Customer Reviews

Eisenhower: Soldier and President (Touchstone Book)

5 star:		(22)
4 star:		(18)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Eisenhower is generally regarded as a do-nothing President, one whose only legacy to the country is his face on the discontinued silver dollar and who only left for the presidency a putting green on the White House grounds. Surrounded as he was by two younger and more idealistic men in the history books, Ambrose clearly sees something of value in his eight years in office, and after reading this book, I somewhat agree.

However, just to do an Eisenhower biography focusing on the Presidency would be insufficient: as a general, he masterminded Operation Overlord and led the final assault on Germany, in the process defeating German genius Erwin Rommel. The first half or so of the book details his military successes and failures, his relationships with Generals Marshall and MacArthur, and how his remarkable victory came about. However, few deny that Ike was a great military leader. His presidency, on the other hand, is a quite contentious matter to this day, and Ambrose defends his record. He doesn't obfuscate facts, though: Eisenhower declined to take leadership on the single most important issue of his term in office: civil rights. The book makes it very clear that Ike's sympathies were with the southerners in the integration battles, and although his response to the Warren Court's decision to end segregation was far from Jackson's famous one ("John Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it"), he didn't enforce Warren's sweeping proclamation with much vigor. In fact, for several years, he didn't enforce it at all. It took outright defiance for him to act, which he ultimately did. The book claims that Eisenhower's nomination of Earl Warren as Chief Justice was something that he always approved of, even if he had differences with the great Chief, which would be a real revelation if true, since he famously referred to Warren as "the biggest damned-fool mistake I ever made." In spite of Ike's reticence to rigorously enforce desegregation, he did appoint Warren and William Brennan to the Court, both of whom would at least help his legacy on this issue. Eisenhower's presidency was extremely secretive, perhaps just as much as Nixon's (and the current Bush's), but he took the constitutionally murky step of using executive privilege to try to shut down, indirectly, the McCarthyist fear machine. Ambrose also rightly admonishes Ike for failing to denounce the demagogue himself. Also, using the CIA to incite rebellion and assassinate foreign leaders was unprecedented, although, like executive privilege, he was not the chief abuser of these extra-legal powers (LBJ did more with the CIA, and for executive privilege, you know who). However, Ambrose points out many of his successes also: he was the only President of the 20th century (aside from Clinton) to preside over two full terms of peace and prosperity, and one of an even smaller group that left office with a popularity rating higher than when he entered (also, incidentally, like Clinton). It is interesting to note the two men's similarities: both won the presidency after the opposing party had been entrenched in the White House for years, both were moderate compromisers, both were thought of by their detractors as do-nothing presidents and by their supporters as great ones. There's a book I'd like to see, but I'm getting off subject. Eisenhower got us out of Korea, kept us out of Vietnam (despite elaborate efforts to "get us in"), continued Truman's multilateralist policy in containing communism, urged calm and restraint at a time of great fear and paranoia, and history has proven him right at questioning the sanity of the missile gap, warning us of the military-industrial complex, and avoiding conflict in Southeastern Asia. Now, if only we'd listened to those ideas...

Although many might characterize Eisenhower's presidency as a catalogue of missed chances, he provided stable leadership and political moderation at a polarized time. Unlike some reviewers, I am not bothered by Ambrose's open admiration of his subject. Ask any historian if it's possible to write unbiased history and they'll say it's not. If they say they're unbiased, they're lying. I'd just as soon, in the interests of full disclosure, hear where the author stands in order to evaluate him. For his wise but flawed leadership, Eisenhower has earned a place in history, and this is a great introduction to a pivotal figure in 20th century history.

You can tell that Stephen Ambrose truly likes and admires his subject, Dwight Eisenhower, yet he's able to present a very balanced sketch of the 34th President in "Eisenhower: Soldier and President".

This is Ambrose's condensed, one-volume biography based on his earlier two-volume work, but I didn't feel as though I was missing out on anything.

I gained a better understanding of the realities of war from this book. Eisenhower knew when he launched the D-Day invasion, that thousands of soldiers would die even if the mission was successful. It made me think back to earlier in the book, when a young Eisenhower bemoaned the fact that World War I had ended before the West Point graduate saw any 'action'. Be careful what you wish for. Even in monumental success, there had to be quite a weight on Eisenhower's soul from all the young lives lost under his command.

I had a little trouble warming up to Eisenhower as reluctant politician. He obviously wanted to run for President, he just didn't want to be seen as someone who wanted to run - he insisted on seeming above the fray, passively waiting to be drafted into presidential politics. Similarly, he liked to act like he was above party politics, was coy about his party affiliation for quite a long time, didn't really want to be associated with Republican party politics - he just seemed like he was in the mushy middle to me.

