Reviews (3)

Intricately detailed.......
With 825 pages devoted to a period of three years, David Eisenhower, the grandson of DDE, has ample space to provide an intricate look at his grandfather at war. This book is primarily focused on the preparation and execution of Normandy through to the formal capitulation of Germany.

The author, presenting the rivalries between allied generals, the political machinations of Roosevelt, Churchill and the Combined Chiefs of Staff, and the seemingly unfathomable Stalin, shows the extreme patience, diplomacy, and fortitude required of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expedition Forces, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, to win the war in Europe.

Eisenhower: At War, 1943-1945, expertly dissects the relationships between allied parties while describing the utter destruction of Germany. It is thorough and frequently thrilling. Patton, Bradley, and Montgomery receive appropriate attention as does Normandy and the Ardennes offensive most commonly referred to as the Battle of the Bulge. I recommend the book highly and rate it an enthusiastic 4 stars.

Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander, President and...
grandpa. I've been meaning to read At War for some time specifically to to get David Eisenhower's perpective. It's a perpective most historians would kill for. As a kid David had the run of the White House. The familiarity he gained from comtemporaries of his grandfather-generals, aides, heads of state, friends & even other historians was invaluable. His admits this. The book look daunting at first glance, but is quite readable & I was able to stay with it for hours at a time. ha-mevaker is correct. This is a political rather than a military view of the war in Europe. Military matters are of course the backdrop for the political intrigues Ike is subjected to. The personal stories are appreciated & humanize the whole horrible war: The young private from Abeliene simply walking up to Eisenhower"s H.Q. & demanding of the guard to see Ike. He got his audience with the general as well as a signed note as proof to his buddies. The book is peppered with little stories like that. The Eisenhower-Montgomery feud is covered extensively. Surprisingly, David is more even handed & perhaps more understanding of Monty's motives than other American historians have been. By D-Day Britain was finished. She was bankrupted, & would never regain her former glory. Montgomery knew this well. The men lost could not be replaced. Yet he wanted one last moment in the sun for Great Britain, that of a spearhead into Germany & the capture of Berlin by the English (& himself). In this plan he was over-ruled by Eisenhower, his superior, a general with no battlefield experience. He was a great patriot & it galled him that by this point the British Empire was the junior partner in the U.S./British alliance. Churchill was proponent a defeating Germany thru Italy & did not support the Normandy invasion. He experienced the carnage of World War I trench warfare feared a repeat if a frontal assault was attempted. Eisenhower greatest strength was he wasn't fighting the last war as many of the people around him were. He was fighting the war he had before him & he did it quite well.

This is a different look at the events of WW II
This is the first part of what David Eisenhower's intended political biography of his grandfather. The main thrust of the book is how Eisenhower's decisions in WW II were made, and the tensions that existed in the USA/British alliance during the war. The Anvil/Dragoon controversy is given full length because it was one of the most contended points of the allaince. The fighting of the war is distinctly in the background. It isn't clear to me how much personal analysis David Eisenhower put into the fighting aspect of the book. In a number of places it seems that he relys on the historians. Because of this, I think that it is important to keep in mind that this probably isn't an important book in terms of military history, even though it is very important in terms of understanding the political aspects of the war. Almost all the other books on WW II ignore the political aspects. ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Ike 's PROFILES IN COURAGE
While I can certainly appreciate the political problems Dwight David Eisenhower had to deal with while executing the liberation of Europe, I find this, his own description of D-DAY to VE-DAY quite wanting in the historical perspective.

There is little doubt that being between FDR, Marshall and Churchill was quite a daunting assignment. What is most intriguing about Ike's account of the lengths The US War Department went to help Bataan is just how many pages Ike devotes to apologizing for virtually abandoning it. Is there a new study on why the US Defense Department abandoned Bataan here?
Are the facts as Ike spelled them out, a coverup?

Much of this book has been repeatedly cited in the numerous WWII
European war studies that have come out since its initial publication. Ike's prose is elegant and witty. It is a good read if you are interested in Ike's opinions on his military staff and his personal war experiences. But as a study on the European and African theatres of WWII it lacks scholarship.

But, if you were going to run as a candidate for President of the United States(or was being drafted by the Republicans and Democrats at the time), this is sure a nice book to base a Presidential campaign on.

Another Crusade
General Eisenhower, contrary to press reports and revisionist historians, was a man of great intelligence, strength, and discipline. He wrote this book in 1948 without ghost-writers, and his wit and wisdom are stunning. Everyone needs to read this to understand the issues that face us in Iraq and elsewhere today. The general explains how the real work of the military is developing strategy, drawing up plans, building relationships with governments and civilians, and quickly implementing and changing the plans as required. Only criticism is his tencency to dismiss the inappropriate behavior of Patton, but keep in mind that Patton was already dead when this book was written and Eisenhower would not criticize those who were not positioned to defend themselves. He is critical of others, especially Montgomery for his foolish proposal of launching a blitz on Berlin to bring the war to an early end. Another lesson for our time is the treachery of the French troops both in Vichy and Algeria, who fight the Allied invasion and put personal objectives above military and political goals. Unbelievable candor throughout such as when Eisenhower reports that an obviously overwhelmed Truman offers to help Eisenhower in any way that he can, including supporting him for the Presidency in 1948. Important career lesson: Eisenhower did not receive any significant promotions in the 20 years after WWI and was doing staff work under McArthur for 5 years, building up the Filipino military, yet became the highest rank allied commander, through hard work, dedication, and leadership.

Really Great Book. Up to par with the late Stephen Ambrose.
Eisenhower, contrary to many beliefs, was one of the greatest conquerors of all time. He was a warrior and a national leader. Books about him, like the Ambrose ones, are very interesting and present a good view of the war, yet I have always believed that seeing the war through the eyes of the warrior is the best way. Personally, I don't believe that Ike wanted this book to show emotion, it was meant as a book on the broad picture of the war in Europe. He did a fabulous job of presenting it from the perspective, as he did a fabulous job making decisions during the course of the war. This book is as good, if not better, than Ambrose's works.

Unique Perspective of War from Ike
General Eisenhower presents a very unique perspective on the ETO throughout Crusade in Europe since he was the one and only Supreme Allied Commander in the theatre. In his role as Commander, he was privy to a vast array of the decision making discussions that took place to create the Allied strategy against Nazi Germany. In this book, he brings to light a lot of the strategic thinking and planning that went into the Allied victory in WWII. Therefore, I would consider this book required reading for anyone interested in WWII history.

Having said that, I think that the book does fall short of its objective for two main reasons. First, Ike is hesitant to criticize other leaders for bad decisions, and tactical mistakes. For instance, Ike blames the lack of success in Operation Market Garden more on the weather than the ill conceived plan that Monty used to execute this daring mission. Secondly, Ike does not display much emotion when telling the tale. For example, when Ike talks about the Battle of the Bulge, he infurs that the Allies expected the attack, and felt almost no panic when it came. If you look at books from others involved in the fighting, you get a much different perspective.

Overall, I enjoyed this book and wished I could give it 5 stars. It should be a 5-star book, because of the unique position that Ike fulfilled in the ETO. Instead, I give it 4 stars, but highly recommend it to anyone interested in WWII history.

A great military as well as personal account
Eisenhower quickly brings us up to speed with the US armed forced when Germany overruns Poland and later when the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor. He gives the state of our preparedness, discusses the able officers who were headed to develop our forces, and describes episodes that changed our training and effectiveness. He meets daily with the major players and heads of state and gives glimpses of their personalities as well as their views. He discusses where politics and the military overlap and where damages might occur. He discusses strategy and tactics and carefully distinguishes for the reader the differences. He clearly demonstrates pitfalls and purposes in the practice and preparation and execution of a successful war. From top to bottom along the line, he explains stresses on commander as well as enlisted troops, such as confidence and morale among other aspects. Throughout the book we gain confidence in Eisenhower's easy, open style, his sincerity and his trustworthiness. A remarkable man makes clear and plain a very complex time in our country's history, including his own views on the aftermath of WWII and the growing tensions between ourselves and Russia.

