Scan barcode
zmull's review against another edition
5.0
An examination of the beginnings of "the good war" from the view of pacifists and victims. It forces you to reexamine long-held conventional wisdom about war and its necessity. Just great.
jeremy's review against another edition
4.0
This book describes the first years of World War II using a large set of primary sources--very short excerpts or reports organized chronologically. It's a strikingly different perspective on the war than the one I learned in high school history (battles, dates, good guys, bad guys). I was struck in particular by abandon with which all sides pursued attacks on innocent civilians. A key part of the Allied strategy was to bomb or starve so many civilians that the survivors would decide they had to rebel against Hitler and overthrow the government. Governments also made it nearly impossible to help refugees and civilians throughout Europe. A striking book.
adee's review against another edition
4.0
Nicholson Baker chronicles the rush to World War two and punctures egos and myths.
He questions the rationale for unleashing the horror of the Second World War, yet, to my mind, never quite answers the question: What do you do with dictators?
He questions the rationale for unleashing the horror of the Second World War, yet, to my mind, never quite answers the question: What do you do with dictators?
ckehoe79's review against another edition
5.0
Fantastic book
Love this book, thought provoking vignettes about the lead up to WW2. Worth reading, especially for war and history buffs.
Love this book, thought provoking vignettes about the lead up to WW2. Worth reading, especially for war and history buffs.
ksbookjunky's review against another edition
5.0
This is a captivating look at the reality behind WW2 (and all wars really). Given in short news vignettes, this is really easy to read and before you know it the whole thing is finished and you are left shaken.
I can honestly say that everything I thought I knew about WW2 is wrong. Our actions were less than honorable and millions of Jews died as a result. Shameful.
I can honestly say that everything I thought I knew about WW2 is wrong. Our actions were less than honorable and millions of Jews died as a result. Shameful.
cassieyorke's review against another edition
5.0
Immediately dark, ominous, and gripping from the very first line. Baker tells the story of World War II entirely through little anecdotes, most of which are left out of the more popular, widespread histories. Each blurb is shrouded in shadow, promising more darkness to come, hinting at something dreadful on the horizon. He details personalities and decisions that would turn out to be pivotal, and they all end like chapters in a thriller novel. I was a history major in college and I took at least eight credit hours (or more) just on World War II, and I've read more books on the subject than I can remember, and I've still never encountered a lot of the personality and little facts that Baker weaves into his chronicle, just minor details about people or events that turned out to shape things in a huge way. I guess what I'm trying to say is - Baker examines the calamity as more psychologist than historian, and the book is huge. And obviously I don't mean in physical size - I mean in scope and emotional impact.
So much of World War II is told from the perspective of strategy, of attack and defense, of espionage and covert operations, of logistics and economy. But this is the first time I've ever (personally) read the war told from a pacifist perspective. Baker examines Churchill and Roosevelt with the same critical eye he gives to Hitler and Goehring, and tells us uncomfortable things about our heroes that most of us never knew. To Baker, all belligerent powers are partly to blame - his heroes are the Quakers and other pacifists, entirely ignored by history, who came to the aid of the Jews long before war broke out in the West. He examines the correspondence from Eleanor Roosevelt, pleading for FDR to remember certain groups of people who needed help, pleas that Roosevelt would ignore. He explores Churchill's and FDR's obsession with grand navies and naval strategy. He even highlights the antisemitic ideas of the age - not an entirely German thing, but ideas shared by the leaders of most of the Western powers as well, and even a lot of average American citizens. I think most of all, he paints World War II not as something any one person "started", but as a monster inside all of us that had been growing for a long time - one that eventually devoured our humanity.
When someone tells me they wished they knew more about World War II, they almost always say "not about the armies and bombs and stuff - more like how it impacted us as human beings". And I always tell them to read this book. Because that human perspective is critical, and Human Smoke is a critically important book for that perspective.
So much of World War II is told from the perspective of strategy, of attack and defense, of espionage and covert operations, of logistics and economy. But this is the first time I've ever (personally) read the war told from a pacifist perspective. Baker examines Churchill and Roosevelt with the same critical eye he gives to Hitler and Goehring, and tells us uncomfortable things about our heroes that most of us never knew. To Baker, all belligerent powers are partly to blame - his heroes are the Quakers and other pacifists, entirely ignored by history, who came to the aid of the Jews long before war broke out in the West. He examines the correspondence from Eleanor Roosevelt, pleading for FDR to remember certain groups of people who needed help, pleas that Roosevelt would ignore. He explores Churchill's and FDR's obsession with grand navies and naval strategy. He even highlights the antisemitic ideas of the age - not an entirely German thing, but ideas shared by the leaders of most of the Western powers as well, and even a lot of average American citizens. I think most of all, he paints World War II not as something any one person "started", but as a monster inside all of us that had been growing for a long time - one that eventually devoured our humanity.
