Customer Reviews

The Supreme Commander: The War Years of Dwight D. Eisenhower

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

 

 

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.

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.

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.

This is one of Stephen Ambrose's first efforts after working with Dwight Eisenhower on Eisenhower's personal papers (The Supreme Commander first published in 1970). It is obvious that he was still very much infatuated by Ike's persona at this point in time. As such The Supreme Commander can tell almost as much about Stephen Ambrose as it does Dwight Eisenhower. As other reviewers noted, the criticism of Eisenhower's Hurtgen Forest campaign, the army's replacement policy, and the segregated army of WWII that appears in Ambrose's later work, Citizen Soldier, is missing in The Supreme Commander. Thus one can track Ambrose's maturing as a historian with the passage of time.

Still, even this early offering by Ambrose has his unique narrative style and helps to much to explain how a newly minted brigadier general on December 7, 1941 bypasses many more senior general officers to become a five star general of the army, and the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces, Europe by June 6, 1944. There were many general officers that had a better grasp of tactics, e.g. Patton or perhaps strategy, Alexander or Bradley but none had the understanding and patience that Eisenhower had in building and maintaining coalition forces in a prolonged conflict. He gathered able officers from all nationalities and supported the combined effort not national ambitions. This often frustrated other American generals such as George Patton but it was the course to take. He often supported and backed his commanders even other were calling for the heads - again see Patton. Eisenhower knew who he needed for ultimate victory and insisted upon having their services.

Eisenhower wasn't perfect. He made mistakes such as the deployment of forces that led to the debacle at the Kasserine Pass in North Africa, and his over confidence in December 1944 that the Germans were through and could no longer launch a major offensive. However, he learned from his mistakes and attempted to profit from them. For example turning the early diaster of the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944 into an opportunity in January 1945 to squash what remained of the German Wehrmacht in the West.

All in all, a good but not perfect early effort by Stephen Ambrose and an enlightening one as it shows how he develops into one America's favorite historians of 20th century events.

Some might say Ambrose is the poor man's William Manchester. Certainly American Caesar, Manchester on MacArthur in the Pacific, is perhaps a better book. Better perhaps because of its more fascinating subject. Or better because of its more personal tone. MacArthur was certainly a poseur and so the Pacific campaign was often just all about him. And that gets us to the crux of the matter - bizarre as it may seem, this is not really a book about Ike. Or perhaps it is, in that Ike was there, but he was not really there. Someone once wrote that all men have in them a wild red dog, that once let out they become dangerous, but also capable of true greatness, or true evil. What stops most or at least many from letting that dog out is ambition. What drives a proud capable man to write a carefully crafted flattering letter of apology to a superior? Ambition. What drives us to keep our mouth shut at a crucial time? Ditto. Ike was so ambitious that he didn't see the title of Supreme Commander, Allied Forces as the pinnacle of his career, and he was right. So, the prototype of the modern politician, Ike the General here is the master deal maker, compromise maker, a fairly pro-Anglo American general running the Anglo-American coalition. By the fact that he was willing to say or do almost anything to keep the coalition, and thus his own reputation and future prospects, alive - amd that he succeeded, handsomely at times - is testimony to how shut up that wild dog was.

Thus is a long read, and often, especially with the rather prosaic Ambrose style, quite dull. But don't let that put you off! Once you have slogged through the prologue and rather turgid Italian campaign - why were the allies in Italy? Answer: because they were in North Africa. Why were they in North Africa? Something about promising Stalin they would attack somewhere in 1943 - what a great reason! - you start to appreciate this long journey on into France with Patton, Bradley and Monty et al. Ambrose, Ike's official biographer, who met him personally near the end of his life, is about as pro his subject as it is possible to be. Perhaps Ike's steadiness rubbed off as Ambrose also manages to give most of the Allied commanders a fair shake (or benefit of the doubt, if you like). So, little intrigue, a long, complex campaign - if you aren't a huge fan of Ike, and I wasn't right off the bat, you will come away with a certain appreciation of his talents - perhaps he was indeed the right man for the job.