A wonderful book for veterans and non-veterans alike. ... Read more

Book Description

Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower worked more closely between 1945 and 1952 than any other two American presidents of the twentieth century. They were partners in changing America's role in the world and in responding to the challenge of a Soviet Europe, yet they are remembered more for the acrimony that ended their friendship. Both were men of character, intelligence, and principle, and as the nation learned in the 1950s, they could also hold a grudge.

Drawing on letters, diaries, and interviews with close associates, this is the first examination of the warm friendship, bitter rupture, and eventual reconciliation between two remarkable Americans. From the author of The Eisenhowers: Reluctant Dynasty and Dark Horse comes a unique volume focusing exclusively on the relationship between Dwight D. Eisenhower and Harry S. Truman.

Harry and "Ike" grew up 150 miles apart in the heart of America. They met during World War II, when Truman became commander-in-chief after FDR's death. Together they would oversee not only the great Allied victory but also the restructuring of the U.S. military and the reconstruction of Europe. Together they would forge history's most successful alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Their initial relationship was so respectful and warm that Truman offered to step aside in the 1948 presidential election if Ike would agree to run on the Democratic ticket. Preferring to remain out of politics, Eisenhower declined and instead became president of Columbia Uni-versity. Truman helped make Ike a wealthy man by granting him a special tax break for his memoirs. Eisenhower later prepared to remove himself from contention for the presidency in 1952 if Robert A. Taft supported Truman on NATO. But Ike's friendship with Truman would not survive the 1952 presidential campaign, and for nearly a decade the former allies were engaged in an epic feud. It was not until the funeral of John F. Kennedy that the two men put aside their differences and reestablished a semblance of their previous bond.

In exploring the complexity of character, intelligence, and principle, Neal provides a fresh perspective on two giants of the twentieth century, and on the American presidency. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Flawed premise, but brilliant history
Steve Neal's historical biography "Harry and Ike" nearly fails right from the start by building on a premise that is non-existent: the 'close' relationship between Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. It's well known that Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower were never close working partners, even prior to the epic, decade-long feud that began during the 1952 election. It's a stretch to building a book on the premise of such a partnership and Neal does very little support his theory. Harry and Ike were two men who initially had great respect for each other and occasionally worked together on issues of common interest, but otherwise had little to do with one another. The failure to make a case otherwise should have torpedoed this book. What saves it, however, is that, even with the flawed premise, it is a fascinating historical record.

While Neal is unable support his premise, he does an excellent job and revealing the histories and backgrounds of these titans among men. He tracks their lives and developments independently until their disparate paths crossed during the last, mad days of World War II. From there, Neal uses the framework of this supposed friendship to provide informative and interesting accounts of history as it happened during that era. He covers moments like Truman offering to step aside and run as Eisenhower's Vice President in 1948 if Ike were to run as a Democrat (possibly the foundation of Neal's assertion of a 'close' relationship). He covers the major events like the hostile 1952 Presidential election, the beginning of the Korean War, and firing of General Douglas MacArthur. Neal uses these events to show the impact it had on each man and the reactions it prompted.

"Harry and Ike" serves as a good primer for studying the historical events of that time. It has the effect of making the reader want to probe deeper into those events. Reading this book led me to seek out and read the incredible Douglas MacArthur biography "American Caesar". Given that strong historical narrative of "Harry and Ike", Steve Neal should not be penalized too much for his flimsy premise. There's no doubting that it still serves as an effective historical record.

Finally, a satisfactory explaination
Harry was wild about Ike, until Ike gave him hell, sending Harry on a crusade in Illinois. I have read a dozen or so books by and about Harry and Ike, none of which adequately explained the root causes of their falling out or their eventual reconciliation. This book fills that gap. Ike was politically naive, as Harry feared. I agree with the author that Ike would have been a better President if he had followed the advice of more of his friends, including HST, and less advice from his political handlers. This is an excellent book.

Another buddies in history book. We have Napoleon &
Hitler, Hitler & Stalin, FDR & Stalin, FDR & Truman among others.
Some with no connection. Obviously Naploeon didn't know Hitler. I'm kinder that most reviewers. But this was cooperation, not a partnership. The author strains for similarities. They were both poor boys growing up at the same time in mid-America 200 miles apart.
Childish & paranoid come to mind in decribing their relationship after Ike decides to run in 1952. Truman's problem was he idolized generals such as Pershing, Marshall, MacArthur & Eisenhower. He would have stepped aside for MacArthur or Ike if either had wanted to run as a Democrat in 1948. Then he became paranoid that Ike might take him up on it. Ike said he wouldn't run & Truman thought that meant forever. When Ike did run as a Republican to deny Robert Taft the nomination Truman felt betrayed, even though Ike was doing him a favor. He attacked Ike & his character viciously. Of course Ike responded in kind. There were other issues mostly personal. Their foreign policy was seamless from one administration to the next. They basically ignored each other until Kennedy's funeral when they had to sit next to each other. Good history of two great Americans leaders 1945-52 & slightly tarnishing their image after that.

Very light reading about two powerful men.
I had hoped this would be an in-depth exploration of
the inner workings and motivations of Presidents Truman
and "Ike" -what I discovered was a poorly researched, boring
book. It's almost as if Mr. Neal assumed putting both
names on the book's cover would make it a seller. Buyer
beware. You can find more in-depth material on these
men and their times right here on the internet. Also,
it turns out, Mr. Neal received monies from a Truman
Foundation, which is a poor ethical choice on his part, in
presenting a history that the reader assumes is unbiased.
If you like to see pictures of "Harry & Ike" -many which
have been printed elsewhere, you may enjoy "Harry & Ike"
the book. Quite a letdown as to what I expected.

New Information
Steve Neal presents new information from recently released primary source material and demonstrates the ability, integrity and patriotism of Presidents Truman and Eisenhower despite their differences. Few people are aware of their reconciliation, not unlike that of Presidents Adams and Jefferson also mentioned by another reviewer in these columns.
One example of a little gem in the book describes President Truman's anger at Senator John Sparkman, the 1952 Democratic vice-presidential candidate, during that campaign. This volume has many well documented anecdotes that have not been told before and Steve Neal has both an ear and a voice for politics that few possess.
As an individual who has spent most of his life involved in politics and public affairs I found this a fascinating, informative and enjoyable read. My wife and I have chosen to send it as a Christmas/Hanukkah gift this year because of its originality and intelligibility. ... Read more

Amazon.com

There is hardly a shortage of books about Dwight Eisenhower, but CarloD'Este's Eisenhower: A Soldier's Life stands tall in this forest byvirtue of the author's insistence on a too-often forgotten rule of biographers:show--don't tell about--the subject. Though D'Este doesn't neglect Eisenhower'searly years (his sketch of the man's rambunctious West Point years ishearteningly entertaining), the book concentrates on his military career,including his years of treading water in the Philippines. By far the mosttrenchant sections, however, deal with World War II (including a keen look atthe little-discussed North African campaign.) We see Ike, who had a famoustemper and, when angry, a most indelicate vocabulary, chain-smoking cigarettesand unable to sleep in the weeks leading to D-day; refusing--out of disgust forGerman atrocities--to be present at the signing of the articles of surrender;bantering, though his heart was heavy, with enlisted men; wrestlingcontentiously with MacArthur and Field Marshall Montgomery. We read excerpts ofhis letters to Mamie and are privy to, perhaps, his laying the groundwork for apolitical career. A Soldier's Life, long but brisk, sympathetic but notadoring, rigorous but never tedious, is a commendable biography. --H.O'Billovich ... Read more

Reviews (33)