When someone tells me they wished they knew more about World War II, they almost always say "not about the armies and bombs and stuff - more like how it impacted us as human beings". And I always tell them to read this book. Because that human perspective is critical, and Human Smoke is a critically important book for that perspective.
zzazazz's review against another edition
5.0
An earth shattering book. Baker takes everything you know about the run up to World War II and stands it all on its head. I haven't had a book haunt me like this in a long time. Everything I know is wrong.
Roosevelt knew about the Japanese navy moving toward Pearl Harbor.
Winston Churchill did all he could to antagonize Germany into a war of attrition through the air.
Britain bombed German cities before the London Blitz started.
Jews suffered more due to the English blockade of Germany than anyone else.
Roosevelt purposefully antagonized the Japanese, hoping for a blow so the U.S. would willingly go to war.
In 1940 and 1941 peace was possible and tens of millions of Europeans, Jews and gentiles alike, could have been saved.
An unwillingness to kill does not constitute your support for your nation's chosen enemies.
Britain put Germans, mostly Jewish refugees, into internment camps.
Hitler was a monster but Roosevelt and Churchill chose war over diplomacy and Churchill was having a grand ole time playing at war.
It sounds cliched to say that a book will change how you look at things. Shouldn't any great book? Could it be that the true heroes of World War II are those that worked to prevent it?
Roosevelt knew about the Japanese navy moving toward Pearl Harbor.
Winston Churchill did all he could to antagonize Germany into a war of attrition through the air.
Britain bombed German cities before the London Blitz started.
Jews suffered more due to the English blockade of Germany than anyone else.
Roosevelt purposefully antagonized the Japanese, hoping for a blow so the U.S. would willingly go to war.
In 1940 and 1941 peace was possible and tens of millions of Europeans, Jews and gentiles alike, could have been saved.
An unwillingness to kill does not constitute your support for your nation's chosen enemies.
Britain put Germans, mostly Jewish refugees, into internment camps.
Hitler was a monster but Roosevelt and Churchill chose war over diplomacy and Churchill was having a grand ole time playing at war.
It sounds cliched to say that a book will change how you look at things. Shouldn't any great book? Could it be that the true heroes of World War II are those that worked to prevent it?
gregbrown's review against another edition
5.0
GoodReads keeps eating my review (including one several paragraphs long). The book is very good. GoodReads is being an asshole.
lucasmiller's review against another edition
4.0
I've purchased maybe five Nicholson Baker books, but this is the first I've read. I started the Mezzanine one day and enjoyed it, but never picked it back up. Where did I first hear about this book? A book that questions the rightness and goodness of American entry in World War II. I don't recall, but it's been on my to read list a long time.
The form is what is most involving. Unnumbered entries that range from a few lines to a page, never more than three or to the page. Each relating a specific event tied to a date. As early as 1892, chronicling episodes from the First World War, the 1920s and 1930s and the beginnings of World War II. The book stops, quite abruptly at December 31, 1941. The Argument is subtle, nothing overt or polemic really hit me. But the stories that Baker tells betray a view of the Second World War that I was aware of, but is very rarely articulated.
In many ways this is a history of Pacifism in the 20th century. Both in England and America. As a whole, the book avoids being too preachy or melodramatically tragic. Many people would be insulted by the characterization of FDR and Winston Churchill, but their personas and conniving politicians shouldn't be shocking. It accounts for only a part of their collective legacies.
This book was received with mixed, mostly negative criticism. I have opted not to read any of it. While I thought I would want to when I finally finished the books, that hasn't been the case. Many a reviewer and historian has called this book ahistorical, but it feels vital in a way. Baker presents the other half of an argument that the vast majority of people don't think is an argument. Recommended.
The form is what is most involving. Unnumbered entries that range from a few lines to a page, never more than three or to the page. Each relating a specific event tied to a date. As early as 1892, chronicling episodes from the First World War, the 1920s and 1930s and the beginnings of World War II. The book stops, quite abruptly at December 31, 1941. The Argument is subtle, nothing overt or polemic really hit me. But the stories that Baker tells betray a view of the Second World War that I was aware of, but is very rarely articulated.
In many ways this is a history of Pacifism in the 20th century. Both in England and America. As a whole, the book avoids being too preachy or melodramatically tragic. Many people would be insulted by the characterization of FDR and Winston Churchill, but their personas and conniving politicians shouldn't be shocking. It accounts for only a part of their collective legacies.
This book was received with mixed, mostly negative criticism. I have opted not to read any of it. While I thought I would want to when I finally finished the books, that hasn't been the case. Many a reviewer and historian has called this book ahistorical, but it feels vital in a way. Baker presents the other half of an argument that the vast majority of people don't think is an argument. Recommended.