What do you think?
Rate this book
Ike: An American Hero
A big, ambitious, and enthralling new biography of Dwight D. Eisenhower, full of fascinating details and anecdotes, which places particular emphasis on his brilliant generalship and leadership in World War Two, and provides, with the advantage of hindsight, a far more acute analysis of his character and personality than any that has previously been available, reaching the conclusion that he was perhaps America's greatest general and one of America's best presidents, a man who won the war and thereafter kept the peace.
Ike starts with the story of D–Day, the most critical moment in America's history. It was Hitler's last chance to win the war –– he had the means to destroy the troops on the beaches, but he failed to react quickly enough. The one man who would have reacted quickly and decisively had he been on the spot, Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, was home on leave and didn't arrive back at his headquarters until it was too late. It was Ike's plan, Ike's decision, Ike's responsibility. He alone, among all the Allied generals, could win or lose the war in one day, and knew it.
But of course there is more to this book than military history. It is a full biography of a remarkable man, ambitious, a late starter, a brilliant leader of men and perhaps the only American general who could command such a difficult coalition, and win the respect of not only his own soldiers, but also those of Great Britain and France, and lead them to a triumphant victory.
It is also the story of a remarkable family. Ike grew up in Abilene, Kansas, and the Eisenhowers were Mennonites, who, like the Amish, were deeply committed pacifists, so it is ironic that he went to West Point and became a general, to his mother's horror. It is as well the portrait of a tumultuous and often difficult marriage, for Mamie was every bit as stubborn and forceful as her husband, and it was by no means the sunny, happy marriage that Republican publicists presented to the public when Ike made his first moves towards the presidency.
Indeed, behind Ike's big grin and the easy–going, affable personality he liked to project was a very different man, fiercely ambitious, hot–tempered, shrewd, and tightly wound. He was a perfectionist for whom duty always came first, and a man of immense ability. In 1941 he was a soldier who was still an unknown and recently promoted colonel, and just two years later he was a four–star general who had commanded the biggest and most successful amphibious operation in history –– TORCH, the Anglo–American invasion of North Africa. He commanded respect and was dealt as an equal with such world figures as President Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Charles De Gaulle.
Ike starts with the story of D–Day, the most critical moment in America's history. It was Hitler's last chance to win the war –– he had the means to destroy the troops on the beaches, but he failed to react quickly enough. The one man who would have reacted quickly and decisively had he been on the spot, Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, was home on leave and didn't arrive back at his headquarters until it was too late. It was Ike's plan, Ike's decision, Ike's responsibility. He alone, among all the Allied generals, could win or lose the war in one day, and knew it.
But of course there is more to this book than military history. It is a full biography of a remarkable man, ambitious, a late starter, a brilliant leader of men and perhaps the only American general who could command such a difficult coalition, and win the respect of not only his own soldiers, but also those of Great Britain and France, and lead them to a triumphant victory.
It is also the story of a remarkable family. Ike grew up in Abilene, Kansas, and the Eisenhowers were Mennonites, who, like the Amish, were deeply committed pacifists, so it is ironic that he went to West Point and became a general, to his mother's horror. It is as well the portrait of a tumultuous and often difficult marriage, for Mamie was every bit as stubborn and forceful as her husband, and it was by no means the sunny, happy marriage that Republican publicists presented to the public when Ike made his first moves towards the presidency.
Indeed, behind Ike's big grin and the easy–going, affable personality he liked to project was a very different man, fiercely ambitious, hot–tempered, shrewd, and tightly wound. He was a perfectionist for whom duty always came first, and a man of immense ability. In 1941 he was a soldier who was still an unknown and recently promoted colonel, and just two years later he was a four–star general who had commanded the biggest and most successful amphibious operation in history –– TORCH, the Anglo–American invasion of North Africa. He commanded respect and was dealt as an equal with such world figures as President Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Charles De Gaulle.
800 pages, Hardcover
First published August 21, 2007
About the author
Michael Korda
57 books178 followersis an English-born writer and novelist who was editor-in-Chief of Simon & Schuster in New York City.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 145 reviews
February 19, 2017
”A man who has successfully commanded millions of men in battle, who has made the most difficult and far-reaching military decision of all time, and who accepted the formal surrender of Nazi Germany, must have a core of steel; a streak of ruthlessness; the ability to make cold, hard, objective decisions; and an imperial sense of command, however well disguised they may be by a big grin and a firm handshake.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower almost didn’t go to West Point. He wanted to go, but his best friend decided to go to Annapolis and Swede talked Dwight into applying with him. When the Senator was looking over their applications he decided that Dwight was going to replace a young man from Kansas who had just dropped out of West Point.
The fickleness of fate.
If Dwight D. Eisenhower had went to Annapolis he might have been Ike, but he never would have been IKE. He would have been successful, but he probably would have never been POTUS. His parents were both Mennonites. His mother later switched to Jehovah's Witness; regardless whatever their religious affiliation, they were appalled that their son wanted to be a soldier. It went against everything they believed. They were a poor family, held upright by the generosity of Ike’s grandfather.
The Eisenhower Family. Front row: Father David, Milton and Mother Ida. Back row: Dwight, Edgar, Earl, Arthur, and Roy.
All six Eisenhower brothers were successful, some even became wealthy. After the war when Dwight was touring Abilene, Kansas he saw a sign in front of his old house proclaiming it to be the birthplace of General Eisenhower. He became furious. He was famous for his volcanic temper. He demanded that the sign be changed to say Birthplace of the Eisenhower brothers. At the time he was one of the most famous men in the world. When it came to his brothers he never let his accomplishments overshadow theirs... at least not in his own mind.
During WW1 he was asked to train new recruits. Despite frequently requesting to be transferred overseas so he could command men in action his superiors felt he was much more useful getting men ready for war. One particular recruit by the name of F. Scott Fitzgerald was less than enthusiastic about Ike. In fact he slept through his lectures and disliked him with a burning intensity. Maybe it is a good thing that Fitzgerald’s Brooks Brothers suit never saw the mud of France.
