Nicholson Baker’s new book Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization, is one of the most unique nonfiction books you’ll ever read. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo142.html)Based on voluminous research of newspaper and magazine articles, radio speeches, memoirs, diaries, and biographies, Baker’s 566-page book gives the reader an extraordinary look into the mindsets of all the major actors in the lead-up to the war.
...
In 1918 Eleanor Roosevelt complained about being invited to a party by financier Bernard Baruch, saying "I’d rather be hung than be seen at" the party because the attendees were "mostly Jews." Her husband Franklin, noticing in 1922 that one-third of the freshman class at Harvard was Jewish, "went to the Harvard Board of Overseers, of which he was a member," leading to a change in admissions policy such that "over a period of years the number of Jews should be reduced one or two percent a year until it was down to 15%."

Churchill published a newspaper article on February 8, 1920, in which he apparently took a break from his unbridled hatred of everything German to declare that his "real enemy" was "the sinister confederacy of international Jewry," which he blamed for communism.

He then turned his talents to India, Iraq, and other recalcitrant parts of the British empire. Being given responsibilities for developing British air power, he advised a subordinate that "I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes." Subsequently, the British air force "bombed and strafed rebellious tribes" in Iraq, "fired on them with gas-filled shells, burned villages . . ." Churchill congratulated the British commander "upon the distinct improvement in the situation" in Iraq. If there was a British Fox News Channel at the time, it would have spent months celebrating the success of Churchill’s "surge" policy.

It seems like it could be quite interesting...

Iraq wasn't called Iraq back then. Besides now of that text has anything to do with the start of WWII just hatred towards the jews(assuming the information is correct).

I don't get the Fox News insult.

In the age of DaVinci we have to be careful not to fall for sensationalistic re-writes of history. It would be interesting to see how thoroughly the author has sourced the quotes and assertions.

Iraq wasn't called Iraq back then.Evidently it was (http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:GmpEicGKOUAJ:www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml%3Fxml%3D/news/2003/03/18/widip218.xml+churchill+mesopotamia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca):'I hate Iraq. I wish we had never gone to the place," said Winston Churchill in 1926 when, as Chancellor, he was asked to sink yet more millions into Britain's "Mesopotamian entanglement".
...
The Mesopotamian provinces were merged into a single state, known as Iraq from 1920 onwards.

Besides now of that text has anything to do with the start of WWII just hatred towards the jews(assuming the information is correct).That would be because the text above is only a small excerpt from a review of a 566-page book.

I don't get the Fox News insult.Now I know you're being facetious... ;)

Perhaps I got it mixed up with Iran. I thought "Iraq" was part of the Ottoman Empire of Persia or something.

Anyway, doesn't matter I guess.

I hope it's a small part of the book. I would hate to see somebody like Eleanor Roosevelt blamed for WWII.

I dont at all think hes trying to "blame" Eleanor Roosevelt for WW2. I think the author is trying to point out that it wasnt JUST the Nazis that were anti-semetic. A lot of people these days assume the Nazi's were the only ones.

And yes, Iran was formerly known as Persia. Hence why its often pointed out that Iranians arent of arab descent, but of persian.

I think the author is trying to point out that it wasnt JUST the Nazis that were anti-semetic.We even had Canadian leaders that were and totally refused to see any Jews moving to Canada.

I think you can take most if not all revisionist history with a grain of salt. How come these observations weren't made decades ago? Did the author have access to documents all the other historians didn't have? Pretty soon, other scholars will weigh in and debunk these conclusions. At least I hope so.

I think you can take most if not all revisionist history with a grain of salt. How come these observations weren't made decades ago? Did the author have access to documents all the other historians didn't have? Pretty soon, other scholars will weigh in and debunk these conclusions. At least I hope so.

For the same reason we dont 100% take the word of ancient historians. Their claims need to be checked agaisnt other documents, and what is actially phsyically possible (how many soldiers in a battle for example is often wildly exagerated in ancient texts)

Propaganda at the time is another, extremely strong, influence. This can only be eliminated years later, but of course could very well influence later revisions as well. It goes both ways.

Documents become unclassified years later. Maybe some of the information really wasnt available to comtemporary historians? Maybe they chose to ignore some information, for moral/propaganda reasons?

I also take revisionist history with a grain of salt. However you seem to go beyond into the realm of being cynical. Should we burn the author at the stake for heresy?

Documents become unclassified years later. Maybe some of the information really wasnt available to comtemporary historians? Maybe they chose to ignore some information, for moral/propaganda reasons?

I also take revisionist history with a grain of salt. However you seem to go beyond into the realm of being cynical. Should we burn the author at the stake for heresy?
I too agree with taking with a grain of salt... Reporters of history should be qualified but also recognised as accurate historians and we should beware of sensational writings or any form of documenting. Now on the other hand, many facts are hidden to the average Joe by governments and other leaders and will normally be disclosed years later (typically somewhere around 20 years later??). If some of you are commonly watching History channels, you probably noticed the different reportings on events that happened years before... As mentioned above, ignoring information and/or facts for propaganda reasons, society acceptance etc... very typical of wars (good example are the Americans and their "Bush-eries" against humanity!).