Dwight Eisenhower--For Better and Worse
This is a powerful, compelling and probably destined to be somewhat controversial book which captures Dwight D. Eisenhower in a different light than past biographers. Carlo D'Este has carefully and thoroughly woven together exhaustive research to describe with often brutally honesty "Ike," the man. Eisenhower's childhood, education at West Point, long and painful service between the World Wars and his meteoric rise from Lieutenant Colonel to Five-Star General reveal a man driven by ego and determination, fired by a tremendous and sometimes ungovernable temper. The author carefully removes the veneer from almost every important character within Ike's circle of friends, fellow soldiers, adversaries and others with whom he had to interact as he ascended to Supreme Allied Command. Ike's relationships with Kay Summersby, Generals Marshall, Patton and Bradley, Winston Churchill and Field Marshal Montgomery are explored in great detail, much of which will be new and intriguing to most readers. The political pressures Eisenhower faces as his responsibilities increase, from the Pentagon, to London, North Africa and finally the D-Day Invasion and ultimate surrender of the Germans, are artfully explored and the key players like General Charles de Gaulle, Churchill and President Roosevelt are brought into sharp focus. The author treats all those surrounding Ike with penetrating precision, extolling their strengths and exposing their shortcomings. Readers will come away appreciating that Eisenhower's almost mystical skills in holding together allies, led by men of great power and even greater egos, are the critical aspect of allied success in the war. His single-minded determination and methods for achieving the allied cause make for dramatic reading entertainment. This book is very well written, clearly revealing the incredible pressures Eisenhower faced and the travails they created, giving the reader an enjoyable and highly informative picture of one of America's greatest military men.

Bio of Eisenhower only goes halfway
Carlo D'Este is one of my favorite authors, and I don't think there's a better military historian in the United States. It was, therefor, interesting to me to see that he'd written this book, following the life of Dwight Eisenhower. His previous biography, of George Patton, was complete and frankly one of the best military biographies I've ever written, so I was expecting something similar. Unfortunately, while this is still a good book, it doesn't realize the promise at that level.

This book follows Eisenhower from his beginnings in Texas and Kansas to the end of WW2. D'Este turned out to be quite good at depicting the beginnings of a person's life in the Patton bio, and he does the same credible job here. Eisenhower's early life is wonderfully brought out, and right up to the Second World War the book is quite good. Then things sort of go sideways.

Eisenhower's rise during WW2 was precipitous, to say the least. He was a lieutenant colonel on the eve of the war, wondering if he would get promoted again, and three years later he was promoted to five star general. He rocketed past most of the U.S. army, from Patton and Mark Clark to his old boss, Douglas MacArthur.

All of this is reasonably well recounted, but the author does something I've never seen in a book, or at least haven't seen at this level, and I will confess I was annoyed a bit. He quotes other authors. It would seem appropriate to quote from the various memoirs (Eisenhower's, Monty's, Bradley's, etc.) or perhaps an official biography, but he goes further, and at various times quotes Geoffrey Perret, Ronald Lewin, Russell Weigley, and so forth. If I want Geoffrey Perret's opinion on Eisenhower I'll read that book. Perhaps he was reacting to the Ambrose/Goodwin plagarism scandals?

The book is also shaped by a few opinions that the author holds, which are very important and which, if you read the Patton biography, you don't need me to tell you. If you didn't read it, you will need to be warned of these things before you start Eisenhower: A Soldier's Life. He doesn't like Omar Bradley really at all, thinks he was at best a mediocre general, and often a really lousy one, thinks only a bit of Eisenhower himself, and thinks Patton was brilliant, if a bit flawed by his personality. Interestingly, he thinks relatively well of Monty. Patton and Monty were good tactically and strategically, but had no clue how to fight coalition warfare alongside Allies. Bradley, by Normandy, was getting fed up with both men's antics in favor of their own careers or methods of fighting the war. Bradley was horrified by Patton's slapping incident, and disgusted by Monty's seeming assumption that the British should be allowed to lead American troops to victory. Somehow Bradley comes out of this considerably behind the other two men, and is also censured for being "intolerant of failure." As if being tolerant of it is a good thing.

There is one further issue: the book isn't a complete biography in that it ends in 1945. We don't see Eisenhower become president or anything of his postwar activities. Leaves you with an incomplete feeling.

So I only gave this book four stars. I do like Carlo d'Este, and I did enjoy the book, but not as much as I hoped to.

A Fair and Balanced Look at Ike
Dwight Eisenhower's life has been so thoroughly written about and re-written that another biography seems laughable. Nevertheless, Carlo D'Este deserves credit for this highly readable description and analysis of Ike's career through the end of WWII. D'Este highlights Eisenhower's strengths but also his weaknesses, some of which are in the eye of the beholder (the debate over the "Broad Front" strategy in late 1944-45 will likely never be settled).

Some Eisenhower worshippers may be offended by D'Este's detailing of Ike's faults (both as D'Este defines them and Ike's troublesome British and American contemporaries). However, he always comes back to the one ultimate, essential point: who else could have led the coalition better?

Everything You Wanted To Know About Ike
Carlo D'este has followed up his work on General Patton with a biography of General Eisenhower which cover his life through World War II. The book is 705 pages long not counting the notes, and will take some time to pioneer your way through. I found the book to be interesting, but have to admit I was glad when I finally finished it. You will learn a great deal about Eisenhower the young boy and his competitive attitude which contributed to his qualities of leadership. The responsibilities he had thrust upon him throughout his military life brought on an addictive smoking habit that would later lead to health problems. Juggling the egos of George Patton, Omar Bradley, Bernard Montgomery, and others proved to be a challenge and strain on Eisenhower as he directed the allied forces through Europe. Patience and restraint were often needed when it may have been helpful for Eisenhower to vent his frustrations. Ike's relationship with his driver, Kay Summersby, is dealt with in some detail. They were very good friends, but there is no evidence of a consummated romantic relationship. I'm not going to rehash the book in this review. Suffice it to say if you want to learn about America's man in command of World War II this book will provide you with ample information of both Eisenhower the man and the soldier.

A very fair look at Ike!
Carlo D'Este wrote a very readable account of Eisenhower's military career. While its not good as his work on Patton, D'Este managed to conveyed a true essence of Eisenhower and his abilties as a soldier. The author is fair and correct and while Ambrose's books may be more detail, Ambrose was definitely Eisenhower's admirer and defender. D'Este appears to admired Eisenhower but he seem to realized that Ike got some super limitation as a soldier, that is - a fighting soldier which Ike definitely is not. Eisenhower we see here proves to be the ultimate paper pusher, supreme organizer and as many thought during the war, a fantastic chairman of the board. He seem to be the World War II version of General George McClellan of the Civil War in some ways (without McClellan's super ego and risk fearing personality). What is interesting is how Eisenhower, a student of military history, failed to understand the political aspect of war which is just as important as the military aspect. I don't think Ike ever considered the post-war situation once during his period as Supreme Allied Commander and that was a major failing in his part. But a great book overall, I wished D'Este finished covering Eisenhower's military career which did not end with the surrender of Germany. (It also interesting to note that General Omar Bradley continued to get bad press by historians of our generation.) ... Read more

Book Description

This book examines the postwar memoir fight over the broad front versus the single thrust strategy, the Allied advance on the Rhine, and the British call for a ground-forces commander other than General Eisenhower. It traces the argument in the postwar memoirs from 1946 through 1968 as well as the official histories of the United States, Britain, and Canada to see what the documents really said. What were men willing to say, what did they feel that they had to cover up? Field Marshal Montgomery was deeply chagrined that he had only one army group to command when he thought himself the most professional commander in Northwest Europe. Montgomery had little grasp of the intricacies of politics and could not understand that American public opinion made it impossible for Eisenhower to name him ground-forces commander. During the Battle of the Bulge the U.S. President and Chief of Staff settled the issue in Eisenhower's favor. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

The controversy made clear.
"Let us have no part in the profitless quarrels in which other men will inevitably engage as to what country, what service, won the European war." Eisenhower's Victory Order of the Day, 8 May 1945.
The profitless quarrels emerged early, on both sides of the Pond, initiated by unscrupulous journalists and soon drawing in the principals, neither of whom welcomed the controversy. Murray carefully and effectively traces the newspaper stories, memoirs, and official histories to clarify the nature of Ike's and Monty's strategic and tactical disagreements, and to reveal the sources of the ethnocentric axe-grinding which marred the victory, and provides employment for unprincipled muck-stirrers to this day, to the detriment of Anglo-American unity. Professor Murray has been kind enough not to name them, but they know who they are.
"Extremists on both sides of the water can indulge in all the backbiting and name-calling that they please - they can never get away from the historical truth that the United States and the British Empire, working together, did a job that looked almost impossible at the time it was undertaken". (Eisenhower).