Ike bored Fitzgerald. The young lad looked good in uniform though.
Ike worked for Douglas MacArthur for almost seven years as a key member of his staff in the Philippines. I think this turned out to be very fortunate posting because dealing with the ego of MacArthur prepared him for his eventual job as Supreme Commander when he had to contend with the massive egos of Montgomery, Churchill, De Gaulle, Patton, Roosevelt, and Stalin. Because MacArthur had a beautiful Eurasian mistress, who he went to see every afternoon for several hours, Ike had to cover for him. He also had to work until late into the night because that was when MacArthur liked to work best. Mamie was not amused.
The wooing Young Eisenhower.
When Ike was trying to win the hand of Mamie Doud he decided to show his worthiness by transferring to the burgeoning aviation division because they were paying flyers much more than what he could make in the Army. Her father told him that he could not marry Mamie if he became a flyer. Mr. Doud felt it was too dangerous a profession. Ike tore up the application papers and got married.
The wheel of fate rolled back into the proper groove.
Even though he loathed professional politicians he was actually very good at politics. He mastered the art of being ambiguous. As President this evasiveness was sometimes misconstrued as dithering or vagueness or even incompetence when in reality Ike was unwilling to ever be badgered into giving an opinion that would restrict his decisions later. He was confident in his own judgments and would not allow anyone to force him into policies or military decisions that he was not comfortable with.
Ike would never lead men into battle, at least not the way he wanted to. His competency kept him away from the fields of war and strapped him to a desk. His superiors recognized him as a man who could see the big picture. He could keep proper perspective of the power that they would eventually be asking him to shoulder. As he surpassed his old boss MacArthur and his old friend Patton who both had what he craved, battle field experience, his loyalties to both men were severely tested as Ike needed them to be men who lead, but who could also follow. When a woman asked MacArthur years later if he knew Eisenhower he retorted: Best damn clerk I ever had.” There might be more than a tinge of bitterness in that statement, but also he was absolutely right.
Eisenhower turned out to be the best damn clerk of the whole damn war.
Vicissitudes of fortune, which spares neither man nor the proudest of his works, which buries empires and cities in a common grave.”---Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
Kay Summersby was never far from Ike.
Ike had a British driver named Kay Summersby, a one time model who became his constant companion during the war. She became famous when she showed up in an article in Life Magazine. Mamie was not amused. It wasn’t unusual for Generals overseas to have pretty young women attached to their staff who did more for them than iron their uniform. Michael Korda is uncertain as to the relationship that Ike and Kay may have had. The history of lust will tell us that more than likely she was providing comfort to Ike above the neck and below the waist. If she was his lover she was someone more than just a bed warmer she was also someone he could trust who didn’t have an agenda.
Korda was reluctant to commit on this subject because there doesn’t seem to be the usual smoking gun of an inappropriate letter or a love child or a symbolic gift that could make a definitive case. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if he didn’t sleep with her? A nontraditional conclusion regarding most powerful men...well...men. Though if he did, frankly, with the stress and strain of his life it certainly would have been forgivable. Knowing Winston Churchill I like to think that he intentionally planted the beauty on Ike and she was feeding him information that Ike might have been reluctant to share with him.
The PINK LADY! Helen Gahagan Douglas.
The presidential chapters are just a few slender reeds compared to the chapters devoted to the war. It is interesting that given the way Ike despised career politicians that he was stuck with Richard Nixon as a running mate. When Ike was making out a list of potential vice presidents Nixon was on the second tier of candidates. Nixon at this point in time was most famous for his electoral victory over Congresswoman Helen Gahagan Douglas in which he accused her of being a communist ”describing her memorably, if ungallantly, as ‘pink right down to her underwear.’” Brilliant, odious, but brilliant for not only does he get a laugh but he gets the titillating laugh of the nudge, nudge, wink, wink variety with the added bonus of reminding everyone, this is 1950 mind you, that she was a woman. (Nixon actually stole the line from her primary challenger Manchester Boddy.)
Nixon gave Eisenhower the willies. Hell, Nixon gave everyone the willies.
I’d like to think the caption is: Eisenhower has just made a joke at Nixon’s expense. Ike is thinking what a DICK and Nixon is thinking what a BALD BASTARD.
Eisenhower did accomplish some civil rights work as President though I think he could have done more. He had a famous showdown with an Arkansas governor over segregation in schools. Ike was convinced as were many white Americans that equal rights needed to come along slowly to keep the powder keg from exploding. He ended the Korean War. He kept the United States out of war for eight years.
Eisenhower’s presidency has been described as boring, but one thing I’ve found with reading presidential biographies is that no presidency is boring. So much happens within this country over a four or eight year span not to mention the world events that have an impact on American policies and politics.
”Never complain, never explain.”-- Disraeli Ike liked that quote and lived it.
Ike was proud of his card playing prowess. He understood concealment, secrecy, and most importantly the ability to bluff. He was not the tactician that Montgomery or MacArthur were. He didn’t have the audacity of Patton or the assured arrogance of De Gaulle. He was not the orator that Churchill or Roosevelt were. But if I had to pick a man to run a war or the man to be president on the verge of WW3 I’d pick Ike every day of the week and twice on Sunday over all these very talented men. His hubris never exceeded his ability to control it. He was a man who knew how to listen, ponder,and make a decision that would steer a course through the gunsmoke of bombastic rhetoric. He was also a man who knew how to be heard over the rattling of sabers. I agree with another Eisenhower biographer, Evan Thomas, that his greatest victories were the wars he did not fight.”
If you wish to see more of my most recent book and movie reviews, visit http://www.jeffreykeeten.com
I also have a Facebook blogger page at:https://www.facebook.com/JeffreyKeeten
Dwight D. Eisenhower almost didn’t go to West Point. He wanted to go, but his best friend decided to go to Annapolis and Swede talked Dwight into applying with him. When the Senator was looking over their applications he decided that Dwight was going to replace a young man from Kansas who had just dropped out of West Point.
The fickleness of fate.
