 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Crossroads to Somewhere | |
 |
I often lament liberties taken by revisionist historians. The knee-jerk reaction of old-timers is always: “I was there, you weren’t,” followed by the lame challenge of “How can you know what it was if you weren’t born yet?” Meticulous research is the answer. I was reminded of this argument while reading reviews of Nicholson Baker’s controversial book, “Human Smoke” (Simon & Shuster; 566 pages). The novelist turned historian gives readers a unique perspective of the beginnings of World War II, relying solely on newspaper articles, speeches, quotes and observations [of others] in chronological order, without interjecting himself and his views. He doesn’t have to; his series of irrefutable facts speak for themselves. |
| W T Wimpy Hiroto | |
Other than a diatribe in the New York Times, it is apparent from reading comments of other book critics that “Smoke” hits home where it hurts. It pictures both Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt as anti-semites; early attempts to derail the Third Reich countered by arms sales to Germany by both countries; fearful of communism more than fascism. The author states, “It’s a disservice to present great people from the past as if they’re intelligent children who think their way consistently through everything and never have moments of doubt or petty anger. I wanted to convey some reality, some appreciation for these leaders of people, and I think that in the end, Churchill and Roosevelt will survive my 500 pages.” In the meantime Baker gives us food for thought by painting Churchill as a warmonger with a penchant for bombing civilians; and Roosevelt turning his back on European refugees while carefully orchestrating a strategy to lure the Japanese into war before Pearl Harbor. Because of the straightforward manner of presentation, sans personal commentary, it leaves assumption and acceptance strictly up to the reader. Which explains the vehemence of the historians who hate this approach. And the reason why I loved it! It is understandable why Baker waited 60 plus years to throw cold water on advocates of The Good War; who would publish such a tome and who would read such blasphemy? I remember an earlier account [by a forgotten writer] of Churchill visiting Roosevelt, smoking a cigar while clad in only his underwear, spewing bigoted epithets. The great FDR, champion of the people [whose social security check I welcome monthly], was a New York barrister in 1922 when he noticed a third of the Harvard freshman class was Jewish. He used his clout to establish a quota system. (After Roosevelt’s 9066 edict turned a miserable plot of Arizona desert into my 90210 for three years, I confess I had little interest in facism/communism/isolationism. A more immediate triumvirate was softball/voice change/girls. Upon the president’s death, I once [facetiously] wrote I had pangs of regret only because it caused the cancellation of our senior prom. CR2S was chided by some patriotic readers and probably adding yet another entry into a mysterious dossier that doesn’t exist.) In the ‘30s America was free to sell anything they wanted to both the Japanese and Germans, including weapons of war. Not to be outdone, British and French industrialists sold to the Germans. Checkmate, you all. Sir Winston is the featured of the duo and even includes Mrs. C when it comes to hatred: Germans were “Nazi hogs” to her while “yellow Japanese lice” were enemies on the other side of the world. Mohandas Ghandi was also on Churchill’s hate list. The pacifist’s statement that “Hitlerism and Churchillism are in fact the same thing” obviously didn’t warm the cockles of the Englishman’s heart. Baker’s portrayal of Roosevelt belies the “Day of Infamy” framework and practically every other accepted factoid. In essence his step-by-step approach presents a blue print for war, the architects being the United States and England rather than Adolph Hitler and his Third Reich. At least that is my assumption. Which also explains the author’s quote: “I don’t think I’ll be winning any popularity contests. But that really wasn’t the point of it all. There are some uncomfortable facts about World War II that we can’t allow ourselves to forget.” So we have the uncompromising arguments of history and the events that led us there. Since Baker does not impose his opinion in his writing, I assume he is implying that with a tweak here and a less than vain decision there, there might not have been The Good War. Doubtful, but a worthy thought. I, as someone convinced, concur. Such is the beauty of revisionist history. There is no way to (dis)prove it…
|
|
| More Columns... | |