Ambrose provides interesting insight into Eisenhower's relationship with his Vice President, Richard Nixon. When they were running in 1952 and Nixon was engulfed in the financial controversy that led to the famous "Checkers" speech, Eisenhower once again was passive - he didn't back Nixon up, he listened too much to the (mostly liberal, Nixon-hating) traveling media, he left it up to people sending telegrams to the RNC as to whether he'd keep Nixon on the ticket. The interesting thing, however, is that Eisenhower was infuriated by a little-remembered aspect of the "Checkers" speech. Nixon challenged the candidates on the Democrat ticket to disclose all of their finances, as he had done. Eisenhower knew that he would now have to disclose his finances as well and the intensely private Eisenhower (at least with regard to his finances) never forgave Nixon for causing this invasion of his financial privacy.

Sometimes when I read a book like this, the most bizarre and trivial thing will stick with me. In the case of President Eisenhower, it was this unusual example of candidate Eisenhower's detachment from everyday American life, found on p.299 of the paperback edition: "To leave his mind and his time free, he had others to do the most basic of human chores for him. He did not dress himself - John Moaney, his valet, put on his underwear, socks, shoes, pants, shirt, jacket and tie." Unfortunately, now everytime I hear Eisenhower mentioned, I think about how he had a manservant to put his underwear on for him. I mean, how free does your mind have to be? (Thanks a lot Mr. Ambrose, I can't unring that bell).

This is an enjoyable and informative book. I knew next to nothing about Eisenhower before I opened it and I learned a lot. While I wouldn't say that Mr. Ambrose's book made me want to learn even more about Ike, it did make me want to read other Ambrose books.

Ambrose edited the Eisenhower Papers project for many years and finally turned his talents on writing a large-scale biography of Ike. The Ike opus is infinitely superior to Ambrose's earlier biography on Henry Halleck and his research and knowledge about Ike 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 still the definitive look at Eisenhower, even if it is a completely uncritical examination.

With D-DAY, CITIZEN SOLDIERS, and UNDAUNTED COURAGE, Stephen E. Ambrose has taken his place with Sir Martin Gilbert, Michael Grant, and Gerald Posner as a top historian.

With EISENHOWER: SOLDIER AND PRESIDENT, his earlier biography of the man most responsible for the Allied victory in WWII, we can see his talents beginning to come into bloom.

This volume is an abridgement of a two-parter Ambrose authored, and, as such, is not the book CITIZEN SOLDIERS is. Further, there are those who hold that Eisenhower as President really did nothing (a canard this book helps to dispel), and so would be quite boring as the subject of a book.

In truth, neither is the case. Ambrose forcefully catalogues Eisenhower's accomplishments, both on the battlefield and in the Oval Office. And, in spite of his obvious asffection for Ike, he is not afraid to deal with the General's shortcomings--his temper, his early failing as a commander, his reluctance to help the Civil Rights Movement, and his use of the CIA in covert actions.

Along the way, he paints a marvelous picture of a humane warrior, a man who detested battle beyond even the pacifists of his generation because he'd actually seen what it could do. And he gives a much-needed boost to a presidency that did much more than meets the eye in terms of preserving peace and prosperity in an otherwise dangerous world climate.

EISENHOWER: SOLDIER AND PRESIDENT, then, is a great place to start for both an understanding of the importance of Ike AND an introduction to the writing talent of Ambrose.

Quite interesting and readable biography, probably not for experts but an excellent starting point to get your Ike on. History's been increasingly kinder to his presidency as the years go by, and certainly Stephen Ambrose makes the case for his achievements. It's also fascinating to discover that Ike saw no combat in WWI (much to his dismay), and that even just a few years before Pearl Harbor (after nearly three decades in the Army) he'd expected to rise no higher than colonel (and that not until 1950). Definitely a story worth reading.

Dwight Eisenhower is one of the great American historical figures of the 20th century. Stephen Ambrose - one of Ike's primary biographers - is one of the great American historians of the 20th century. Put the two together, and the expected result is a great book. Mostly, this expectation was fulfilled.

I must admit to being somewhat partial to Mr. Ambrose's work. I read a tremendous amount of historical pieces, and his always rates very high with me for sheer readability, quality presentation, and non-revisionist sense of writing. I try very hard to not let this "bias" affect my reviews; however, when you write so well time and time again, it is hard not to become a big fan of any author.

