publicly that they were sure he'd get a handle on things and stop beating up his own citizens soon. 3. The US (FDR, really) was spoiling for a fight with Japan, and essentially baited the hook of Pearl Harbor with the US Navy.
And here's a bonus thing I learned: Bombing things was a lot harder than you might think, particularly if you were trying at all to bomb the right things. On the other hand, that ultimately meant that you could make a lot of "mistakes." This was certainly a different perspective on things; whether the picture painted from various sources was entirely accurate, I'll leave for someone else to decide. I take everything I read with a grain of salt, and this is no exception. I will say that whatever interest the material provided was in spite of the format. I can't imagine many more tedious ways to write a book than "X diarist wrote Y about Germany. It was July 3, 1937. President Roosevelt said Z to the American people. It was August 7, 1940. Person A saw planes fly overhead blah blah blah. It was still August 7, 1940." With the right narrator (Ben Stein?), this could put you to sleep in record time.
(This is really a 2 1/2 star review.)
skeptict's review against another edition
4.0
(listening to recorded audiobook)
A couple chapters into this and i'd call it a fascinating downer.
After finishing it, I'd still call it that. Interesting juxtaposition of historic quotes, painting a picture of an entire world gone mad with blood lust. Though I wasn't quite convinced of pacifism's superiority, it had me thinking, which is a good thing. Recommended, at least as an audiobook.
A couple chapters into this and i'd call it a fascinating downer.
After finishing it, I'd still call it that. Interesting juxtaposition of historic quotes, painting a picture of an entire world gone mad with blood lust. Though I wasn't quite convinced of pacifism's superiority, it had me thinking, which is a good thing. Recommended, at least as an audiobook.
sarahjsnider's review against another edition
5.0
One of the author's goals was to determine if World War II was a "good war" or not. It seems clear to me that it was not, based on his testimony, most of it taken from primary accounts. But did WWII help the people it was attempting to help? That is a bit less clear. Clearly, there is a lot more that could have been done.
For the most part, this book is useful for dispelling myths and humanizing heroes. Churchill seems erratic, Roosevelt is openly anti-Semitic and a bit cavalier. And we can let go of the notion that the Pearl Harbor attack was unprovoked, or the theory that nobody in the US knew about the atrocities against Jews, the mentally ill, etc. in Nazi Germany until later. Just as we know about the atrocities taking place in modern-day US. A child could draw comparisons between those times and our own. That was the hardest part about reading this.
For the most part, this book is useful for dispelling myths and humanizing heroes. Churchill seems erratic, Roosevelt is openly anti-Semitic and a bit cavalier. And we can let go of the notion that the Pearl Harbor attack was unprovoked, or the theory that nobody in the US knew about the atrocities against Jews, the mentally ill, etc. in Nazi Germany until later. Just as we know about the atrocities taking place in modern-day US. A child could draw comparisons between those times and our own. That was the hardest part about reading this.
ania's review against another edition
5.0
If I could propose an alternative title for this book it’d have to be DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS. Human Smoke is a masterpiece of presenting facts in a way that makes it almost inevitable for you to agree with the author (and he states his intention quite clearly in the afterword).
The whole book is a collection of factual snippets — letters, speeches, recorded conversations, missives, but mostly news — arranged in a hugely meaningful way. One might call it manipulative but honestly, if you have ever read an editorial or watched a particularly hard-hitting interview, you know when you’re being led. This book will not brainwash anyone into pacifism. Though the author pushes the antiwar/quaker movement super-hard in the Human Smoke, it's in no way a foolproof argument, and I still have questions like: what exactly would’ve been the pacifists’ solution to the Shoah and the annexation of Eastern Europe? Their actions seemed to consist of praying, signing petitions and refusing draft. Gandhi is extensively quoted, only his thoughts and speeches on non-violence are presented side by side with the Allies’ politicians delighting in air raids on civilians (which makes him sound very reasonable), when they should've been presented against descriptions of the Warsaw ghetto and the first mass murders of Jews (try being a cheerleader for Gandhi and his talk on leaning into your oppression when your oppressor is calmly project-managing your annihilation).
There’s plenty here on the horrors of war of attrition and the blood-chillingly asinine warmongering on all sides (Churchill was such a dick!) but I for one came out of this book unconvinced by the pacifist argument (then again I’m Polish, so good luck trying to convince me that a truce with Hitler would’ve been just fine because hey, cathedrals!) if not even more any-means-necessary minded than I already was.
But even though I might disagree with the central thesis of the Human Smoke, I found it incredibly moving. Would never have expected to find this method of writing about war to be more emotionally affecting than the usual human-interest-story but to me at least it was. There’s a real feeling of witnessing the buildup of events and the chaos that ensued in a very unfiltered way — it’s like watching a feed that shows you all the missed chances for peace. Heartbreaking stuff.
The whole book is a collection of factual snippets — letters, speeches, recorded conversations, missives, but mostly news — arranged in a hugely meaningful way. One might call it manipulative but honestly, if you have ever read an editorial or watched a particularly hard-hitting interview, you know when you’re being led. This book will not brainwash anyone into pacifism. Though the author pushes the antiwar/quaker movement super-hard in the Human Smoke, it's in no way a foolproof argument, and I still have questions like: what exactly would’ve been the pacifists’ solution to the Shoah and the annexation of Eastern Europe? Their actions seemed to consist of praying, signing petitions and refusing draft. Gandhi is extensively quoted, only his thoughts and speeches on non-violence are presented side by side with the Allies’ politicians delighting in air raids on civilians (which makes him sound very reasonable), when they should've been presented against descriptions of the Warsaw ghetto and the first mass murders of Jews (try being a cheerleader for Gandhi and his talk on leaning into your oppression when your oppressor is calmly project-managing your annihilation).
There’s plenty here on the horrors of war of attrition and the blood-chillingly asinine warmongering on all sides (Churchill was such a dick!) but I for one came out of this book unconvinced by the pacifist argument (then again I’m Polish, so good luck trying to convince me that a truce with Hitler would’ve been just fine because hey, cathedrals!) if not even more any-means-necessary minded than I already was.
But even though I might disagree with the central thesis of the Human Smoke, I found it incredibly moving. Would never have expected to find this method of writing about war to be more emotionally affecting than the usual human-interest-story but to me at least it was. There’s a real feeling of witnessing the buildup of events and the chaos that ensued in a very unfiltered way — it’s like watching a feed that shows you all the missed chances for peace. Heartbreaking stuff.