Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization [Hardcover]

Baker is an American novelist who previously specialised in deliciously filthy books like "Vox" and "The Fermata", but here turns his hand to non-fiction, with a history of the 1930s and early 40s, showing the apparently inexorable drift towards totalitarianism and world war. It's a very easy read, eschewing the usual narrative in favour of two or three "soundbites" per page, each with a sort of "countdown clock" - "It was January 30th, 1933", "It was September 1st, 1939", and so on (to be honest, this device begins to get irritating after a while; a simple dateline would have sufficed).

He does make a number of irritating errors of detail (you can tell he's not a professional historian), and the events chosen are - by their very nature - selective. This tends to give a somewhat distorted view of events, and if you're not already familiar with the period you might find yourself thinking "Hang on - how did THAT suddenly happen?"

Perhaps we are supposed to be shocked to learn that Winston Churchill was a belligerent pragmatist, or that Roosevelt deliberately provoked the Japanese in order to assure America's entry into the war. To anyone who has studied this period at all this is hardly news.

As to Mr Baker's avowal that the American pacificts and anti-interventionists "were right", you must make up your own mind.

Despite these reservations, the book still has a "page turner" effect, with much food for thought for the international realpolitik of the present day.

Worth reading, but not the full picture, not by a long way.

I found this book fascinating and was disappointed at the shrill criticisms it received. This review will concentrate on why the book has been so poorly received and why I found the criticisms unjustified. If you want an introduction to what the book is about, it would be better to start with the other reviews.

It is easy to underestimate how much postwar circumstances influence the verdict on a war. In different circumstances America's leaders could have been prosecuted as war criminals for their actions in Vietnam, just like Milosevic and Karadic. That may sound unbelievable but it is a quote from Robert Macnamara (Secretary of State at the time) talking about himself.

We won WWII, we wrote the history books, and we all like to believe it was a conflict of moral simplicity. We need books like this that challenge our complacency. I believe it is because our views are so deeply ingrained that some people are attacking this book.

I agree with one of the criticisms. If you want Nicholson to argue his case in the usual way, you will be disappointed. He doesn't argue at all. Most of the book comprises quotations and reports of quotations. He only writes in his own voice for a few sentences at the very end. As has been pointed out, this isn't historical analysis and can never prove anything. But it does have an advantage. He lets the evidence speak for itself. This means anyone open-minded can find the book interesting regardless of their viewpoint.

A good example is the quotes of Gandhi's comments. Some people will read these as virtuous and uplifting. Others will see them as proof that Gandhi was a fool and the pacifits were mad. Nicholson makes no comment, he merely gives us the quotes.

If you aren't satisfied with this, and prefer a book that debates the subject using historical analysis, Buchanan's "Churchill, Hitler and the unnecessary war" is a good choice.

I wish the book's detractors had said, "That's interesting, there is a lot I didn't know in this book, it highlighted some things that aren't usually admitted, and showed that the picture is murkier than most of us appreciate. But I disagree with his conclusion. I still think Churchill was mostly justified and I won't change my view." Sadly, that's not what the reviewers have said.

One reviewer accuses Nicholson of selective commentary. But the total amount of commentary in the entire book is very close to zero. The criticisms of Churchill are quotes from people who knew him. Nicolson is perfectly entitled to gather such quotations. There are already plenty of books praising Churchill. We rarely hear the negative comments and we should hear them. It is healthy to see the darker side of the man we recently voted the greatest Briton of all time. In any case the book does contain a lot of praise for Churchill.

One reviewer, while plugging his own book on the war, gives this attack: "from the heights of superior morality" Nicholson argues for moral equivalence between the allies and the nazis. The implication is clear: I know better; I know that we were angels and the enemy were devils.

Excuse me, who is being morally superior, Nicholson or the reviewer?

In any case the criticism is based on a misreading. The book suggests that the picture is murkier than people often think. Nowhere does it assert moral equivalence.

Human Smoke attracted a great deal of interest when it was published earlier this year, with controversy in abundance. In essence, the book is seen by many as pacifist, and appears to present both sides in the Second World War as having a moral equivalence, holding equal disdain for the human cost of the terrible conflict they provoked.