If Dwight D. Eisenhower had went to Annapolis he might have been Ike, but he never would have been IKE. He would have been successful, but he probably would have never been POTUS. His parents were both Mennonites. His mother later switched to Jehovah's Witness; regardless whatever their religious affiliation, they were appalled that their son wanted to be a soldier. It went against everything they believed. They were a poor family, held upright by the generosity of Ike’s grandfather.
The Eisenhower Family. Front row: Father David, Milton and Mother Ida. Back row: Dwight, Edgar, Earl, Arthur, and Roy.
All six Eisenhower brothers were successful, some even became wealthy. After the war when Dwight was touring Abilene, Kansas he saw a sign in front of his old house proclaiming it to be the birthplace of General Eisenhower. He became furious. He was famous for his volcanic temper. He demanded that the sign be changed to say Birthplace of the Eisenhower brothers. At the time he was one of the most famous men in the world. When it came to his brothers he never let his accomplishments overshadow theirs... at least not in his own mind.
During WW1 he was asked to train new recruits. Despite frequently requesting to be transferred overseas so he could command men in action his superiors felt he was much more useful getting men ready for war. One particular recruit by the name of F. Scott Fitzgerald was less than enthusiastic about Ike. In fact he slept through his lectures and disliked him with a burning intensity. Maybe it is a good thing that Fitzgerald’s Brooks Brothers suit never saw the mud of France.
Ike bored Fitzgerald. The young lad looked good in uniform though.
Ike worked for Douglas MacArthur for almost seven years as a key member of his staff in the Philippines. I think this turned out to be very fortunate posting because dealing with the ego of MacArthur prepared him for his eventual job as Supreme Commander when he had to contend with the massive egos of Montgomery, Churchill, De Gaulle, Patton, Roosevelt, and Stalin. Because MacArthur had a beautiful Eurasian mistress, who he went to see every afternoon for several hours, Ike had to cover for him. He also had to work until late into the night because that was when MacArthur liked to work best. Mamie was not amused.
The wooing Young Eisenhower.
When Ike was trying to win the hand of Mamie Doud he decided to show his worthiness by transferring to the burgeoning aviation division because they were paying flyers much more than what he could make in the Army. Her father told him that he could not marry Mamie if he became a flyer. Mr. Doud felt it was too dangerous a profession. Ike tore up the application papers and got married.
The wheel of fate rolled back into the proper groove.
Even though he loathed professional politicians he was actually very good at politics. He mastered the art of being ambiguous. As President this evasiveness was sometimes misconstrued as dithering or vagueness or even incompetence when in reality Ike was unwilling to ever be badgered into giving an opinion that would restrict his decisions later. He was confident in his own judgments and would not allow anyone to force him into policies or military decisions that he was not comfortable with.
Ike would never lead men into battle, at least not the way he wanted to. His competency kept him away from the fields of war and strapped him to a desk. His superiors recognized him as a man who could see the big picture. He could keep proper perspective of the power that they would eventually be asking him to shoulder. As he surpassed his old boss MacArthur and his old friend Patton who both had what he craved, battle field experience, his loyalties to both men were severely tested as Ike needed them to be men who lead, but who could also follow. When a woman asked MacArthur years later if he knew Eisenhower he retorted: Best damn clerk I ever had.” There might be more than a tinge of bitterness in that statement, but also he was absolutely right.
Eisenhower turned out to be the best damn clerk of the whole damn war.
Vicissitudes of fortune, which spares neither man nor the proudest of his works, which buries empires and cities in a common grave.”---Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
Kay Summersby was never far from Ike.
Ike had a British driver named Kay Summersby, a one time model who became his constant companion during the war. She became famous when she showed up in an article in Life Magazine. Mamie was not amused. It wasn’t unusual for Generals overseas to have pretty young women attached to their staff who did more for them than iron their uniform. Michael Korda is uncertain as to the relationship that Ike and Kay may have had. The history of lust will tell us that more than likely she was providing comfort to Ike above the neck and below the waist. If she was his lover she was someone more than just a bed warmer she was also someone he could trust who didn’t have an agenda.
Korda was reluctant to commit on this subject because there doesn’t seem to be the usual smoking gun of an inappropriate letter or a love child or a symbolic gift that could make a definitive case. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if he didn’t sleep with her? A nontraditional conclusion regarding most powerful men...well...men. Though if he did, frankly, with the stress and strain of his life it certainly would have been forgivable. Knowing Winston Churchill I like to think that he intentionally planted the beauty on Ike and she was feeding him information that Ike might have been reluctant to share with him.
The PINK LADY! Helen Gahagan Douglas.
The presidential chapters are just a few slender reeds compared to the chapters devoted to the war. It is interesting that given the way Ike despised career politicians that he was stuck with Richard Nixon as a running mate. When Ike was making out a list of potential vice presidents Nixon was on the second tier of candidates. Nixon at this point in time was most famous for his electoral victory over Congresswoman Helen Gahagan Douglas in which he accused her of being a communist ”describing her memorably, if ungallantly, as ‘pink right down to her underwear.’” Brilliant, odious, but brilliant for not only does he get a laugh but he gets the titillating laugh of the nudge, nudge, wink, wink variety with the added bonus of reminding everyone, this is 1950 mind you, that she was a woman. (Nixon actually stole the line from her primary challenger Manchester Boddy.)
Nixon gave Eisenhower the willies. Hell, Nixon gave everyone the willies.
I’d like to think the caption is: Eisenhower has just made a joke at Nixon’s expense. Ike is thinking what a DICK and Nixon is thinking what a BALD BASTARD.
Eisenhower did accomplish some civil rights work as President though I think he could have done more. He had a famous showdown with an Arkansas governor over segregation in schools. Ike was convinced as were many white Americans that equal rights needed to come along slowly to keep the powder keg from exploding. He ended the Korean War. He kept the United States out of war for eight years.
Eisenhower’s presidency has been described as boring, but one thing I’ve found with reading presidential biographies is that no presidency is boring. So much happens within this country over a four or eight year span not to mention the world events that have an impact on American policies and politics.
