Customer Reviews

Ike

5 star:		(23)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(9)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

The first 1/3 of the book is spent on the first 45 years or so of Ike's life, which is remarkable for its dullness. He really did nothing of note or of interest until WW2. Then, most of the rest of the book is dedicated to war-years (which is already well-trodden ground). Relatively little space is dedicated to his two terms as President, which I find appalling. Four years at war get almost 500 pages but 8 years as leader of the most powerful country in the history of the world get maybe 50? A very imbalanced treatment, IMO, and very disappointing.

On a lesser note: the habit of the author to drop (un-translated) French and German phrases is pretentious and annoying. The author also makes a few attempts to dabble in psycho-history, which I've never been able to take seriously. Aside from these minor points, the writing is o.k.

I'm sure one wouldn't have to work very hard to find a better treatment of Eisenhower and his work.

Not terrible but not recommended.

Eisenhower's improbable life certainly makes for an interesting story, and Korda has the skills to keep the narrative flowing. It took Stephen Ambrose two volumes to chronicle Ike's life, as much an Ike booster as Ambrose was, he pales in comparison to Korda. There were a number of things about this book that bothered me. First, Korda seems to think Ike was a demigod and practically won the war by himself. There's no doubt that Eisenhower had the right temperament for a nearly impossible job, but Korda backs him on every decision of the war. Second, the author loves to add little footnotes about how he met such and such when it adds nothing to the narrative. Third, he constantly compares Eisenhower to Grant. I guess this is due to the fact that Korda wrote a biography about Grant and presumably thinks he won the Civil War by himself, too. Finally, he rushes through Ike's presidency in less than 100 pages, and gives him much more credit than other historians. Korda would lead the reader to believe that Eisenhower shined in the Little Rock crisis when in reality he was hardly a leader on civil rights. McArthur, Truman, Roosevelt - all are treated with disdain. Korda doesn't even seem to think much of Churchill. Eisenhower deserved a more balanced, thoughtful biography than this.

Starts off waxing lyrical about how Americans feel uncomfortable making men into heroes - idolizing them as anything special (ignoring monuments to Washington, Lincoln, etc.). Makes factual errors on issues not central to Korda's subject (Ike) and thus showing that he has done little peripheral research. For instance he places Cherbourg in Britanny, not in Normandy.

His sense of geography is terrible. Of "Operation Torch" he writes about how widespread the invasions were, saying "spread across nearly 2,500 miles of coast from Safi, in French Morocco, the easternmost point; to Algiers, the westernmost point". The only problem with this is he's got east and west around the wrong way! Algiers is east of Morocco!

Further he talks of how 30,000 Australian troops were captured with the fall of Tobruk (1942). This never happened. Australians successively defended Tobruk in 1941 against the Germans until the garrison was relieved. Rommel made a resurgent drive across North Africa and then took the port in 1942, capturing its garrison of South Africans. Perhaps he's confused with Australians who were captured at the fall of Singapore, half-way around the world... except he'd already mentioned that fact!

In two short years (1941-43) Dwight David Eisenhower rose from obscurity as a bureaucratic lieutenant colonel (a position he did not obtain until 1936 after sixteen years as a major) in the U.S. Army to a four-star general and commander of armies. Shortly thereafter, he was selected as the Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe, becoming known worldwide as the laconic, amiable, and iconic "Ike". Michael Korda's "Ike: An American Hero" attempts to explain how this transformation came about.

The story starts in Ike's childhood when, as the son of peace-loving Mennonite farmers in Abilene, Kansas, his Weltanschaung was, according to the author, "rooted in common sense, decency, and tolerance, not ideology." Indeed, the author expends a major portion of the book (almost the whole first half) in examining Ike's slow rise from dirt-poor farmer's son to lieutenant colonel. From this laborious examination, we learn that although Ike's true ambition to be a field commander was constantly thwarted and undermined by his unparalled ability as an administrator, honing his skills as an administrator under such legends as Fox Connor and Douglas MacArthur was an excellent proving ground for what was to come after Pearl Harbor when friends recommended Eisenhower to George Marshall as an adept staff leader. In addition, Ike's military experiences in Panama (under Connor) and the Philippines (under MacArthur) gave him an international perspective that many contemporaries lacked but which was vital after the U.S. joined a worldwide alliance against the Axis powers in World War II.

After America becomes a direct combatant in the Second World War, the pace of the book and Ike's career both increase dramatically. Many more well-known figures appear in Ike's life and the author leaves no adjectives unturned in his attempts to describe them. (For example, the author describes George Patton as "eccentric, erratic, vain, deeply emotional, and a full-fledged military romantic in love with the whole idea of glory.") These personalities (e.g., Montgomery, Churchill, de Gaulle, Roosevelt, Stalin), and Ike's interactions with them, are well-described in not only this book but a multitude of other books on World War II and need no belaboring here.

