110 of 119 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Readable, But Limited and Disappointing Book on Ike, August 26, 2007
When I saw this book for the first time, I was excited (as always) when a new Eisenhower book comes out. He is my favorite historical personality to study, and was even a central figure in my Thesis when I completed my Masters Degree in History. However, once I looked at the book, my disappointment began to develop almost from the start.
The book jacket's description would lead you to believe that this would be a comprehensive biography, but one need only look at the Table of Contents to figure out it is not. Instead, Korda's book joins the long list of books to focus on Eisenhower's role in the military and in World War II, but only glosses over his two terms as President of the United States. In doing so, Korda actually contradicts one of his own stated thesis points on Ike, i.e. that he was one of our greatest Presidents. If, as Korda says, he was one of our greatest Presidents, why does he only spend all of one and a half chapters on his presidency? Ridiculous!
Eisenhower was an extremely important President, and one overlooked for too long until Greenstein and Ambrose resurrected him from the depths of the Presidential rankings in the 1980's. Sadly, Korda's work adds next to nothing to the growing body of historical work on Eisenhower's presidency.
But, still interested in reading what Korda had to say on Eisenhower, I bought the book and read it. The one positive thing I have to say about it is that it is a flowing, easy, enjoyable read, and I mostly agreed with Korda's thesis points on Ike's military career.
But in reality, Korda adds almost nothing new or important to the historical work on Ike's military career either. There are several other books already out there that provide a much more detailed study and/or important information on Ike's military career, including the lengthy books by Carlo D'Este, Merle Miller, and Stephen Ambrose. All of these books already say pretty much what Korda says in terms of detailed information, but also add much more to the story of Ike's military career than Korda does.
I will gladly keep this book in my ever growing library of historical works on Eisenhower, but I predict it will not be regarded as THE standard for a biography on Eisenhower, nor even THE standard for one volume works on Ike. That honor, in my view, still goes to Stephen Ambrose's work. His two volumes on Eisenhower ("Eisenhower-Soldier, General of the Army, President-Elect" and "Eisenhower-the President") are still the most complete, detailed, informative, and accurate work on this important American leader. Ambrose's one volume abridgement (Eisenhower-Soldier and President) is still the best one volume work on Eisenhower's complete life and career.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
39 of 42 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
An enjoyable and insightful read, September 4, 2007
Although this is a long book, it is also a quick read due in no small part to the author's crisp writing style, which holds the reader's interest. This is a very engaging biography of a great American general.
The best part of this book is its beginning. The author immediately puts the subject matter of this biography in context by pointing out that "heros" are really not part of the American culture, and generally those who experience acclaim in their lifetimes are later the subject of criticism and revisionism. Thus US Grant had a drinking problem, Lincoln did not free the slaves as quickly or as completely as he ought, etc. Thus it is with Eisenhower as well. While "Ike" received adulation in his lifetime for leading the Western armies to victory against Germany, revisionists have been at him ever since criticizing his "broad front" strategy against Germany, his alleged "hands off" leadership style as both General and President, etc. The famous "Eisenhower grin" is taken by revisionists as nothing more than evidence that Ike was a shallow chap who made it to the top by virtue of a pleasant personality. Nothing, the author points out, was more predictable than that this type of revisionism would occur.
This biography makes the case that Eisenhower was in fact a remarkable man with numerous gifts including intelligence, integrity, and the ability to gain the confidence of superiors by his exercise of these traits. One also discerns that Eisenhower had the ability to see through detail to find and solve the main component of a problem.
This biography makes it plain that Eisenhower was identified by several powerful Army generals fairly early in his career, as someone destined for high rank and great responsibility. First General Conner (who I had never heard of) groomed Ike and saw to it that he attended the Army's Command and General Staff School and other schools that Army "comers" seek to attend. Conner brought Ike to the attention of General Marshall, who no one has ever accused of being subject to influence by someone's vapid "nice guy" personality. In a very short time Marshall saw to it that Ike was placed in charge of implementing America's plans to defeat Nazi Germany. The rest, as they say, is history.
Korda's analysis of Ike's performance as Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe is very interesting. Unabashedly pro-Eisenhower, Korda makes the case that Ike had some learning to do on the job (his performance in North Africa was far from perfect) but that he learned quickly. Indeed, the entire American Army was essentially green and not battle-tested; Ike was far from alone in this regard. North Africa served to blood and harden the American Army, including its commander, Eisenhower. It also taught Ike and the British how to fuse two (three, counting the French) armies into a single fighting force.
Korda's thesis of Ike as a General is essentially to liken him to Ulysses S Grant. Korda argues that Eisenhower deduced that to defeat the Germans it was necessary to essentially keep throwing Allied manpower and equipment against them, keeping them engaged, thereby maximizing the Allies' advantages of material, which derived from America's overwhelming economic-industrial superiority. This strategy mirrors Grant's successful strategy against Lee in the US Civil War, and Korda makes a good case that this strategy, employed by Eisenhower, was the correct one. The British, of course, favored a narrower thrust in the north aimed at Berlin and the German coastal cities (which, by no coincidence, would have meant that Montgomery would lead the main Allied thrust). The reader can make up his or her own mind on this point, but I would argue that Ike's broad front strategy seems to have worked, and it prevented the Germans from attacking the Allies on the flank worse than they in fact did in the Battle of the Bulge. (This was Ike's main argument against the narrow front strategy.)
The author makes a good case that Eisenhower did a good job commanding Allied forces during the Battle of the Bulge, and that this battle in fact was consistent with Ike's strategy of engaging the Germans to the maximum extent possible. (Better to engage them in a mobile battle than to fight dug-in German formations at the Siegfried Line.) In any case, within a month the German Army was soundly trounced by largely American arms, and every soldier in both armies knew that the defeat of Germany was now only a matter of time.
One theme that recurs throughout Korda's analysis of Ike as General is the famous Kay Summersby relationship. Was it innocent, or was it not? The author does not purport to tell us, but does provide the reader with a great deal of insights into this somewhat unusual question.
The book's analysis of Ike as president is much less detailed than the rest of this piece, but is not bad for all that. It paints Ike as a competent president who was largely in tune with the American people, and who led them largely in the direction where they wanted to go, and where the national interest required, i.e. a strong defense against Russia, and avoidance of nuclear conflict.
This is a very good book. I gave it five stars because it is unusually well-written, and it eschews engaging in trendy revisionism of a man who, in fact, dominated the world stage for many years to the very great benefit of America, her allies, and the world.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
22 of 27 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Not without its problems..., August 30, 2007
Ike: An American Hero is a decent treatment of Dwight D. Eisenhower's life, but it pales in comparison to the biographies written by Stephen Ambrose and Carlo D'Este. Korda relied almost exclusively on secondary works for his research, as his endnotes and bibliography indicate; to include Ambrose's and D'Este's books. He acknowledges his debt to previous writers, especially D'Este, but the lack of emphasis on primary research means there is little in Korda's book that is new to students of Eisenhower, World War Two, or the American presidency. Additionally, Korda perpetuates some minor errors regarding Ike's early career that other authors such as Mark C. Bender have taken pains to correct. These weaknesses combine to keep Ike: An American Hero from being a much better book.
Korda compensates for these problems by writing in a lucid style that evidences a strong regard for his subject. He succeeds in keeping the reader engaged in the story of Eisenhower's life, and is at his best when discussing World War II and Ike's relationships with senior officers such as Patton and Montgomery.
Overall, this is a good book, but not a great one. I recommend for the quality of Korda's writing rather than the depth of his research and analysis.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
