4 ms·

I highly recommend Human Smoke by Nicholas Baker (2008) for a book that puts WWII in a historical perspective different from the one we inherited.

pyinstallwoes 3y ago
Like what?
- refurb 3y ago
  "It questions the commonly held belief that the Allies wanted to avoid the war at all costs but were forced into action by Adolf Hitler's aggression. It consists largely of official government transcripts, newspaper articles, and other documents from the time, with Baker only occasionally interjecting commentary. Baker cites documents that suggest that the leaders of the United States and the United Kingdom were provoking Germany and Japan into war and had ulterior motives for participating." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Smoke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Smoke The reviews are less than stellar: "Historian Noel Malcolm described it as a "strangely childish book"[3] and journalist William Grimes in The New York Times as a "self-important, hand-wringing, moral mess of a book."[4] Christopher Hitchens accused Baker of ahistoricism and wrote that numerous passages in the book served as a reminder of how "fatuous the pacifist position can sound, or indeed can be."
  - doctor_eval 3y ago
    I honestly thought it was well known that the US in particular wanted a war with Japan but domestic politics prevented outright aggression. Instead, IIRC, the US blockaded oil deliveries to Japan to the extent that the Japanese economy was within a month or so of collapsing. The Japanese - who had been invading other asian countries - were left with little choice but to attack the US to stop the blockades. My understanding is that the US goal was to avoid Japanese hegemony in Asia. Certainly, the idea that the Japanese attack was a “surprise” was a convenient myth. The form of the attack, maybe, but not the expectation. I don’t have references handy. This is just from memory.
    - skhr0680 3y ago
      The Washington Naval Treaty was a middle finger to Japan and a massive blow to the credibility of the democratic pro-Western government.
    - refurb 3y ago
      The US didn't want a war with Japan, but also didn't want Japan to control the entire Pacific. The US blockaded oil deliveries to Japan in response to their invasion of Manchuria, and was willing to remove the blockade if Japan withdrew. I'm not sure you could say the US "wanted" war any more than you could say Ukraine "wanted" war with Russia.
      - doctor_eval 3y ago
        My understanding was that there was a strong appetite to attack Japan in the US government, but that there was no domestic support, so US goals had to be achieved using other means. I might be wrong about this, but that's what I recall. As far as I can see, there is very little to compare that situation and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
        refurb 3y ago
        From what I gather, Japan's attack did come as a surprise. The two parties were at odds, but not to the point that a war was an immediate concern. No doubt some in the government wanted to attack, no different than you could find who want to attack Iran in today's government, but it's not the US government's position. FDR was definitely more interested in getting involved internationally, but the Republicans were staunchly isolationist. The comparison to Russia and Ukraine is there. Russia preemptively attacked Ukraine because it wanted to prevent NATO from getting a foothold in it's sphere of influence. Japan considering the Pacific Ocean and namely the resources in South East Asian there's, so preemptively attacked the US to prevent it from opposing it's control over the Pacific.
        rajin444 3y ago
        > the Republicans were staunchly isolationist They were except for their nominee running against FDR in 1940. His interventionist stance (and otherwise complete lack of political experience) made FDRs victory all but assured. I’m not sure how you have a base so aligned on a topic that gives them an excellent chance on defeating the incumbent nominate a political nobody who holds a dissenting opinion. The same nobody who went on to serve in FDRs administration.
  - ekianjo 3y ago
    Reviews less than stellar means that the brainwashing has been working as expected
  - IceHegel 3y ago
    If you're just pasting in the wikipedia article, why didn't you include the next paragraph? Other reviewers praised the book's use of documentary research as well as its intricate construction. Irish novelist Colm Toibin wrote in his New York Times review that "the issues Baker wishes to raise, and the stark system he has used to dramatize his point, make his book a serious and conscientious contribution to the debate about pacifism."[1] Anyway, I've actually read it and found the perspective enlightening even as someone obsessed with WWII since I was 12.

pyinstallwoes 3y ago

Like what?

refurb 3y ago
"It questions the commonly held belief that the Allies wanted to avoid the war at all costs but were forced into action by Adolf Hitler's aggression. It consists largely of official government transcripts, newspaper articles, and other documents from the time, with Baker only occasionally interjecting commentary. Baker cites documents that suggest that the leaders of the United States and the United Kingdom were provoking Germany and Japan into war and had ulterior motives for participating." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Smoke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Smoke The reviews are less than stellar: "Historian Noel Malcolm described it as a "strangely childish book"[3] and journalist William Grimes in The New York Times as a "self-important, hand-wringing, moral mess of a book."[4] Christopher Hitchens accused Baker of ahistoricism and wrote that numerous passages in the book served as a reminder of how "fatuous the pacifist position can sound, or indeed can be."
- doctor_eval 3y ago
  I honestly thought it was well known that the US in particular wanted a war with Japan but domestic politics prevented outright aggression. Instead, IIRC, the US blockaded oil deliveries to Japan to the extent that the Japanese economy was within a month or so of collapsing. The Japanese - who had been invading other asian countries - were left with little choice but to attack the US to stop the blockades. My understanding is that the US goal was to avoid Japanese hegemony in Asia. Certainly, the idea that the Japanese attack was a “surprise” was a convenient myth. The form of the attack, maybe, but not the expectation. I don’t have references handy. This is just from memory.
  - skhr0680 3y ago
    The Washington Naval Treaty was a middle finger to Japan and a massive blow to the credibility of the democratic pro-Western government.
  - refurb 3y ago
    The US didn't want a war with Japan, but also didn't want Japan to control the entire Pacific. The US blockaded oil deliveries to Japan in response to their invasion of Manchuria, and was willing to remove the blockade if Japan withdrew. I'm not sure you could say the US "wanted" war any more than you could say Ukraine "wanted" war with Russia.
    - doctor_eval 3y ago
      My understanding was that there was a strong appetite to attack Japan in the US government, but that there was no domestic support, so US goals had to be achieved using other means. I might be wrong about this, but that's what I recall. As far as I can see, there is very little to compare that situation and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
      - refurb 3y ago
        From what I gather, Japan's attack did come as a surprise. The two parties were at odds, but not to the point that a war was an immediate concern. No doubt some in the government wanted to attack, no different than you could find who want to attack Iran in today's government, but it's not the US government's position. FDR was definitely more interested in getting involved internationally, but the Republicans were staunchly isolationist. The comparison to Russia and Ukraine is there. Russia preemptively attacked Ukraine because it wanted to prevent NATO from getting a foothold in it's sphere of influence. Japan considering the Pacific Ocean and namely the resources in South East Asian there's, so preemptively attacked the US to prevent it from opposing it's control over the Pacific.
        rajin444 3y ago
        > the Republicans were staunchly isolationist They were except for their nominee running against FDR in 1940. His interventionist stance (and otherwise complete lack of political experience) made FDRs victory all but assured. I’m not sure how you have a base so aligned on a topic that gives them an excellent chance on defeating the incumbent nominate a political nobody who holds a dissenting opinion. The same nobody who went on to serve in FDRs administration.
- ekianjo 3y ago
  Reviews less than stellar means that the brainwashing has been working as expected
- IceHegel 3y ago
  If you're just pasting in the wikipedia article, why didn't you include the next paragraph? Other reviewers praised the book's use of documentary research as well as its intricate construction. Irish novelist Colm Toibin wrote in his New York Times review that "the issues Baker wishes to raise, and the stark system he has used to dramatize his point, make his book a serious and conscientious contribution to the debate about pacifism."[1] Anyway, I've actually read it and found the perspective enlightening even as someone obsessed with WWII since I was 12.