In the past few decades the well of primary sources for WWII research was running dry and historians looked forward to the dates when classified material was scheduled to open up. Then, with the fall of the Warsaw Pact and subsequent opening of former Soviet-bloc countries' archives to western scholars there was a huge bonanza of primary sources for historians and researches to delve into, and now our knowledge of the events, causes, and effects of World War II is broader than ever.

Rather than challenge any of the fundamentals of common historical knowledge, that Soviet-era material has actually served to bolster what is already known and published in the west about WWII. New revelations in those archives have tended to be about internal matters in the forum Soviet bloc countries, such as their state secrets of the era.

Then we have the book described in this thread. It doesn't hold much interest for me as it seems to be a work of speculation and agenda-fulfillment rather than additive to the world's acknowledged body of historical data and interpretation of that period in time. I'll have to wait and see some independent reviews of Baker's book, but I'm pretty sure it would be thrown out had Baker submitted it as a Masters or Ph.D thesis.

One thing about WW2 that is typically mistaken is that it was fought to save the Jews.

In reality, it was more about allegiances and the fact that the sovereignty of nations was in jeopardy. The Germans had shown several times in the preceding 100 years that they were willing to go to war and it was not expected to be any different under Hitler. There was an underlying desire to make the League of Nations work so the diplomacy was allowed its chance. Remember that before we started calling WW1 WW1, it was called "The Great War" and was nicknamed "The war to end all wars".

After the diplomacy was known to be a waste of time, most nations started posturing in as best a way as they though profitable, hence the famous Chamberlain debacle that served as no hindrance to the Germans.

After things got REALLY started in Sept 1939, it was a foregone conclusion that if Germany was not stopped in the lowlands and France that the world was in peril of being overrun. Even though the events at Pearl Harbor are seen as the cause of the Americans joining in the war, the reality was that their interests were well at risk and not just from Japan. Nazi Germany sought to have the most powerful and long lasting empire in history. This does not happen without displacing giants like England and the USA.

During the march to war, it was well rumored and communicated as to what was going on in Nazi Germany regarding the Jews. It was considered an internal affair and was ignored. Jews fled to other areas in Europe or to England and the USA. When war broke out, Jews and all other undesirables were rounded up and put in camps. The truly reviled (The Russians) were, for the most part, just slaughtered en mass and were not even put through concentration camps.

These kinds of atrocities just do not go on without being discovered or being reported. Combined with the same or worse treatment at the hands of Imperial Japan, any of the "allies" were understandably and gravely concerned. Everyone had a brother, sister, cousin, father, mother, son or daughter to either fight for or to avenge.

The ultimate altruistic motivation that caused men by the 100s of thousands to join without the need of a draft was family and nation. As the allies made it into Europe, it became more clear how truly sinister the Nazis were. At this point, the secondary (And eventual) altruistic motivation kicked in and that is the one that we are left with today.

In a strange if not distant comparative, it is similar to what the Bush administration has attempted to spin with Iraq and also what the Johnson administration tried to do with Vietnam. We went here for this but now that this is not a tenable reason, here look, these reasons are better and we would prefer that you remember only these.

As to the question of antisemitism, it is a well documented fact that the Jewish population of the world and in particular Europe, has been hated and persecuted for very nearly their entire 2000 years since being pushed out of Israel by the Romans. There is no particular conspiracy in the way that this book may seek to paint. It really only shines light on what many who study world history, either professionally or as an amateur, already know.

Nothing I've ever read or inferred has implied that WWII was fought "to save the Jews".
Rather, I thought it was pretty well understood that, as you say, it was to stop the imperialistic and militaristic march of the Axis powers (lead by Italy, Germany, and Japan) to basically take over the world (or as much of it as was worthwhile to them).

The Jews and their plight, really only came to light, as the Allies started to liberate Europe - although for sure, there was some certainly rumours of what was afoot. But, as the case that N. Baker makes, I think, the world was willing to cast a blind eye or disbelieve those rumours, until such point as it meant "our" (American, most notably) homeland was threatened in a real way (cf. Pearl Harbor).

It really only shines light on what many who study world history, either professionally or as an amateur, already know.

or those that read Shakespeare!

True enough hugh!!!

The baird had great insight into the human condition and politics.

The Jew situation was not merely rumors as the world knew but wouldn't get involved unless they were threathened or had some to gain from the WAR which hasn't change a bit in this 21st century. The Jews were even forbitten to enter Canada for the longest. The Americans never did and don't do the Jews any favor today, the simple fact is they have to gain from it. WWII had nothing to do with any glory of allies fighting to save the Jews or the world, the only reason was to save their own scrary but. I feel and respect the men that fought the war but not any authority that ignored the massacre until their own were finally threathened! The allied reacted not in good deed but ratter they were simply cornered and didn't have the choice to save their own but from the same threathment they previously closing eyes on. We still do the same today when in silence we look at the Americans TAXING and BULLYING other Nations until maybe someday we ourself (the world) feel threathened! This has been the sad story of men from the beginning and keeps going on... vicious circle.

Yet I would be curious to read the entire book as what is described on the above link does have some very valid points but should the book be taken entirely as the absolute thruth is yet to be determine. Would it make sense today to reopen debate on such, would it really matter, would the thruth really come out? That is not typical of mankind! If at least we could learn from such, it would then be a different story but to do that, we need cold hard fact not a fiction story.