”Never complain, never explain.”-- Disraeli Ike liked that quote and lived it.
Ike was proud of his card playing prowess. He understood concealment, secrecy, and most importantly the ability to bluff. He was not the tactician that Montgomery or MacArthur were. He didn’t have the audacity of Patton or the assured arrogance of De Gaulle. He was not the orator that Churchill or Roosevelt were. But if I had to pick a man to run a war or the man to be president on the verge of WW3 I’d pick Ike every day of the week and twice on Sunday over all these very talented men. His hubris never exceeded his ability to control it. He was a man who knew how to listen, ponder,and make a decision that would steer a course through the gunsmoke of bombastic rhetoric. He was also a man who knew how to be heard over the rattling of sabers. I agree with another Eisenhower biographer, Evan Thomas, that his greatest victories were the wars he did not fight.”
If you wish to see more of my most recent book and movie reviews, visit http://www.jeffreykeeten.com
I also have a Facebook blogger page at:https://www.facebook.com/JeffreyKeeten
August 16, 2016
“I like Ike!”
Of course, I do; we all do. But I don’t worship at his altar and I bet you don’t either. However, I can’t say the same thing for Michael Korda. He fell in love with his subject and concluded that his man never made a mistake and those who disagreed with him were always – well, nine out of ten times anyway -- wrong.
He should have ended the book with Germany’s surrender because while he writes of the Eisenhower presidency in glowing terms, he constantly overstates his case and devotes only 60 pages of a 700 plus page book to Ike’s eight years in the office. It comes off as a sprint to the finish line.
Korda writes in the introductory chapter:
“Of course there is a natural ebb and flow to historical reputations, however exalted. Sometimes a reputation can be revived by a single great book, as David McCullogh did for Harry S. Truman and John Adams….”
It is obvious that Korda set out to rescue Ike from what he perceived to be historical oblivion – just as McCullogh did for Truman and Adams. The truth is, however, that, among historians at least, the reputations of Truman and Adams had been on the ascendency for a good while before McCullogh published either book. Of course, both books were well received by the reading public and were critically-acclaimed best sellers, so there’s no doubt that they did play a role in enhancing the reputation of two presidents whose reputations did take a hit at the time that they held the office and for some time afterwards. But by no means did McCullogh “revive their reputations.”
And what of Eisenhower? When Korda wrote his book (published in 2007), Eisenhower was still one of the most famous generals in American history and one of the most popular presidents to ever hold the office. True, historians did not rate his presidency very high at the time he was in the office, but that changed through the years to the point that he was given credit for accomplishments that were overlooked at the time.
In an interview Korda admitted that he had not held an especially high opinion of Ike before he began doing his research, but that his admiration increased the more that he learned about the man. And it is evident that he did not know much about his subject before he began his research. There’s the problem. Korda is not an historian – or a journalist – but a writer and book editor and biographer with eclectic interests who sometimes writes about historical subjects. He did write a biography of U.S. Grant (which was not well-received by historians) and it was that experience that led him to wanting to write about Ike. Throughout this book he draws parallels between Grant and Ike, some sound and some overdrawn. More recently he wrote a book about Robert E. Lee, but I haven't read it.
The Eisenhower story is truly one that would have been labeled as far-fetched if it had been written as a novel. Born in Texas and raised in Kansas by parents who were both pacifists, he went to West Point. Four years after being promoted to lt. colonel he was a four-star general who held the title of Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe, with three million men under his command. In that position he commanded the most complicated combat operation of his time – perhaps all time – when the allies landed on the Normandy beaches.
That is a highly and unprecedented record for a general, especially one who heretofore had never led men in combat.
Historians today give the Eisenhower presidency high marks and they rate him as a good president, but not a great one. But that doesn’t discourage Korda who goes overboard in his assessment:
“No American president had ever exercised power more surely or more deftly, or under greater pressure of time and events….”
Really? Not even Abraham Lincoln or Franklin D. Roosevelt? Furthermore, he doesn’t take the time to make the case. He just states it and then moves on.
He also makes the claim that Ike did more for civil rights than either John Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson. He bases that claim on a single occurrence, that being Ike sending in federal forces to enforce the integration of Little Rock’s Central High School. He claims that Ike did it without hesitation because he was a strong supporter of civil rights, which is not true on both counts. He did send in the troops but only after a good deal of hesitation and furthermore he had opposed the landmark school desegregation case, Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, handed down in 1954. To his credit, however, he felt constitutionally obligated to enforce the court’s opinion and he did. However, he also stated privately that his appointment of Earl Warren, the Chief Justice who led the court that rendered the decision, was the greatest mistake that he had ever made.
Perhaps Korda should write a book on Lyndon Johnson because he apparently is not familiar with that president’s record on civil rights. In the process, he might learn a lot about the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1968.
In an interview Korda even claimed that Ike was a better politician than Ronald Reagan. I have to confess that I was a Reagan critic, but I never doubted his political skills which were his greatest gift. Nor does he mention the fact that Eisenhower’s legislative successes were made possible by the co-operation that he received from two Texas Democrats: Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson, who served as both Majority Leader and Minority Leader in the Senate during the Eisenhower presidency.
In watching the Korda interview on C-Span’s excellent Booknotes program, I have to admit that I found it entertaining. He is a gifted raconteur who loves to tell stories and he tells them well. But like many storytellers he doesn’t hesitate to add little flourishes that add color to make the stories more entertaining, even if the result is a slight distortion of the facts. But while his sins of commission are notable, it is his sins of omission that I find most deplorable, particularly with regard to the Eisenhower presidency.
Eisenhower is an important historical figure who was one of our greatest military leaders and a good president, but it would have been impossible for him to have lived up to the reputation that Korda has manufactured for him.
Of course, I do; we all do. But I don’t worship at his altar and I bet you don’t either. However, I can’t say the same thing for Michael Korda. He fell in love with his subject and concluded that his man never made a mistake and those who disagreed with him were always – well, nine out of ten times anyway -- wrong.