(The "score" rating is a feature of the page. This reviewer does not "score" books.) ... Read more

Amazon.com

"I have been in politics ... most of my adult life. There's no more active political organization in the world than the armed forces of the United States." So said Dwight Eisenhower, the subject of journalist-novelist Tom Wicker's thoughtful--and often critical--Dwight D. Eisenhower, shortly after leaving the presidency.

Eisenhower was never above politics, as his admirers claimed; Wicker shows that he was a political creature through and through, as Patton suspected while serving under him in World War II. ("Ike wants to be president so badly you can taste it," Patton said.) He held all the contradictory positions of a politician, too: a dedicated cold warrior and anti-Communist, he famously decried the power of the "military-industrial complex," resisted American involvement in Vietnam while setting the stage for it, and called himself a "liberal Republican" while doing little to attend to pressing domestic issues, especially in the realm of civil rights. He refused to stand up to Joe McCarthy and chose Richard Nixon as his running mate for reasons of political expediency.

Wicker gives Eisenhower middling marks: "The worst did not happen in his time, but neither did the best." His survey may not cheer Ike's fans, but it's balanced, highly readable, and useful for those seeking a window on American political life half a century ago. --Gregory McNamee ... Read more

Reviews (9)

A good, brief biography of Eisenhower the president
One reviewer complained that this was not a complete biography, and that is certainly correct. It is a biography of Eisenhower as president, in a series devoted to covering the American presidents. That is the focus of the series, and most of the books in this series ought to share that focus. Apart from a biography on William Henry Harrison and Garfield, the emphasis on all these books should be on the presidential career of each individual.

I will confess that I am an admirer of General Eisenhower, but not of President Eisenhower. He certainly did count many achievements to his credit during his two terms of office, but his administrations were marred by some utterly dreadful events, and not a few failures to take strong moral stands by Eisenhower himself. His administration also established several unfortunate precedents, such as overthrowing foreign governments. Wicker focuses more on the failures than the achievements, but the most he can be accused of here is a slight--and I think it is very slight indeed--lack of balance. In the more recent presidents, we tend sometimes to see what we want to see, and many simply do not want to see the failures of his years in office.

The general assessment of Eisenhower as president is that he had some real achievements in foreign policy but fared far worse in domestic policy. On the former, he is credited with keeping the United States out of war (and getting us out of Korea) during the increasing tension of the Cold War. He also, in what I believe was his greatest moment as president on the foreign front, intervened strongly when France and Britain attempted to seize control of the Suez Canal in conjunction with an Israeli invasion of the Sinai. As Wicker correctly points out, however, this has to be balanced with the tragedy of the Gary Powers incident, which sabotaged a probable arms treaty with the Soviet Union. Worse, Eisenhower supported some morally reprehensible covert operations in Iraq (where we deposed a popular leader and replaced him with the Shah), Guatemala (where we deposed a democratically elected government), and in Cuba (where Eisenhower's folks undertook the planning for what later became the Bay of Pigs--Kennedy's greatest failure being not to reject the plan entirely). Eisenhower also is responsible for our initial involvement in Vietnam, which would deepen tragically in the Kennedy and Johnson years.

Wicker does a fine job of covering the domestic issues, although I think he draws back from a rather obvious conclusion (though many other writers do not): Eisenhower, although himself a moral, good individual, was at best morally timid and at worst a moral coward. In the terms used my countless ministers in my own Southern Baptist church, Eisenhower engaged in sins of omission. He lamented the Brown v. Board of Education, and failed to support it or implement it, although he did intervene in my hometown of Little Rock, Arkansas when our governor Orville Faubus refused to allow the integration of Central High School. But overall, Eisenhower had a dreadful record on Civil Rights, and we know from numerous personal comments--many of which Wicker records--that he was personally not very sensitive on racial matters (and that is putting it somewhat mildly). Also, despite personally deploring Senator Joe McCarthy and his tactics, Eisenhower did not intervene for several years of his presidency and did not condemn McCarthy publicly. Especially tragic was his failure to defend his patron George Marshall, one of America's great public servants (both in running WW II from Washington and later in his tremendous service in the State Department) from explicit charges of treason by McCarthy. On the other hand, Eisenhower did oversee the creation of NASA (though he wouldn't promote it the way that Kennedy did upon becoming president, for whom going to the moon was a mania). Wicker does point out briefly his great achievement in overseeing the building of the Interstate Highway system, and spends rather more time on his largely ineffectual attempt to convince the American populace that no missile or nuclear gap existed between the US and the USSR. Ironically, during the Eisenhower years, it was the Democrats who were pushing for more military spending, with Ike convinced that the US had more than enough to deter and defeat the Soviet Union in any forthcoming war. Significant mention is made of Eisenhower's farewell address, the first significant farewell since Washington's. In that he warned of the expanding influence of the Military-Industrial complex, a warning that we have not yet heeded.

Wicker also does a good job of discussing the bizarre lack of support that Eisenhower gave Nixon, a lack that undermined Nixon's campaign in an excruciatingly tight election that might have cost him the presidency. It remains one of Eisenhower's most perplexing failures. Although I myself would have preferred Kennedy to Nixon, there is good reason to believe that Eisenhower negatively affected the outcome of the election, from a Republican point of view.

This is a good, brief book on the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower. Wicker, although admiring of Ike as a man, is unsympathetic to him as a president. But I would argue that he is fair. If one wants a full-length biography of Eisenhower, one could turn to Stephen Ambrose's two-volume biography, or Carlo D'Este's superb biography of Eisenhower's military career.

Workmanlike
Some might argue that the job Tom Wicker has done here is a perfect fit for the Eisenhower presidency - workmanlike, efficient, strong enough to keep your interest but not compelling enough to make the reader feel like an expert on the President or develop a strong viewpoint about him. ... I would have liked a little more. (Something, for instance, on the Interstate Highway system would have been helpful. Or his views/feelings on postwar culture.)

Not really a biography but a good introduction
Tom Wicker spent thirty years writing on politics for the New York Times. Having worked as a young reporter in the 1950s, he combines memories of actual events with secondary sources to produce a short, lively monograph on Eisenhower's presidency.

Older readers can remember the media Ike: the winning smile, the bumbling answers at press conferences, the incessant golf. The electorate loved him, but contemporary observers were not impressed. They looked on him as a career soldier who despised politics, leaving handling of foreign policy to the slightly frightening John Foster Dulles and domestic policy to no one at all.

Wicker admits that this was once his view but no longer. However, he adds that Eisenhower's growing reputation owes nothing to domestic affairs. Perhaps his major success in this area was the Interstate Highway Bill of 1955, which is still financing our interstate roads. Trivia buffs note: this was the last major Republican program that required new taxes.

Wicker joins two generations of historians in condemning Eisenhower's refusal to speak out against McCarthy or in favor of civil rights. All agree this was politically astute but morally deplorable.