I noted some earlier reviews where people wanted more "meat" out of this book. These people failed to note in the introduction that the book was a condensed edition of the multi-volume work Mr. Ambrose wrote several years before this. It is impossible to not be "lean" in some areas - as one reviewer put it - when there is so much material to draw from and only one book to put it in. I will concede that a few of the "lean" portions are a drawback in this book, but given the nature of the beast, it is a minor nuisance.

Eisenhower's life in the military and the presidency are remarkable in that both facets affect government and the military to this day. From a political standpoint, it is almost amusing to read of the strong similarity of the issues (and solutions to them) from his time and now. Issues like the balanced budget, defense spending, etc, were all things Ike coped with then. The arguments on both sides in the '50's are so much like today's that if it were possible to transport Ike to the year 2000, he wouldn't miss a beat!

Having read large portions of Mr. Ambrose's multi-volume set in the course of study for research papers, I commend him for being able to condense it all down into this one book. Mr. Ambrose's prose usually flows so smoothly, but this book is an exception. However, it's choppiness in places is really to be expected in the process that spawned this book. It is still highly readable for virtually all audiences, and is a worthwhile read to gain some knowledge of the remarkable man that Dwight Eisenhower was.

When Dwight David Eisenhower left the presidency he was one the few men to leave more popular than when he entered, but most observes believed that he had abdicated nearly all his duties to his subordinates. Since then things have changed. With access to the declassified papers of the Eisenhower Presidential Library, historians now see Ike as a man in control of the decision making process, delegating only the implementation of his policies. The dean of these revisionist historians was the late Stephen E. Ambrose. A military historian and a former editor of "The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower" who was recruited to this project by the former President himself, Ambrose was well-qualified to write this study.

Ambrose originally wrote a two-volume account that was published in the early 1980s to a good deal of public acclaim. This one volume work is a condensed version. Despite suffering some controversy towards the end of his life over his slipshod citations methods (a long-time characteristic of his work), Ambrose has produced an important and original work of history. Although new work in the field has dated potions of this book (Carlo D'Este's military biography, which concludes with the end of World War II, is better and more detailed on the first half of Ike's life) this book is still the best single volume biography on Eisenhower.

In the presidential years it is no surprise that Ambrose concentrates on world affairs. Ending the Korean war was the first foreign policy issue that Ike had to address. Despite the unsatisfactory end of this conflict, many American leaders still favored the use of military force in other hot spots. Each time a crisis broke out, be it Dien Bien Phu, the repeated incidents in the Strait of Taiwan, or Berlin, Eisenhower opted for a peaceful resolution. Ambrose gives him good grades for his sound judgment but also for keeping his diplomatic options open during these tense moments.

The civil-military relationship is another area where Ambrose gives Eisenhower a positive assessment. The President was reluctant to approve massive new arms appropriation programs, fearing the damage deficit financing would due to the economy. He also worried that a huge military-industrial complex would turn the United States into a police state. If that happened it would not really matter who won the Cold War. In order to achieve the proper balance between ends and means, Eisenhower came to depend on nuclear weapons, getting "more bang for the buck." Depending on nukes resulted in his administration favoring the Air Force, which led to stringent criticisms from the other services. Ike ended up firing Matthew Ridgway as Army Chief of Staff. Another Chief-of-Staff Maxwell Taylor wrote a critical book about Eisenhower's defense policy after he retired. Civil-military relations were actually quite polarized in the 1950s and I think Ambrose is wrong in giving Eisenhower good marks on this topic.

Domestic politics was an issue Eisenhower had to address one way or another and Ambrose covers this topic as well. In these matters, he tends to be more critical of his subject. At a conference I attended, I saw Ambrose discuss his writing. He said he "loved" Eisenhower and knew that he had to be critical of him in some area for anyone to take his book seriously. That criticism comes mainly in the area of civil rights. The President met with black leaders only once during this eight years in office. He never understood the desires of black Americans for full access to the privileges of citizenship and sympathized more with white southerners. Still, he did his job and finished desegregating the military, signed the first civil rights bill since reconstruction, and enforced a court order to integrate Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. Ambrose, though, is right when he argues that Eisenhower could have done more if he had wanted to do more.

Economics receives little attention in this book, even though Ambrose approves of what Eisenhower did. The American economy grew and Ambrose believes it was because Ike kept the budget balanced. In the end, Eisenhower gave the people what they wanted: peace and prosperity. Something they had not had since 1929. Given the importance of economics to Ike's success--the absence of an in-depth study is serious weakness.

Ambrose's admiration of Eisenhower is readily apparent and sometimes gets in the way. His biography of Richard Nixon is better, because Ambrose did not like his subject and that forced him to concentrate on his professional objectivity.