He should have ended the book with Germany’s surrender because while he writes of the Eisenhower presidency in glowing terms, he constantly overstates his case and devotes only 60 pages of a 700 plus page book to Ike’s eight years in the office. It comes off as a sprint to the finish line.
Korda writes in the introductory chapter:
“Of course there is a natural ebb and flow to historical reputations, however exalted. Sometimes a reputation can be revived by a single great book, as David McCullogh did for Harry S. Truman and John Adams….”
It is obvious that Korda set out to rescue Ike from what he perceived to be historical oblivion – just as McCullogh did for Truman and Adams. The truth is, however, that, among historians at least, the reputations of Truman and Adams had been on the ascendency for a good while before McCullogh published either book. Of course, both books were well received by the reading public and were critically-acclaimed best sellers, so there’s no doubt that they did play a role in enhancing the reputation of two presidents whose reputations did take a hit at the time that they held the office and for some time afterwards. But by no means did McCullogh “revive their reputations.”
And what of Eisenhower? When Korda wrote his book (published in 2007), Eisenhower was still one of the most famous generals in American history and one of the most popular presidents to ever hold the office. True, historians did not rate his presidency very high at the time he was in the office, but that changed through the years to the point that he was given credit for accomplishments that were overlooked at the time.
In an interview Korda admitted that he had not held an especially high opinion of Ike before he began doing his research, but that his admiration increased the more that he learned about the man. And it is evident that he did not know much about his subject before he began his research. There’s the problem. Korda is not an historian – or a journalist – but a writer and book editor and biographer with eclectic interests who sometimes writes about historical subjects. He did write a biography of U.S. Grant (which was not well-received by historians) and it was that experience that led him to wanting to write about Ike. Throughout this book he draws parallels between Grant and Ike, some sound and some overdrawn. More recently he wrote a book about Robert E. Lee, but I haven't read it.
The Eisenhower story is truly one that would have been labeled as far-fetched if it had been written as a novel. Born in Texas and raised in Kansas by parents who were both pacifists, he went to West Point. Four years after being promoted to lt. colonel he was a four-star general who held the title of Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe, with three million men under his command. In that position he commanded the most complicated combat operation of his time – perhaps all time – when the allies landed on the Normandy beaches.
That is a highly and unprecedented record for a general, especially one who heretofore had never led men in combat.
Historians today give the Eisenhower presidency high marks and they rate him as a good president, but not a great one. But that doesn’t discourage Korda who goes overboard in his assessment:
“No American president had ever exercised power more surely or more deftly, or under greater pressure of time and events….”
Really? Not even Abraham Lincoln or Franklin D. Roosevelt? Furthermore, he doesn’t take the time to make the case. He just states it and then moves on.
He also makes the claim that Ike did more for civil rights than either John Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson. He bases that claim on a single occurrence, that being Ike sending in federal forces to enforce the integration of Little Rock’s Central High School. He claims that Ike did it without hesitation because he was a strong supporter of civil rights, which is not true on both counts. He did send in the troops but only after a good deal of hesitation and furthermore he had opposed the landmark school desegregation case, Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, handed down in 1954. To his credit, however, he felt constitutionally obligated to enforce the court’s opinion and he did. However, he also stated privately that his appointment of Earl Warren, the Chief Justice who led the court that rendered the decision, was the greatest mistake that he had ever made.
Perhaps Korda should write a book on Lyndon Johnson because he apparently is not familiar with that president’s record on civil rights. In the process, he might learn a lot about the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1968.
In an interview Korda even claimed that Ike was a better politician than Ronald Reagan. I have to confess that I was a Reagan critic, but I never doubted his political skills which were his greatest gift. Nor does he mention the fact that Eisenhower’s legislative successes were made possible by the co-operation that he received from two Texas Democrats: Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson, who served as both Majority Leader and Minority Leader in the Senate during the Eisenhower presidency.
In watching the Korda interview on C-Span’s excellent Booknotes program, I have to admit that I found it entertaining. He is a gifted raconteur who loves to tell stories and he tells them well. But like many storytellers he doesn’t hesitate to add little flourishes that add color to make the stories more entertaining, even if the result is a slight distortion of the facts. But while his sins of commission are notable, it is his sins of omission that I find most deplorable, particularly with regard to the Eisenhower presidency.
Eisenhower is an important historical figure who was one of our greatest military leaders and a good president, but it would have been impossible for him to have lived up to the reputation that Korda has manufactured for him.
November 13, 2014
This is one of the most poorly-written books that I have read in several years. Immensely disappointing. Korda does a terrible job of accurately depicting who Eisenhower really was. He is obviously a big admirer of him (which is fine - there is much to admire about the man). But the admiration comes at the almost total exclusion of discussing Eisenhower's personality flaws. There is little discussion of how Ike was remote from his son John, and how he continually relegated his wife Mamie to the back burner for the sake of the Army and his devotion to "duty." Korda does not spend a great amount of time on Eisenhower's boyhood, which in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing, but he skims through it so quickly that one is unable to get a good sense of what 1890s rural Kansas was actually like.
The bulk of the book is spent on WWII. Korda talks at length of Eisenhower's uneasy relationship with General Bernard Montgomery of Britain, along with many of the other British and American leaders. Yet, Korda several times veers off into discussions about Ike's relationship with his driver, Kay Summersby. This occurs to the point of distraction as Korda keeps mentioning her repeatedly. Here is about the only time that he comes close to criticizing Eisenhower (the other exception: when Ike left Nixon in limbo re: the latter's status for the 1956 campaign) by portraying him as more naïve than anything else in his lack of understanding of how the frequent appearances of Kay around him looked to everyone else. I think this is the best-case scenario. Ike was certainly naïve on this score, but the bottom line is that he very possibly may have had an affair with her, and even if he didn't, as a married man his relationship with Summersby was inappropriate.
Despite this supposedly being a full-scale biography of Eisenhower, only 60 pages are devoted to his time as President. That's all?! Eisenhower was in the White House for eight years, yet Korda basically summarizes the time as if he is trying to hurry up and finish the book. Poor job here. I am not sure how he could consider that adequate given the time that Ike spent as President. There are things that he doesn't even touch upon (like the CIA coups in Iran and Guatemala), and other things that he skips over in a sentence or two (the act creating the federal interstates).
