Human Smoke Generating Some Buzz

I'm pleased to see a considerable amount of buzz generated on the LRC blog (and elsewhere) for Nicolas Baker's excellent book about WWII, Human Smoke.

Tom DiLorenzo, an economist by trade and part-time historian by hobby, has written an outstanding review of the book. I'd offer my own analysis, but DiLorenzo's review is much better than anything I could put together. Additionally, this comment from LRC blog, particularly the quote within it, is a powerful message to consider. The quote (from Scott L. Field):

I've had interesting reactions from historians, who seem to understand (for the most part) that I'm not trying to write a comprehensive history of the beginnings of the war. I've had some very good reviews and some very bad ones. The bad ones seem to follow the teeter-totter school: that if a dictator and the nation he controls is evil, then the leader of the nation who opposes the evil dictator must be good. Life isn't that way, of course. There is in fact no "moral equivalence" created by examining coterminous violent and repulsive acts. The notion of moral equivalence is a mistake, because it undermines our notions of personal responsibility and law. Each act of killing is its own act, not something to be heaped like produce on a balancing scale. One person, as Roosevelt said, must not be punished for the deed of another--though he didn't follow his own precept.

Indeed, the United States adhered to the idea that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" during WWII when we allied with the Soviet Union. Ostensibly, the reasoning behind US alliance with the Soviets was to overcome the evils of the Axis Powers and end the war as quickly as possible. Baker shows this to be patently absurd, as FDR--as well as Churchill, Hitler, Stalin, etc.--were interested in war for war's sake.

The larger lesson in the book is succinctly captured in Field's quote above. The phrase "each act of killing is its own act, not something to he heaped on the produce scale" neatly sums up the attitude that (I think) has been missing when considering every post-WWII conflict that the US has been involved in. In a sense, today's "de-personalization" of combat--using cruise missiles, predator drones, and "precision" bombs--alleviates the guilt that would otherwise set in had the soldier witnessed the bombing of a village first hand.

The counter argument to the above is saying that advances in military technology have saved American lives. In my estimation, that is only a half truth because that statement can easily be turned on its head: how many more wars have we entered precisely because fewer Americans would be killed?

The term "fewer" is relative, of course. Why settle for fewer casualties when you can have no casualties? Baker's contention is that world leaders hell-bent on world conflict manipulated their respective populations into war, and that America should have never entered the conflict.