These issues aside, this biography is a wonderful study of Eisenhower. Ambrose says we were "damned luck to have him." Indeed, we were.

If you are only going to read one biography about Eisenhower, this one-volume version by Stephen Ambrose is the one to choose. Ambrose exhibits his deep and comprehensive knowledge of his subject and in the process provides the reader with with a real sense of Eisenhower.

While Ambrose does highlight Ike's shortcomings where appropriate, there is no doubt that he had a deep admiration for his subject. This admiration leads him to write the book from a certain perspective - not necessarily biased, but certainly favorably disposed. If you are looking for a different take on Ike (albeit narrowly focused on his relationship with Truman) read David McCullough's Truman.

Overall, this a solid book from a great author.

As a young historian, Stephen Ambrose met with General Eisenhower, on numerous occasions, at Eisenhower's Gettysburg, PA home. If you ever heard the late Mr. Ambrose interviewed, you would detect his unbounded affection for the former President. Yet, in writing this biography, Ambrose was surprisingly objective about Eisenhower. He even went so far as to decry Eisenhower's silence on Civil Rights issues as almost "criminal." Unlike detracters of Eisenhower (see Tom Wicker's short biography, for example), Ambrose gives a balanced assesment of Eisenhower's presidency. Ambrose also covers Eisenhower's miliatary career and his career between WWII and his assuming the presidency,

Ambrose sees Eisenhower's greatest success as having avoided nuclear war in the most dangerous decade of the twentieth century. In Indochina, the French who were trying to protect their empire were about to fall at Dien Bien Phu and there was tremendous pressure for the United States to get involved. Eisenhower correctly observed that Americans would not want to go back to southeast Asia a year after leaving Korea. There was a subtle pressure, however, to launch a nuclear strike. There had been the same pressure in Korea and there was more such pressure after the fall of Dien Bien Phu. In all, Ambrose cites at least five instances where nuclear strikes were a real possibility. Eisenhower steered clear of all such pressures.

Eisenhower was concerned about the arms race and he resisted pressure from both Democrats and Republicans to engage in an unabated production of bombs and missles, despite Democratic allegations of a "missle gap." One of his great disappointmemts was his inability to enter into an arms control treaty with the Soviet Union. Such a treaty seemed possible but, when an American U2 spy plane was shot down over Russia, all hopes were dashed.

Eisenhower often used jumbled syntax but, generally, this was a ruse so that he could confuse reporters and, therefore, straddle an issue. In fact, he was very precise in the way he spoke. He managed to keep his distance from McCarthy without formally denouncing him. However, in perhaps his most shameful moment, when Eisenhower made a campaign speech in McCarthy's home state of Wisconsin, he excised a defense of General Marshall who McCarthy had attacted as disloyal. Eisenhower regretted having done this but, earlier in the campaign, in a different venue, at least he did give a spirited defense of Marshall. Significantly, in Wicker's biogrophy, which I earlier mentioned, Wicker makes no mention of the earlier defense of Marshall. As I said before, Ambrose is fair; he exposes the warts but, he also raises points in Eisenhower's defense when there is such a negative issue raised.

Eisenhower was far from a perfect President. He certainly enforced the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision, most notably in Little Rock when he sent in troops to force the integration of schools. However, he didn't really speak out on the issue of civil rights. A stronger defense of the Court's decision might have made integration move more smoothly but Eisenhower was too concerned that integration might cause southern states to abandon public schools in favor of all white private schools. On the other hand, Eisenhower did support a Civil Rights bill and he was deeply concerned about the lack of voting rights for blacks in the South. Unfortunately, Congress watered down the legislation. Indeed, even some liberal Democrats, such as Frank Church, opposed strong legislation. Nontheless, the first Civil Rights law since reconstruction was sponsored by Eisenhower and passed under his administration.

Eisenhower's legacy as a soldier is unassailable. He dealt with martinets such as Field Marshall Montgomery and other allied generals in forging together a successful and victorious team. He was, a great general and, on balance, I believe that Ambrose has shown Eisenhower to be one of the better Presidents if for no other reason than he avoided nuclear war when it was a genuine possibility.

Dwight Eisenhower helped make Stephen Ambrose's career as a historian after reading the author's biography of the obscure Henry Halleck. Ambrose repays the debt in spades with this well written authoritative account of Eisenhower's life. This is history writing at its most readable. Ambrose portrays Ike as a genuine American hero, but does not ignore the negative, such as his suspected affair during World War. Most importantly, this is a book for readers who do not want to get bogged down in the minutia surrounding every event in Eisenhower's life. What you get is a good overview, detailed enough to give a good portrait of the man behind the legend.