Korda also has a tendency to paint Eisenhower in the best possible light at all time - to the detriment of others that he crossed paths with. The flaws of Roosevelt, MacArthur, Truman, Churchill, Montgomery, Patton, Nixon, Bradley, etc... are all mentioned. Yet Ike continues to come away smelling like roses whenever he interacts with them. Example: the chilly relationship and transfer of power from Truman to Eisenhower in 1953. To hear Korda tell it, this was all Truman's fault. No - both men equally contributed to it by being petty.
Also, Korda did not do his homework. There are several erroneous dates throughout the text. At one point he mentions that Truman was still disliking Eisenhower in 1973 as he gave interviews to the author Merle Miller. No. Miller's book was published in 1973, after Truman had died in 1972; the interviews had been conducted in the early 1960s. Korda mentions that Winston Churchill resigned from being Prime Minister of Great Britain in 1953. Not so, it was 1955. He says that Ike lived "nine years" after leaving the presidency. Wrong again, as he died in 1969 - eight years after leaving office. Korda talks about Ike writing his wartime memoir, Crusade in Europe, in 1953 - but he wrote it in 1948. I am not sure how a professional historian could get years wrong like this.
Finally, most of Korda's footnotes are worthless - they make comments about his own life. Like how he traveled back roads in New York once, or how one or other of his relatives did something, or about Ike's "taste" in paintings. They added nothing to the book. In fact, they just made it more unsatisfactory than it would have otherwise been.
Grade: F
The bulk of the book is spent on WWII. Korda talks at length of Eisenhower's uneasy relationship with General Bernard Montgomery of Britain, along with many of the other British and American leaders. Yet, Korda several times veers off into discussions about Ike's relationship with his driver, Kay Summersby. This occurs to the point of distraction as Korda keeps mentioning her repeatedly. Here is about the only time that he comes close to criticizing Eisenhower (the other exception: when Ike left Nixon in limbo re: the latter's status for the 1956 campaign) by portraying him as more naïve than anything else in his lack of understanding of how the frequent appearances of Kay around him looked to everyone else. I think this is the best-case scenario. Ike was certainly naïve on this score, but the bottom line is that he very possibly may have had an affair with her, and even if he didn't, as a married man his relationship with Summersby was inappropriate.
Despite this supposedly being a full-scale biography of Eisenhower, only 60 pages are devoted to his time as President. That's all?! Eisenhower was in the White House for eight years, yet Korda basically summarizes the time as if he is trying to hurry up and finish the book. Poor job here. I am not sure how he could consider that adequate given the time that Ike spent as President. There are things that he doesn't even touch upon (like the CIA coups in Iran and Guatemala), and other things that he skips over in a sentence or two (the act creating the federal interstates).
Korda also has a tendency to paint Eisenhower in the best possible light at all time - to the detriment of others that he crossed paths with. The flaws of Roosevelt, MacArthur, Truman, Churchill, Montgomery, Patton, Nixon, Bradley, etc... are all mentioned. Yet Ike continues to come away smelling like roses whenever he interacts with them. Example: the chilly relationship and transfer of power from Truman to Eisenhower in 1953. To hear Korda tell it, this was all Truman's fault. No - both men equally contributed to it by being petty.
Also, Korda did not do his homework. There are several erroneous dates throughout the text. At one point he mentions that Truman was still disliking Eisenhower in 1973 as he gave interviews to the author Merle Miller. No. Miller's book was published in 1973, after Truman had died in 1972; the interviews had been conducted in the early 1960s. Korda mentions that Winston Churchill resigned from being Prime Minister of Great Britain in 1953. Not so, it was 1955. He says that Ike lived "nine years" after leaving the presidency. Wrong again, as he died in 1969 - eight years after leaving office. Korda talks about Ike writing his wartime memoir, Crusade in Europe, in 1953 - but he wrote it in 1948. I am not sure how a professional historian could get years wrong like this.
Finally, most of Korda's footnotes are worthless - they make comments about his own life. Like how he traveled back roads in New York once, or how one or other of his relatives did something, or about Ike's "taste" in paintings. They added nothing to the book. In fact, they just made it more unsatisfactory than it would have otherwise been.
Grade: F
August 18, 2016
Given the candidates in this year's election (2016) wouldn't it wonderful to have a President like Eisenhower.
July 20, 2013
Thus may I chalk up to "five" the number of presidential biographies I have completed to date--and advance one further step in my quest to read a biography of EVERY U.S. president who ever served.
This one-volume story of Dwight David Eisenhower, our 34th president, brings readers through a well-paced account of his childhood in Abilene, Kansas, his successful tenure as a cadet at West Point, his first years as an Army man (his talent for logistics kept him at home and in planning/training roles during World War I), his apprenticeship to some of the nation's great generals, his role as Commander of all Allied Forces during World War II and, finally, his years as President of the United States.
Korda stumbles coming out of the gate, beginning his narrative with a broad though clumsy highlight of Eisenhower's great life accomplishments before reverting sharply back to his subject's childhood and then proceeding in chronological fashion through the course of the great man's life. An advocate of Ike, Korda hits his stride by painting the portrait of the Eisenhower brothers, raised by two college-educated but not-so-well-off parents. Ike, wanting to get out of Kansas and into college, enlists in the Army via a West Point education, finds he has a knack and passion for the order and discipline that comes from military life, and slowly but surely builds a reputation and successful career that brings him into the presence of such mentors as Douglas MacArthur and Fox Conner.
The biography is a compelling read up through the middle of World War II, where Korda begins to get bogged down in too much battle tactics. I did appreciate and find entertaining accounts of the differing personalities of the generals (Eisenhower, Montgomery, Bradley, etc.) which led to serious squabbles regarding wartime strategy. Korda's portrait of the British diva Bernard Montgomery, was particularly risible. It quickly becomes apparent that it was truly Eisenhower's talent as a consensus builder, a quality some leveraged to unfairly criticize him as a do-nothing general, that made him successfully build a unified Allied force not only between colorful commanders but also between the British and the United States, both of whom had differing interests in the war's outcome.