The 1954 Supreme Court decision on segregation came as an unpleasant shock to Eisenhower, but he was in good company. Most northern officials were lukewarm (an admirable exception was attorney general, Herbert Brownell). Holding racial views similar to Lincoln's, Eisenhower disapproved of mistreating Negroes but believed their capacities did not measure up to those of the white race. Wicker's discussion spends more time on Chief Justice Warren than the president, but it's an eye-opener. Legend gives Warren credit for the decision, but this is wrong. He didn't join the court until the case was nearing its end. On his arrival, it was already 5-4 in favor of desegregation. His accomplishment was convincing opponents to switch their votes. Such a controversial decision required unanimity, Warren pointed out. A split Court would encourage southern resistance, bringing disorder to the country and casting doubt on the Court's legitimacy. Good patriots all, they switched, including the hidebound southern racist, Stanley Reed. Does anyone believe this could happen today?

Among America's long line of political scoundrels, Joseph McCarthy stands out for sheer vulgarity. Many supporters in the Senate including Richard Nixon thought he was slightly creepy. That his wild accusations of rampant communist subversion ruined many careers without turning up any new spies was public knowledge. The New York Times and Washington Post pointed this out. Conservative Time Magazine heaped ridicule on him.

But no elected official dared cross McCarthy. Contemptuous in private, Eisenhower took care never to make his feelings public although newspapers regularly found hints between the lines. The Senate censure in 1954 happened only because of McCarthy's increasingly insulting behavior and a modest decline of anticommunist hysteria. It was a slap on the wrist, and McCarthy remained in charge of his committee, so no one can explain why he suddenly fell silent. Wicker has no explanation, and he concludes with the usual regret that Eisenhower failed to take a courageous moral position.

Historians always attack politicians for refusing to take courageous moral positions, forgetting that doing so is invariably disastrous. Perhaps the greatest example is Lincoln's emancipation proclamation in September 1862. Although a feeble antislavery gesture, it was unpopular in the north. Democrats happily pointed out that Lincoln had converted a war for the union into a war for the Negro, and they crushed Republicans in the election two months later.

Foreign policy is almost entirely responsible for Eisenhower's improving reputation. Even those of us who remember the 1950s forget how close World War III seemed. Many national leaders and several of the Joint Chiefs wanted to get on with it as soon as possible. America's foreign policy seemed in the hands of elderly secretary of state John Foster Dulles, a pugnacious, evangelical who had been lecturing foreigners on American virtues since the Wilson administration. He made almost everyone nervous with enthusiastic talk of liberating eastern Europe, regaining China, and using atomic weapons if provoked excessively. It turns out Dulles was firmly under Eisenhower's thumb, and this rhetoric mellowed as years passed. The president himself was far more peaceable than anyone thought at the time. He gets enough credit for ending the Korean war but too little for refusing to strike back at China's threats to Formosa (his military advisors were raring to go). When he aborted the English-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt in 1956, he was not reading opinion polls. Americans generally approved the invasion.

Most impressive of all, he kept the military firmly under his thumb. Despite the usual 1952 campaign rhetoric about defeating communism, Eisenhower held the defense budget level when he wasn't reducing it. His finest hour (although no one thought so at the time) came after Russia launched Sputnik in 1957. His announcement that orbiting a satellite was not a big deal produced universal dismay. Editorials denounced his short-sightedness; cartoons pictured him with his head in the sand. His poll ratings dropped to their lowest. Despite additional Russian space spectaculars, he did not change his mind, quashing all efforts to launch crash military programs. John F. Kennedy spent much of the 1960 campaign denouncing the administration for underestimating the communist threat, cruelly starving the armed forces, allowing the Russians to achieve military superiority. JFK was a far more aggressive cold warrior than his predecessor.

Like all volumes in the excellent American Presidents series, Wicker's is a quick read: 140 pages. Unlike the others, it's not really a biography. Eisenhower's greatest accomplishment was his meteoric rise to command in WWII after twenty years of obscurity. Winning the presidency was easy by comparison; after all he was the most popular man in the country. Wicker admits this, but he skips over the early life. As an account of his presidency, it breaks no ground but the author's anecdotes and outspoken opinions make it a lively addition to the definitive biographies.

A Weak Entry In An Otherwise Strong Series
I have read all of the books in the "American Presidents" series published thus far, and this is a very disappointing entry in an otherwise great series. Tom Wicker is a journalist, not a historian, and it shows. He merely presents a narrative chronology of Eisenhower's presidency, devoting only a few paragraphs to his life before he entered the Oval Office. In what is essentially a long magazine article, you never learn a thing about Eisenhower as a person, and Eisenhower emerges as a two-dimensional figure, not the fascinating man that he was. Worst of all, Wicker is so one-sided in his coverage, he tries to find fault in even Eisenhower's unmitigated successes. This ends up simply a book-length critique. It is blinkered and one-sided, with no sense of perspective or context. There are many better biogrpahies of Eisenhower available. Skip this one.

Another take.....
I thought I'd present an alternative viewpoint to the obviously irate folks who have written so far. While Wicker's book is far from a complete biography (this series -- and I have read all but the TR volume -- was never intended to be THE definitive account, only an introduction of sorts), it does present Eisenhower's presidency in relatively comprehensive terms. I was left wanting more, but one can take this book, armed with a general outline, and pursue the subject further.

As for the negative tone, I am not offended, nor am I disappointed. There have been plenty of fawning biographies written about Ike (check out any Ambrose volume), so it is only fair that we get a different take. Ike's presidency, like so many, had its shining moments, but also its shame. Wicker correctly identifies Ike's weaknesses, including a tendency to overdelegate and of course, a reluctant, weak-willed enforcement of civil rights laws. It is also important to note that Ike failed to take on that era's most poisonous demagogue, Joseph McCarthy.

Writing a hagiography would be easy given our country's worship of military figures, but this is a political biography. The years from 1953 to 1961 were not perfect, and Wicker understands that the leadership must be held accountable for some of that decade's less admirable turns. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

A first-rate biography, volume 2
In this book, Ambrose follows up on his biography of Dwight Eisenhower. The first book dealt with the sixty-two years of Eisenhower's life before he became president. This volume deals with the last seventeen years of his life, focusing particularly on his eight years as President.

It is clear that Ambrose likes Eisenhower, but he nonetheless is critical of Eisenhower when it is appropriate. If one of the lessons of the first book is how politics can have a negative effect on a principled man, the main lesson in this one is how moderation is both a virtue and a vice.

For Eisenhower, it is a virtue when he besieged by extremists within his own party who are all too willing to use nuclear weapons and it is he who stays a middle course. As moderation's negative image, hesitancy, however, it is a vice as he fails to take on McCarthy or segregation. As one of the most continuously popular presidents in history, Ike could have done more in these areas.

Overall, however, Eisenhower comes off as a President whose accomplishments are generally underrated. Ike himself generally comes off as a good person, honest and intelligent, with a vision of a better America that many would agree with, one without the threat of nuclear war.

There are a couple little errors in the book and its predecessor, but that doesn't take away from this volume's high caliber. This is a great biography, well written, detailed and always interesting.

An Able President for the High Cold War
This is the second of a two-volume biography of Dwight Eisenhower, the great World War II military administrator who was elected president in 1952 without any experience in elective office and served two full terms, one of only five presidents in this century to do so. Author Stephen Ambrose, whose Nothing Like It in the World: The Men Who Built the Transcontinental Railroad 1863-1869 became a bestseller just days after it was published last August, writes authoritatively here about a president whom he clearly admires. This is a comprehensive study of an eight-year period which is sometimes portrayed as a mid-20th century era of good feelings. As Ambrose ably demonstrates, it was, in fact, a period marked by frequent international crises, as well as by strong undercurrents of change in American life, most notably in the area of civil rights.