What sets this portion of the book apart from a run of the mill examination of the major historical figures fighting for the Allies in the Second World War in Europe is a close examination of two women in Ike's life during this time: (1) Ike's wife, Mamie Eisenhower (left to herself in a hotel room in Washington, D.C.); and (2) Ike's friend, Kay Summersby (who accompanied Ike throughout his triumphs in the later war years). The inevitable friction between Ike and Mamie resulting from Ike's relationship with Ms. Summersby is explored but certain questions are never answered: E.g., (1) were Ike and Mamie in fact estranged during this period [and was it a result of Ms. Summersby's affections for Ike or was it already in place beforehand]; and (2) did Ike and Ms. Summersby ever consummate their relationship [i.e., did Mamie have grounds for her fears and suspicions]? The author also flirts with Mamie's possible alcoholism but again avoids reaching any conclusion.

The author glosses over Eisenhower's post-war experiences (including, e.g., his tenure as head of the U.S. Occupation Zone in Germany, his role as head of NATO, his experiences as President of Columbia University, and his legacy as President of the United States), devoting less than a sixth of the book to these important periods. (The short shrift the author gives to Eisenhower's presidency is particularly odd since he repeatedly claims that Eisenhower has been vastly underrated as a President and deserves to be ranked among the nation's best not derided as a "do-nothing" and one of its worst.

The overall tone of the book is that Ike could do no wrong. Seemingly every decision he ever made was the correct one.

The author exhorts in his introduction that "a reputation can be revised by a single great book." Unfortunately, given that the author relies to a great extent on the biographies of others and provides no significant new insights into his subject, this is not that book. This is a book, however, that provides a well-written and easy to read basic introduction to Eisenhower.

Pros:
- Wording style is breezy to read
- Some facts are neat and presented well
- Upbeat defense of Eisenhower makes for a positive read

Cons:
- Civil War analogies disruptive, mostly due to author having only a topical understanding of the Civil War. (It was Lincoln, NOT General Grand who had the policy in place for years to deaf generals concerning attacking the enemy army and not the enemy capital. Also, the author should look up the Secretary of War's phrase "Lincoln's Terrible Numbers" and see why he also mis-credited that concept to General Grant. Other analogies fall flat. Great concept, terrible and amateurish application.)
- Huge omissions are glaring. (Where is a discussion of Market Garden beyond a sentence here or there? The introducing statement clearly assumes the book discussed it. Was it cut before publication? Unforgivable Omission! BTW, there are several such omissions.)
- 1/2 the book on WWII, barely a chapter on the Presidency, and even then a choppy one, in terms of the time-line.
- While the words are easy to read, the writing is not always easy to follow. Sometimes there are very abrupt transitions jarring the reader into wondering how they got from THIS subject all of a sudden to THAT one.

Had the Civil War analogies been cut or knowledgeable AND appropriate plus ALL necessary topics concerning WWII and Eisenhower's Presidency been at least considered in proportion to their importance, then this book could have been a 5 star.

Summary: amateurish and misapplied Civil War analogies, flow interrupted by lack of proper transitions, glaring omissions of HUGE subjects, but otherwise a breezy read for a beginner.
I'd say the book was rushed, and the author had a recent but only topical reading of the American Civil War.

Update: I am reading Army at Dawn and am amazed on how many bits I already know. Looked up this book's reference and sure, lots of references. Check this books references. This author relies on second hand sources a lot, whereas groundbreaking biographies today often seek first sources more. See Team of Rivals for the type of modern greatness being written from first sources (instead of just repeating other authors)

In this regard, this book is more like a term paper than scholarly research. Check out Army at Dawn, 541 pages, 540 references.

I liked this book. Overall, it flowed quite well, was informative, interesting and an enjoyable read. But it does have some issues. The author is a decidedly biased Ike fan and definitely anti-British. He takes far too many pokes at British General Montgomery and after the first couple they become tiresome. He also speculates far too often, sometimes even admitting he had no basis whatsoever for the speculation.
If you have not read any books on Ike then this might be a good choice. If you have already read all the others then this one probably will not provide much in the way of anything new.
If you believe or remember Ike to have been an excellent soldier and an excellent President then you will most assuredly enjoy this book.

I found this biography to be an easy and entertaining read but found much of the content and viewpoint extremely biased towards Ike. I agree with many of the reviews posted here stating that there is too much emphasis placed on Ike's relationship with Kate Summersby. I also was very disappointed that there is so little content on his presidential years; important years when he had to deal with a post-war America, McCarthyism, the Cold War, the space race, and increasing racial tensions.

I did take away a couple very favorable impressions from this book. First, the chapters discussing young Ike's ambitions, circumstances, and choices that ultimately lead him to West Point I found very compelling. Secondly, the book did a very good job of highlighting Ike's acumen as a political statesmen and how important that skill was during his time in Africa and Europe. And I'm sure those same skills were immensely useful during his presidency as well but the book, unfortunately, does not delve into that territory.

Overall, this is an entertaining read for any Eisenhower or WWII fan, but anyone looking for a very detailed, thorough, and objective biography of Ike should look elsewhere.