Korda is obviously a fan of the war, which I believe is to his detriment, as he ends up investing far too much time on it and dedicating hardly more than 75 pages of this long biography to Ike's presidency. I find this particularly sad because Eisenhower's accomplishments as president are both unusual and understated. Had Ike been more of a public relations man, rather than the humble, dutiful farm boy turned general from Abilene, his accomplishments might have been better remembered and perceived as more impressive by history.
Consider: despite being one of the first minds to understand how to convert a national manufacturing base into a great military machine for the purposes of executing World War II (and from which we derive the phrase "military industrial complex"), as president, Eisenhower refused to build a Fortress America and, in fact, warned both his irritated Republican colleagues and America at large to not rely too heavily on the defense contracting industry as a long-term strategy for American strength. Ike was the visionary who, also in contrast to his isolationist Republican friends, embraced America's role in Europe and as a committed partner in the NATO alliance. He wisely refused to commit America to taking sides in the Suez Canal Crisis and, unlike his successors Kennedy and Johnson, saw no wisdom in get bogged down in Indochina. Those two presidents' reckless forays into Vietnam would lead to a futile, disastrous and tragic chapter in the United States's history. On the domestic front, he avoided too much entanglement in the McCarthy communist-hunting regime and ensured the National Guard was on hand in Little Rock, Arkansas to provide several minority children the right to attend the same school as white students. Not many remember Eisenhower for his civil rights activism, but he had a simple sense of what was right and what was fair, and as history has played out, Eisenhower was usually right.
Ike did have his faults and weaknesses, as Korda points out. But this latter phase of his biography, in describing Ike's presidency, simply is exasperating in the way it merely skims over the way a five-star general warns against too much military power, in the way it barely investigates Ike's vision for an American role in global alliances, in the way it brushes over Ike's ability to stare down Arkansas' racist governor Orval Faubus and bring the strength of the federal government to bear on ensuring the equal rights of individuals from all races to participate in America's education system.
While usually credited, at least, for building the nation's interstate highway system, Eisenhower's other accomplishments are not as often acknowledged. Partly, again, it may be Ike's lack of interest in claiming too much credit for significant accomplishments. Partly, in this biography, it may be the author's interest in investigating Eisenhower's wartime accomplishments, rather than his achievements as president, a strange decision given Korda's obvious respect and admiration for Eisenhower.
This is a great biography for readers unfamiliar with Eisenhower. He did more than preside over a post-war era of rising prosperity in the United States; it's quite clear that the seeds of the 1960s era of resistance and revolutions were already being sown. However, Korda could have taken a more balanced approach to Eisenhower's life. Ike: An American Hero is a worthwhile read, even given the biography's prodigious size. It's a great start but definitely not the end of the line for historians wanting a comprehensive portrait of the United States' 34th president.
This one-volume story of Dwight David Eisenhower, our 34th president, brings readers through a well-paced account of his childhood in Abilene, Kansas, his successful tenure as a cadet at West Point, his first years as an Army man (his talent for logistics kept him at home and in planning/training roles during World War I), his apprenticeship to some of the nation's great generals, his role as Commander of all Allied Forces during World War II and, finally, his years as President of the United States.
Korda stumbles coming out of the gate, beginning his narrative with a broad though clumsy highlight of Eisenhower's great life accomplishments before reverting sharply back to his subject's childhood and then proceeding in chronological fashion through the course of the great man's life. An advocate of Ike, Korda hits his stride by painting the portrait of the Eisenhower brothers, raised by two college-educated but not-so-well-off parents. Ike, wanting to get out of Kansas and into college, enlists in the Army via a West Point education, finds he has a knack and passion for the order and discipline that comes from military life, and slowly but surely builds a reputation and successful career that brings him into the presence of such mentors as Douglas MacArthur and Fox Conner.
The biography is a compelling read up through the middle of World War II, where Korda begins to get bogged down in too much battle tactics. I did appreciate and find entertaining accounts of the differing personalities of the generals (Eisenhower, Montgomery, Bradley, etc.) which led to serious squabbles regarding wartime strategy. Korda's portrait of the British diva Bernard Montgomery, was particularly risible. It quickly becomes apparent that it was truly Eisenhower's talent as a consensus builder, a quality some leveraged to unfairly criticize him as a do-nothing general, that made him successfully build a unified Allied force not only between colorful commanders but also between the British and the United States, both of whom had differing interests in the war's outcome.
Korda is obviously a fan of the war, which I believe is to his detriment, as he ends up investing far too much time on it and dedicating hardly more than 75 pages of this long biography to Ike's presidency. I find this particularly sad because Eisenhower's accomplishments as president are both unusual and understated. Had Ike been more of a public relations man, rather than the humble, dutiful farm boy turned general from Abilene, his accomplishments might have been better remembered and perceived as more impressive by history.
Consider: despite being one of the first minds to understand how to convert a national manufacturing base into a great military machine for the purposes of executing World War II (and from which we derive the phrase "military industrial complex"), as president, Eisenhower refused to build a Fortress America and, in fact, warned both his irritated Republican colleagues and America at large to not rely too heavily on the defense contracting industry as a long-term strategy for American strength. Ike was the visionary who, also in contrast to his isolationist Republican friends, embraced America's role in Europe and as a committed partner in the NATO alliance. He wisely refused to commit America to taking sides in the Suez Canal Crisis and, unlike his successors Kennedy and Johnson, saw no wisdom in get bogged down in Indochina. Those two presidents' reckless forays into Vietnam would lead to a futile, disastrous and tragic chapter in the United States's history. On the domestic front, he avoided too much entanglement in the McCarthy communist-hunting regime and ensured the National Guard was on hand in Little Rock, Arkansas to provide several minority children the right to attend the same school as white students. Not many remember Eisenhower for his civil rights activism, but he had a simple sense of what was right and what was fair, and as history has played out, Eisenhower was usually right.