The Cold War was at its height in the 1950s, and Ambrose devotes a great detail of space to diplomatic and military affairs. According to Ambrose, Eisenhower intended to "continue the policies of containment, foreign aid, and Europe first," but opposition to Eisenhower's program came most frequently from within his own party, beginning with battles over Eisenhower's appointees to key State Department positions at the beginning of his first term. Some of the most interesting passages in this book involve Ambrose's presentation of the frequent conflicts between the moderate Eisenhower Republicans and the "Old Guard," which was practically hysterical in its opposition to the threat posed by international Communism, real and supposed. Ambrose's discussion of Eisenhower's consistent opposition to increased military spending is fascinating. This is one area in which Eisenhower displayed real leadership, even when the president's position was not popular. By1960, one important issue was whether Richard Nixon and John Kennedy would spend more on national defense. (Ambrose makes clear Eisenhower's disappointment with the choice the American people were offered in that election: Eisenhower, one of the giants of World War II, would have to turn over executive power at the height of the Cold War to a former junior officer, either Nixon or Kennedy.) In his Farewell Address, Eisenhower warned of the dangers posed by the creation of a military-industrial complex. Only a president with Eisenhower's impeccable military credentials could credibly have said that. Ambrose leaves no doubt about Eisenhower's determination to decrease international tensions, especially in Europe, and most especially the threat of nuclear war. For the most part, Eisenhower's management of the frequent international crises during his administration was deft.

One Republican with whom Eisenhower publicly refused to dispute was Sen. Joseph McCarthy. According to Ambrose, one of Eisenhower's reasons for avoiding conflict with the notorious witch-hunter was personal: "I just won't get into a pissing contest with that skunk." But Ambrose also writes: "Eisenhower was more on McCarthy's side than not on the issue of Communism in government. It was McCarthy's methods he disapproved of, not his goals or his analysis." Ambrose concludes: "Eisenhower's cautious, hesitant approach - or nonapproach - to the McCarthy issue did the President's reputation no good, and much harm."

Eisenhower also was often criticized for presiding over a British-style cabinet government in which he purportedly delegated too much responsibility to his department heads. Ambrose makes clear that Eisenhower was keenly interested in the big issues facing the State, Defense, and Treasury departments, but the record presented here indicates that Eisenhower had much less interest in domestic affairs. The creation of the interstate highway system probably was the principal domestic achievement of the Eisenhower administration.

Civil rights was an issue which begged for presidential leadership. Eisenhower rightly deserves credit for appointing Earl Warren Chief Justice of the United States, and Warren, of course, presided over the unanimous 1954 decision declaring separate-but-equal public education systems to be unconstitutional. But Ambrose makes clear that, except on the issue of voting rights, Eisenhower refused to be pushed into the forefront in civil rights. Eisenhower was a product of the late-19th century (he was born in 1890), and this is one area in which he failed to grow as president. On occasion, according to Ambrose, Eisenhower could be "bumbling" and "ineffective." With regard to civil rights, Eisenhower simply failed to lead. According to Ambrose: "In the field of civil rights, [Eisenhower] felt he had done as well as could be done." The judgment of history disagrees.

Ambrose makes very effective use of primary sources, including Eisenhower's diaries. The text includes numerous references to Eisenhower's assessments of colleagues and subordinates, political rivals, other public figures international leaders, and some of them are cutting. Although Nixon loyally served as Eisenhower's vice president for eight years, they never were close, and Eisenhower was not enthusiastic about Nixon's candidacy in 1960. During that campaign, when Nixon was trying to make the most of his experience as vice president, Eisenhower told a reporter it would take him a week to think of a major contribution Nixon had made to the administration. But if Nixon had followed Eisenhower's advice and had refused to debate Kennedy, he might well have been elected in 1960.

Ambrose may admire his subject too much. To cite just one example, although Ambrose writes that "friends as well as critics worried about how unprepared [Eisenhower] was for the presidency," the author, himself, asserts that, in foreign affairs, Eisenhower "was undoubtedly the best prepared man ever elected to the Presidency." But I believe Ambrose is correct when he observes at the beginning of his chapter assessing the Eisenhower presidency: "To say that Eisenhower was right about this or wrong about that is to do little more than announce one's own political position." That is Ambrose's justification for examining Eisenhower's years in the White House "in his own terms."

When this book was published in 1984, Ambrose predicted: Eisenhower's "reputation is likely to continue to rise, perhaps to the point that he will be ranked just below Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt." I am skeptical that history ever will be that kind to Eisenhower. Ambrose writes that, by November 1952, Eisenhower had come to actively dislike Harry Truman" because "in Eisenhower's view Truman had diminished the prestige of the office of the President of the United States." Even Eisenhower's critics, and there remain plenty of them, must concede, based upon the record presented by authors such as Ambrose, that he conducted the duties of the presidency with great dignity. And that places him far above some of his successors. The two-volume Ambrose biography of Eisenhower is now out of print, having been superceded by this author's Eisenhower: Soldier and President and more recent works of scholarship. But Eisenhower, Volume Two, The President, continues to have value as a highly-detailed account of the administration of a president who may, indeed, have been under-appreciated. Ambrose is partial to his subject, but he generally allows Eisenhower's actions to speak for themselves, and I do not believe that a reader may ask much more from a biographer. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Ike in WWII
Ambrose edited the Eisenhower Papers project for many years and finally turned his talents on writing a military biography of Ike. The Ike opus is infinitely superior to Ambrose's earlier biography on Henry Halleck and his research and knowledge about his subject is obvious throughout.

The only "criticism" I have is that Ambrose is blatantly biased in Ike's favor and makes no bones about it. The first words in his introduction are, 'Dwight Eisenhower was a great and a good man," which is undoubtedly true, but a biographer should take more pains to disguise their own feelings. There is very little criticism of Ike in Ambrose's work, which borders on the hagiography. Perhaps a bit more of Harry Truman's invective towards Eisenhower could have infused these pages.

Still, Ambrose is a wonderful writer and his works are always fun to read and informative. This is an excellent look at Eisenhower in World War II, even if it is a completely uncritical examination.

another fine effort from Stephen Ambrose
I was not aware of the fine writing of Ambrose until I read "Citizen Soldiers" and in "Supreme Commander" he does yet another job of putting the reader right there besides Ike as he learns, commands and most importantly earns the trust of all who comes in contact with him.

Many of Ike's compatriots questions his skills as a soldier but all are certainly of his positive human skills at bonding a diverse group to attain the goal of defeating the enemy, in this Ambrose describes well. And from this experience at war time an outstanding president is groomed. I think Ambroses' "Eisenhower: A soldier and President" will have to be my next purchase.

One point I'm a bit disappointed is the fact that Ambrose does not spend much time dealing with Ike's rols in the debacle of Hurtgen Forest, the problems with Repple Depple, and the problems with the problems caused by Segragation in the Army, several of the areas that Ambrose had detailed discussions on in "Citizen Soldiers". But all in all, an excellent read.

A Brillant Overview of Eisenhower's Leadership
Stephen Ambrose skillfully tells how Eisenhower developed into one of the greatest military leaders in history. Eisenhower was able to lead the Allies to victory WWII because of his ablitiy to keep the alliance together. Eisenhower understood that the only way to achieve success was to build a consensus among differing viewpoints on how to conduct the war. He had to understand British strategies, goals, traditions, and hardships and meld them together with American objectives. He realized that the British have all ready been punished thru years of war, where as the Americans had justed entered the war and had not endured the hardships in the degree in which Britain had. Eisnehower was faced with many strong-willed military and political figures like Roosevelt, Churchill, Montgomery, Bradley, de Gaulle, and Patton, each of whom had their own views on how to conduct the war. Eisenhower was able to work with this men, which was no small feat. It is diffcult to see how another person would be able to lead such a diverse group of people. ... Read more

Book Description

A thorough, illustrated biography discussing the president's childhood, his career, his family, and his term as President of the United States. Includes a time line and glossary. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

An excellent juvenile biography of President Eisenhower
As part of the Our Presidents series this juvenile biography of Dwight E. Eisenhower by Sarah Bowler devotes half the book to his two terms in the White House, although much of his life was devoted to his military career. The second chapter covers Eisenhower's service during World War II, when he rose to Commander in Chief of the Allie Forces in Europe. I like how Bowler makes a point of starting with a quote from Eisenhower: "I hate war as only a solider who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity." His two terms in the White House focus on the issues that confronted him, giving young readers a sense for what was happening during the Fifties, when the issues that would explode in the following decade were beginning to come to a head.