The book consists of a compilation of hundreds of first-hand quotations, extracts from papers and articles, accounts of conversations, diary extracts and numerous other detailed sources. These all appear in sequential order and provide a day by day account of the development of the war from the perspective of various world nations. These appear at first to be largely unedited, in "raw" form, but of course, the selection was made by Nicholson Baker, and we read nothing in the book about his selection criteria.

However, it soon becomes apparent that one of his objectives is to show the huge resistance to joining in the conflict, particularly in America, and how this resistance was eventually suppressed. Baker shows that there was a huge concern for European Jewry and the starving people of Europe, with Americans digging deep into their pockets to support relief operations. However, there was strong governmental and labour movement resistance to changing immigration quotas to allow more Jews to escape to America from German persecution. Baker quotes the example of one family who eventually managed to enter America after travelling from Berlin via Moscow, Japan, Costa Rica, Panama and Chile. They were the lucky ones, others of their ilk being deported from Germany to entirely infeasible destinations where they were to perish as stateless persons.

America had a strong anti-war and anti-draft movement which was eventually suppressed by legal measures, with many supporters serving prison terms because of their opposition to American involvement in the war. Pacifist bravery was considerable, and anyone reading the book cannot but be impressed by Quaker peace and relief efforts which went right to the heart of governments on both sides of the Atlantic. However, the national governments of the Allies were equally determined to avoid war and Baker shows strenuous British efforts to avoid war finally collapsing and Winston Churchill being appointed as Prime Minister to lead the country through the terrible times ahead of them.

The British generally believe that America was slow to enter the war, but Baker shows the arguments on both sides and the eventual development of the conviction that American interests were so threatened by non-involvement that action had to be taken. I had not realised the extent to which America had allied with China against Japan before the war, and Baker shows how Japan felt greatly threatened by American military supplied to China in order to equip them against the Japanese. This provides useful context in understanding the eventual bombing of Pearl Harbour.

Baker pays much attention to the bombing campaigns of both Germany and Britain. At the start of the war an opinion poll in Britain showed almost even numbers for and against bombing civilian populations in Germany. Churchill and his government clearly saw bombing as an attempt to bring about the collapse of the Nazi regime as the population rose up against the horrors brought upon them by German expansion. However, early bombing raids were not as effective as they had hoped, and when their effects were also minimised by German propaganda reports, the uprising did not occur.

The Germans retaliated with severe bombing raids on London and Coventry, and within no time, both sides were locked into an escalation of the bombing campaign which wreaked terrible death and destruction on all sides. However, these were the weapons of the time, and opting out on the part of one side, would surely have only led to the other side destroying their opposition without challenge. I personally find it easy to go along with Winston Churchill who on observing the blitz of London, declared, "they have sown the wind, they shall reap the whirl-wind".

So many questions are left hanging. In taking a neutral position between the two sides, has Baker really taken account of the awesomely horrific findings in the concentration camps, the mega-numbers of Jews, Slavs and minorities slaughtered by the Nazi regime? In the light of what we now know, would the annihilation of the Jewish race from all Nazi-won territories including Great Britain have been an acceptable trade for peace in the USA?

On the plus side, this book is a fascinating read, providing much insight into the thinking of the times. In quoting Churchill so extensively, I get the impression that Baker seeks to show his flaws and to suggest personality shortcomings in his aggressive determination to annihilate Germany. Many readers will however see it as little short of miraculous in these days of political expediency that one man was able to steel the nation at a time when Britain stood alone before Hitler and defeat seemed such a strong probability.

Nicholson Baker presents this huge amount of material with little editorial comment of his own, other than a final afterword or a mere two pages, in which he declares that the American pacifists were right to resist American involvement in the war. But his arguments are not developed beyond this simple statement and his readers are left floundering as to the reasons for his stance. I get the impression that Nicholson Baker feels that his hundreds of quotations are polemic enough to justify taking a pacifist position on the war, but this reader at least, on reading these countless personal accounts, gave thanks for the steely determination of the Allies to prevail over their enemies.