Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization was published by Simon & Schuster in 2008. The book covers the years 1892–1941 through a sequence of short, dated entries — each a paragraph or two — drawn from newspapers, diaries, memoirs, and government documents of the period. There is no authorial commentary: Baker lets the primary sources speak.
The argument that emerges from this arrangement is deeply controversial: that Churchill and Roosevelt were not reluctant warriors drawn into a necessary conflict but enthusiastic belligerents who sought war; that pacifists (Gandhi, the Quakers, various peace activists) offered alternatives that were dismissed; that the Allied bombing campaign constituted a war crime; and that the Holocaust might have been mitigated by earlier action or different diplomatic choices.
Professional historians were largely hostile — the book was accused of cherry-picking evidence, ignoring counterfactuals, and applying hindsight judgments to decisions made under impossible conditions. But literary critics admired the form: the montage technique, the accumulation of voices, the refusal to narrate. Baker’s innovation was structural: by stripping away interpretation, he forced readers to confront raw evidence and draw their own conclusions — conclusions that often contradicted the “Good War” narrative.
Collecting Human Smoke
First edition (Simon & Schuster, New York, 2008): Hardcover with dust jacket.
Market values:
- First edition, fine/fine: $15–$35
- Very good/very good: $8–$20
Projected values (2026–2036): Modest appreciation.
The Pacifist’s WWII
Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization (2008) is Baker’s most controversial book — a montage of short entries (drawn from newspapers, diaries, and memoirs) that challenges the standard narrative of World War II as a “good war.” Baker argues that Allied leaders (particularly Churchill and Roosevelt) bear more responsibility for the war’s destruction than conventional history acknowledges, and that the pacifists who opposed the war deserved a fairer hearing. The book was passionately attacked and defended. It is an extraordinary formal experiment — a history told entirely through primary sources, without authorial commentary.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is this revisionist history? Baker would say he is restoring voices that were silenced by the triumphalist narrative. Critics argue that his method — juxtaposing carefully chosen fragments without context — creates a misleading picture. The debate it provoked was exactly what Baker intended.