Illustrated with historic black & white photographs from Eisenhower's life and career, there is also a color reproduction of one of his paintings of three members of his Cabinet. There are also detailed side-bars on his Family Life, the Axis Powers in World War II, the 1950s as A Decade of Prosperity, and the Civil Rights Movement, and the margins of the book include Interesting Facts, such as Eisenhower being the first President to be seen on color television and how he got the idea for the international highway system that bears his name when assigned to determine how long it would take military convoys to get across the country. If you want more information on Eisenhower's career then you can check out Jim Hargrove's book for the Encyclopedia of Presidents series, but for a first-rate introductory biography, this is the book. ... Read more

Book Description

John S.D. Eisenhower modestly explains General Ike as "a son's view of a great military leader -- highly intelligent, strong, forceful, kind, yet as human as the rest of us." It is that, and more: a portrait of the greatest Allied military leader of the Second World War, by the man who knew Ike best.

General Ike is a book that John Eisenhower always knew he had to write, a tribute from an affectionate and admiring son to a great father. John chose to write about the "military Ike," as opposed to the "political Ike," because Ike cared far more about his career in uniform than about his time in the White House. A series of portraits of Ike's relations with soldiers and statesmen, from MacArthur to Patton to Montgomery to Churchill to de Gaulle, reveals the many facets of a talented, driven, headstrong, yet diplomatic leader.Taken together, they reveal a man who was brilliant, if flawed; naive at times in dealing with the public, yet who never lost his head when others around him were losing theirs.Above all, General Ike was a man who never let up in the relentless pursuit of the destruction of Hitler.

Here for the first time are eyewitness stories of General Patton showing off during military exercises; of Ike on the verge of departing for Europe and assuming command of the Eastern Theater; of Churchill stewing and lobbying Ike in his "off hours." Faced with giant personalities such as these men and MacArthur, not to mention difficult allies such as de Gaulle and Montgomery, Ike nevertheless managed to pull together history's greatest invasion force and to face down a determined enemy from Normandy to the Bulge and beyond. John Eisenhower masterfully uses the backdrop of Ike's key battles to paint a portrait of his father and his relationships with the great men of his time.

General Ike is a ringing and inspiring testament to a great man by an accomplished historian. It is also a personal portrait of a caring, if not always available, father by his admiring son. It is history at its best. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

A general¿s portrait by his son.
This review refers to the abridged CD-audio book. I frankly don't understand why the publisher did not give the full text on CD since the book is not much longer than the audio version. The book, however, is very interesting. His son gives the reader a warmer version of his father that is not too often seen of him.

Unfortunately, the author's relationship to his subject typically caused him to not touch some more sensitive areas of Eisenhower's life (e.g., his relationship with his female driver while in England, or his civil rights record while as president) and the writer gave us next to nothing about his relationship with Mamie (at least not on this CD version). For other issues, the author tries to gloss over the record especially as it pertains to not forcefully defending Gen. Marshall from ludicrous attacks by Joe McCarthy. The author's excuse that Ike needed to first consider the political ramifications is certainly unbecoming of the great man who led Allied forces to European victory.

Overall, though, I highly recommend this book. The author breaks it into chapters devoted to Ike's life with other illustrious figures of history such as Douglas McArthur, Marshall, Patton and especially his section on British Field Marshall Montgomery. All of these add up to mini-biographies and are well worth the read.

A great great military leader..."as human as the rest of us"
I found this to be one of the most enjoyable as well as informative books about Dwight D. Eisenhower that I have as yet read. Its title and subtitle correctly indicate what it is...and isn't: John Eisenhower's focus is on his father's military career (especially during the 1940s) during which he was affectionately viewed as "Ike" by almost everyone with whom he was associated; the material consists of a respectful and loving son's own reminiscences. However, John Eisenhower makes no claim for himself as a biographer or military historian. He limits himself to his own personal experiences with his father when not citing his (i.e. his father's) documented statements and others' eyewitness accounts. The net result is a unique and revealing examination of one of the most important leaders in the 20th century, offered from the perspective of a son who observed General Eisenhower while engaged in his most memorable relationships with other leaders during World War Two, notably with Churchill, Marshall, Patton, Montgomery, and De Gaulle. We also learn much of interest about Ike's relationships with Conner, Pershing, and MacArthur which -- to varying degrees -- also significantly influenced his military career as well as personal development.

"By no stretch of the imagination is this book a comprehensive biography of Ike, nor is it even a history of the battles he fought. Instead, my essays deal almost exclusively with Ike's relations with his associates, for the simple reason that the facets of his personality appear differently depending on the individual he was dealing with at a given time." John Eisenhower goes on to explain that he offers "a son's view of a great military leader -- highly intelligent, forceful, kind, yet as human as the rest of us." What I especially appreciate in this personal account is the fact that the son subordinates himself while recalling the situations while accompanying his father; also, that his views of Ike throughout the book seem balanced as he comments on his father's less attractive qualities (e.g. a sometimes volcanic temper) as well as his most admirable strengths (e.g. forging consensus and cooperation among egocentrics such as Montgomery and De Gaulle). Almost everyone liked Ike. Over time, he also earned the respect which Marshall clearly had for Ike when promoting him over dozens of senior officers to serve as commander of Overlord Operation, arguably the most extensive and complicated military invasion ever undertaken, before or since.

Later, Marshall told Ike: "You have commanded with outstanding success the most powerful military force that has ever been assembled. You have made history, great history for the good of all mankind and you have stood for all we hope for and admire in an officer of the United States Army." Such praise was well-deserved and widely shared. In this exceptionally thoughtful and eloquent account, John Eisenhower also reveals this great military leader to be "as human as the rest of us."

Military Leadership at its Best
John Eisenhower, the son of Dwight David Eisenhower (General Ike)has done us all a service by writing a book about his father. The entire book deals with Ike's relationships with other important military and political leaders. John Eisenhower says he wrote the book primarily to correct misapprehensions and mistakes that other writers have made in discussing Ike.

The reader will meet people who we never knew existed such as General Fox Conner, a competent and decent army officer who early on recognized Ike's leadership potential and did his best to promote his career. We will learn about Ike's complicated relationships with famous persons such as Douglas MacArthur, John "Black Jack" Pershing, and the French General Charles DeGaulle. Ike apparently held DeGaulle in great personal regard and put him on a list of the five most important men he knew.

Ike's wartime relationship with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill deserves special mention. Early on Churchill understood how critical Anglo-American cooperation was to a successful outcome in World War II. As such, he bent over backwards to see that Eisenhower and the Americans were given first-class treatment by the English. Eisenhower had much regular contact with Churchill and it struck me that he was closer to him than President Roosevelt and other American political figures.

One of the most interesting sections of the book recounts Ike's dilemma in dealing with British Army General Sir Bernard Montgomery. Montgomery believed that he alone had the strategy which could have forced an earlier end to World War II. He constantly feuded with Eisenhower over strategy and supplies. At one time, Eisenhower came close to asking the British to place someone else in command, but than things were smoothed out. The problems did not end even after the war was over. Years later, Montgomery wrote his own memoirs criticizing Eisenhower's conduct of the European campaign after D-day. A normally patient man, Ike was infuriated with Montgomery.

This is a good book for students of World War II history and those who believe that history is determined more by individuals than by events.