This was a hefty book I put off for a long time due to its size. I thought 670 pages had to be excessive as a biography of only one person over a period of only 4 years. It was. This was much more than merely a biography. This was an excellent birds-eye view of the entire course of American involvement in North Africa, the Mediterranean, and Europe in WWII. It was a very good and often surprising account of the war.

Although I enjoy war books that include perspectives of the soldiers in the line, too narrow a focus leaves out the context. Likewise, leaving out the experience of the people doing the fighting, the killing, the bleeding and the dying gives a less-than-complete story. Of course, at the end of the day, no single book--no number of books no matter how large--will transmit the totality of the thing. Still, the very best, I feel, transition from command to front-line and back and achieve a balance. I think Rick Atkinson's Army at Dawn and Day of Battle are great examples. This book, though still excellent, did not address the soldiers' experiences (though Ambrose's "Citizen Soldiers" is one of my all time favorites and does very well at that.)

So this one did give a great view of the war, but it was very much, even sometimes disturbingly, separated and isolated from the horror and suffering of those giving their lives to execute the decisions made at AFHQ and SHAEF. It was often chilling but, I think, realistic, to see the depersonalized processes of directing war at high levels; the disconnect between that and the intimacy of the act of taking a man's life face-to-face was a real and unvarnished aspect of this account of war.

Ambrose was an advocate for Eisenhower throughout, but of course all biographers tend to err on the side of serving the subject as their "relationship" with their subject develops through their writing and research. Ambrose's bias is not bold or blind--he does acknowledge mistakes and counter-arguments--but it is at least visible enough that the reader does not have to wonder and guess at how the author's bias is entering his work. It's better that way sometimes, so that you can account for the bias rather than having to wonder.

All in all this was a very worthwhile read despite its length, and its length contributed to a very satisfying feeling at having finished it. I average about 3 to 7 days for a typical nonfiction war book 300-500 pages. This one took me 14 days exactly.

Overall, this was excellent, but not among the very very best, though Ambrose has certainly delivered many that make that cut.

While rife with adulation for Eisenhower, The Supreme Commander is essential reading for those who yearn for a deeper understanding of the Allied victory in Europe. Ambrose does a very credible job of explaining the challenges facing any commander of a force as large as the one assembled to retake Europe. But due to his unique relationship and intimate knowledge of Eisenhower the person, he brings great insight into this work.

Why was an American placed in charge of this huge multi-national force based mostly in England to wrest the continent away from the Germans? After all, the British had been fighting the Germans for more than 2 years before America entered the war. The simple answer was Churchill acquiesced because America would supply the bulk of the men and material to process the war but did so against the wishes of his own senior military commanders who considered the Americans to be brash and overreaching. The key to making this work was for the Americans to appoint a unifier; a leader and a diplomat-warrior to effectively head up the coalition and keep it together. Eisenhower was judged correctly to be such a leader.

While not the cleverest tactician or most daring commander (Eisenhower never personally led men in battle), he was best suited for the job of Supreme Commander by virtue of his grasp of the big picture. He not only had to review and approve all of the battle plans, he had to spend enormous amounts of time conferring with Prime Minister Churchill, ameliorating the sensibilities of his British staff (almost all of his "second in commands" were British) and the bruised egos of his American subordinates.

He performed this delicate balancing act with grace and humility. D-Day was such a pivotal event that he prepared a letter assuming personal responsibility should the endeavor fail. The fact that it succeeded was due in no small part to his considerable efforts as The Supreme Commander.

John E. Nevola
Author of The Last Jump - A Novel of World War II

Stephen Ambrose has written some of the best WW@ history ever and this is no exception. Here we see the REAL general Eisenhower, the doubts along with the confidence, the heartaches along with the triumph. For a rare glimpse of the higest levels of command in the most important moment in the twentieth century, this is it.