5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent, Jan 29 2012
This review is from: Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization (Paperback)
An excellent read, esp to give some persepctive to various issues surrounding the war. I've read a ton of WWII books, and this one is definitely unique, and worthwhile looking at.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
Riveting, Moving, Thought Provoking, Sep 9 2010
In Human Smoke Nicholson Baker takes a fresh look at the vast set of interconnected events that was World War II. He does so by making a kind of collage of contemporary articles, diary excerpts and other quotations, some of which are startling or even shocking today.
These artfully arranged fragments reveal the thoughts of persons both famous and obscure. They are shards of an enormous image that no one at the time could see, and that no one can ever entirely take in. Some shed an unappealing light on leaders of the Allied nations.
Of course, the chosen vignettes do not tell the whole story, nor are they supposed to. They are like flashes in the dark, illuminating the moral complexity and numbing confusion in which participants groped their way forward.
Certain critics have complained that Baker is a '"revisionist"' or that in his selections he tries to '"equate"' leaders like Hitler and Goebbels with Churchill and Roosevelt. That is an obtuse complaint: the author enriches our understanding of these human beings by showing various aspects of their characters. He does not want to revise the simple story (suitable for four year olds, perhaps) of "'Hitler bad, Churchill and Roosevelt good"' by replacing it with the equally childish '"Hitler, Churchill and Roosevelt all bad'". Nowhere does he suggest that there is nothing to choose between Nazi crimes and the actions of the Allies. Nor is he an uncritical admirer of Gandhi, as is sometimes suggested, though he admires many of Gandhi''s actions.
Baker may be wrong about some things. But even if you disagree with his philosophy of nonviolent resistance you should come away with a vivid sense of the War''s black force, how it became a massive vortex sucking in everyone around it as it created its own logic of hatred and death, including the holocaust.
In an interview, Baker says:
'"Politicians constantly fondle a small, clean, paperweight version of this war, as if it provides them with moral clarity.'...
If we don't try to understand this one war better--understand it not in the sense of coming up with elaborate mechanistic theories of causation, but understand it in the humbler sense of feeling our way through its enormity--then cartoon versions of what happened will continue to distort debates about the merits of all future wars.'"
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
1 of 3 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars
The worst case for pacifism, May 5 2010
This review is from: Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization (Paperback)
You can't tell a book by its cover. That is certainly true in this case where the cover of 'Human Smoke' is filled with the most extravagant praise. 'The most compelling argument for peace ever assembled', says popular historian Simon Winchester. 'Absolutely fascinating, engrossing', says Daniel Ellsberg, anti-Vietnam war activist. 'Meticulously researched and well-constructed', says someone named Mark Kurlansky.
If I were to do a cover blurb for 'Human Smoke' it would read: 'Infuriating ... shallow ... juvenile.' This book makes the worst possible case for pacifism and sets the anti-war cause back by its very appearance.
Nicholson Barker has assembled out of newspaper clippings and other long-published sources (so much for 'meticulously researched') an indictment of both Allied and Nazi actions early in World War II. Since the Nazis are no long around to hear his accusations, his real target is clearly those in the West who supported war against Hitler's crowd and the Japanese empire. This amounts to an argument of moral equivalency, unsurprising coming from a pacifist for whom all war is abhorrent. Hitler was bad, Churchill was bad, Hirohito was bad, Roosevelt was bad, Gandhi was good.
The irony, of course, is that had Mr Barker's and Gandhi's advice been heeded in 1939-41, evil would have triumphed and advocates of pacifism would have been among the first to the crematoria or slave-labour camps. The luxury of attacking defenders of democracy can only occur when other, and better, men have died to protect that freedom of speech.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No