A reminiscence from Eisenhower's son.
Eisenhower's son writes very well, and this is the third book I have read of his. He writes like Ambrose, so the flow of these books is good. In this book, Eisenhower tackles the subject of his father as he would like to remember him--that as the General and Supreme Allied Commander. This is not a biography but rather glimspes of his father and his interaction with some other famous personalities such as Marshall, Pershing, De Galle, Churchill, Patton,and Montgomery.
Some of the stories Eisenhower tells in this book deal with the working relationship of his father with these persons. Montgomery was by far the most difficult of these persons. What surprised me was how Ike regarded De Galle in a very favorable light. Why Eisenhower talked about these persons and not others like Roosevelt and Bradley also amazed me. Why were these people excluded from the book?
Otherwise, another great read from Eisenhower. I hope he has another few books left in him so the history reader can enjoy his work.

Taut and very well written
John Eisenhower's book on the Mexican War persuaded to me to purchase this book and I am glad I did. Eisenhower writes extremely well and always in an entertaining, informative style. This ability to convey details in a personal way enhances this splendid look at Ike in the pivotal period 1940-1945. Though John didn't see too much of his father during this turbulent times, he obviously knows much behind the scenes information which he now imparts to the reader.

This isn't a full-scale biography of Ike (consult Ambrose for that), but rather contains different chapters on famous military personalities in Ike's orbit. These include the pompous MacArthur, who said of Eisenhower in the Philippines, "He was the best clerk I ever had," Patton, Bradley, Churchill and Monty. General Montgomery was, of course, an insufferable prig and egomaniac, and John details the delicate path Ike had to traverse in keeping the Brit in check. He also reveals many of Ike's thoughts and movements prior to June 6, 1944, D-Day for the Allies.

I highly recommend this book to all who admire Eisenhower, to any WWII buff or anyone who admires taut, well-written historical prose. A great read. ... Read more

Amazon.com

It's no surprise that the biographer of Douglas MacArthur and Ulysses S. Grant clearly conveys the military talents that enabled Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969) to ensure the Allies' victory in World War II, but Geoffrey Perret is equally perceptive when dealing with the personality behind the famously genial grin. Perhaps marked by his father's coldness and grim religious zeal (though his mother was a lively, cheerful woman), Eisenhower never expressed his feelings easily, even to his cherished wife, Mamie. His intelligence and scholarly gifts got the poor boy from Kansas into West Point; his administrative and training abilities made him too valuable at home to be employed for active duty in World War I, much to his chagrin. Professional fulfillment and fame as the general who won WWII couldn't change the self-controlled habits of a military lifetime, and Perret depicts Eisenhower as reluctantly drawn into politics by a sense of duty. Covering his presidency, Perret doesn't let him off the hook about such touchy matters as U.S. involvement in the 1954 overthrow of Guatemala's elected government or the biased hearing that lifted physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer's security clearance. But the author obviously likes Ike, and he helps his readers understand why most Americans in the 1940s and '50s did too. --Wendy Smith ... Read more

Reviews (18)

An Outstanding Biography
In "Eisenhower" Geoffrey Perret gives an outstanding biography of a very interesting and important historical figure. Here we meet Ike from birth to death.

The reader is treated to an introduction to the Eisenhower family, to the father who could never be close to his sons, the mother who had little influence over them and the brothers with whom Ike grew up and continued his mutually supportive relationship through their highly successful careers.

The relationship with Mamie, their lost son, and son John, all reflect Ike's personal strengths and limitations.

Perret does equally well in telling the stories of the junior officer and the commander as well as those of the President and senior statesman.

Eisenhower's evaluations of many of the characters who crossed his path add to the allure of this book. Ike's admiration, followed by his contempt for MacArthur, his dislike of FDR, his lack of respect for Truman and his lack of affection for Nixon, all add to the insight into Ike's times. Omar Bradley, George Marshall, John Foster Dulles, Henry Cabot Lodge and Joseph McCarthy are just a sampling of the world characters who played on Eisenhower's stage.

Perret thoroughly reports each phase of Ike's life in a way as to maintain interest throughout. He comments on Eisenhower's rights and wrongs in a way which provokes thoughts, without seeming to be opinionated. I believe that this is what makes this biography superior so many others..

Very readible with good insights
Based upon sales figures, this effort by Perret is not destined to become a classic as is Ambrose's two volume (later condensed into one) standard biography of Ike. That's too bad because I believe that Perret gives great insights into the human side of Ike, such as his tremendous grief over the death of his first son, and his troubled relationship with his second son, John. Indeed, I recently saw John interviewed on television and John's uncomfortable reactions to being compared to his father, including his striking physical resemblence, show that Perret's observations are well taken. I also was fascinated by Perret's analysis of the Kay Somersby rumors. Perret carefully sifts the evidence and determines that the two were emotionally close but never had sex. Perret points out that if Kay's account is true, they would have been doing it in a common area of a house shared by others. That's highly unlikely. Most importantly, this book backs up recent historians who rate Eisenhower as a better president than did historians of a generation ago. Perret documents a great deal of achievenment in the Eisenhower administration that has previously been overlooked. Ike's seeming detachment was actually calculated and he always was in control and knew exactly what he wanted to do. I recommend this interesting biography.

Readable and interesting
This biography, written with an obvious affection for its subject, focuses largely on Ike's activities in WWII and immediately after. I would have liked a little more about his early life - Perret uses only about 1/5th of the book to get to Ike as a senior officer preparing for US entry into the war in 1940. That was, after all, the first 50 years of his life. By moving through them so quickly, I don't think that Perret gives as much insight as he could into the man.

The war years and just after are covered well. Perret gives sketches of the other major figures Ike dealt with. MacArthur is portayed as an egomaniac and comes off rather badly; Patton and Marshall are seen more positively. Perret is rough on Ike's alleged lover, Kay Summers, who he concludes lied, but he's roughest of all on Bernard Montgomery, who is presented as insubordinate, afraid to commit troops to battle, and incompetent to use them properly when he does. I don't recall anything positive that Perret has to say about Monty.

The post-war years are interesting, but I was not really satisfied with the coverage of the Presidential years. The story hits the main points - Little Rock, the Sherman Adams scandal, the Checkers speech, Sputnik, the U2 incident, but doesn't give enough of an insider perspective to give any new insight on most of them. One thing that is covered fairly thoroughly, and the only real surprise I got from this section, is finding out how weak Ike was in standing up to McCarthyism, even when McCarthy and his supporters went after Ike's old friend George Marshall.

In summary, this is hardly a great biography, but it is easy to read despite the considearable size, and has enough value that you'll get a good return for the time spent reading it.

A quick 600 pages
Very well written, it lends itself to being read in a few days. It portrays Ike as a very complex and multifaceted man, much more than I had expected before reading it. I remember, not being able to wait until Ike goes to war in Europe. But actually the African Campaign is the most tedious reading in the book. The most entertaining part of the book, was the political intrigue of the presidency, which I enjoyed immensly. Still, I wish that there had been more about Ike's relationship with Nixon and more explanation of his mysterious final address, in which he spoke of the growing power of the military-industrial complex.

Easy Read, Hits Major Events in even-handed way
Yes, there is too much on Kay Summersby. Today, do we really care if they did or they didn't? Well, perhaps the Ken Starr crowd does. I liked the book cause I felt like the guy was objective. No small feat with a recent president. I believe Perret when he says Eisenhower was a great soldier, and a fair to good president.

The book shines when discussing Ike's decision to run for president. I believe Perret when he said it was primarily to stop Taft and MacArthur...for that Americans should be thankful. Ike did a good job on missle defense, again, Americans should be thankful. But Ike trusted people he should not have, especially John Foster Dulles and his brother who led American down a path of interventionism that cost thousands of lives and unnecessarily made America enemy #1 in too many parts of the globe. And Ike lied about it later. I guess no one is a saint. For this very human account, I recommend it. ... Read more