Ike did have his faults and weaknesses, as Korda points out. But this latter phase of his biography, in describing Ike's presidency, simply is exasperating in the way it merely skims over the way a five-star general warns against too much military power, in the way it barely investigates Ike's vision for an American role in global alliances, in the way it brushes over Ike's ability to stare down Arkansas' racist governor Orval Faubus and bring the strength of the federal government to bear on ensuring the equal rights of individuals from all races to participate in America's education system.
While usually credited, at least, for building the nation's interstate highway system, Eisenhower's other accomplishments are not as often acknowledged. Partly, again, it may be Ike's lack of interest in claiming too much credit for significant accomplishments. Partly, in this biography, it may be the author's interest in investigating Eisenhower's wartime accomplishments, rather than his achievements as president, a strange decision given Korda's obvious respect and admiration for Eisenhower.
This is a great biography for readers unfamiliar with Eisenhower. He did more than preside over a post-war era of rising prosperity in the United States; it's quite clear that the seeds of the 1960s era of resistance and revolutions were already being sown. However, Korda could have taken a more balanced approach to Eisenhower's life. Ike: An American Hero is a worthwhile read, even given the biography's prodigious size. It's a great start but definitely not the end of the line for historians wanting a comprehensive portrait of the United States' 34th president.
September 30, 2008
I really wanted to love this book. It was absolutely facinating and full of great information and wonderful details. I had 2 major hangups though.
First, Korda kept interjecting information about his family and/or career or something of that sort into the book. They were mostly footnotes similar to "The author's brother once met a neighbor of the aforementioned general and had a plesant discussion about the bombing in London." They added nothing to the book and quickly became annoying and disruptive.
Second, Korda's discussion often turned to hero worship. Granted Ike did some amazing and important things, but even when discussing some of the trouble areas, they were either glossed over or the arguments of his critics were completely dismissed. The most obvious example was his alledged affair with Kay Summersby. Instead of simply presenting the evidence and story, Korda continually argues all the reasons Ike could not have had an affair no matter how bad things looked. He also made repetitive comments about later administrations and todays world commenting how Ike would have made different and better dscisions. I felt this was a bit unnecessary and unhelpful.
Overall it was a good read. I learned a tremendous amount
and generally enjoyed it.
First, Korda kept interjecting information about his family and/or career or something of that sort into the book. They were mostly footnotes similar to "The author's brother once met a neighbor of the aforementioned general and had a plesant discussion about the bombing in London." They added nothing to the book and quickly became annoying and disruptive.
Second, Korda's discussion often turned to hero worship. Granted Ike did some amazing and important things, but even when discussing some of the trouble areas, they were either glossed over or the arguments of his critics were completely dismissed. The most obvious example was his alledged affair with Kay Summersby. Instead of simply presenting the evidence and story, Korda continually argues all the reasons Ike could not have had an affair no matter how bad things looked. He also made repetitive comments about later administrations and todays world commenting how Ike would have made different and better dscisions. I felt this was a bit unnecessary and unhelpful.
Overall it was a good read. I learned a tremendous amount
and generally enjoyed it.
January 5, 2015
A clear and comprehensive biography of the thirty-fourth president. Though Eisenhower has long suffered from the grandfatherly caretaker image painted by the press then, Ike emerges from Korda’s pages as a capable, though quiet leader who European victories during World War Two carried into the White House a decade later.
Kordas relies heavily on public writings which might have biased his book toward conventional wisdom, but he goes against the tide of even his fellow Englishmen in Ike’s famous head butting with Brit favorite Montgomery during the war, and his capable handling of both foreign and domestic issues as President. As historians now know, the supposed “Missile Gap” a Soviet fiction picked up by a willing Democrat election machine.
If anything Kordas focuses more on World War Two than Ike’s presidency. He details the issues with Montgomery and Patton as well as Ike's working with all the various political, diplomatic and logistical headaches. The Kay Summersby affair is examined separately fact from fiction.
Good research, good writing, good interpretation. A needed corrective of several long-term distortions.
A good read.
Kordas relies heavily on public writings which might have biased his book toward conventional wisdom, but he goes against the tide of even his fellow Englishmen in Ike’s famous head butting with Brit favorite Montgomery during the war, and his capable handling of both foreign and domestic issues as President. As historians now know, the supposed “Missile Gap” a Soviet fiction picked up by a willing Democrat election machine.
If anything Kordas focuses more on World War Two than Ike’s presidency. He details the issues with Montgomery and Patton as well as Ike's working with all the various political, diplomatic and logistical headaches. The Kay Summersby affair is examined separately fact from fiction.
Good research, good writing, good interpretation. A needed corrective of several long-term distortions.
A good read.
February 19, 2018
Respectful biography with a concentration on Ike's five years of WWII service (which constitutes over half of the book's 700+ pages - though a obviously defining part of his life it was either very detailed or overly detailed; opinions will vary), though his later presidential terms get the short shrift and I wished there had been more written for that section. However, the ancestral / family background and his early years - rural Kansas childhood, West Point education, the initial various army postings, marriage, etc. - were relatively little known to me and of most interest. I came away appreciative that such a disciplined, level-headed, and diplomatic man led our Allied military forces and then our country during that eventful time period.
April 4, 2023
I thoroughly enjoyed this trip through American history. The comparisons to Grant were spot on. Leadership qualities were highlighted many times over. Maybe our first "servant leader" as President. Much simpler times for sure. Still have questions on the Summersby relationship and Maime's tolerance of what happened.
May 6, 2020
A biography that mostly has a "You are there" feel. Though for me, it got bogged down in the parts that covered the logistics and planning of the battles of WW II. But even this part just pointed out what an intelligent mind that was required in the planning. Ike also had to be politically astute ind dealing with the various personalities involved in the war and later during his Presidency. The author included some views that Eisenhower had on various events that occurred during that surprised me.
An enjoyable, at times a compelling read.
An enjoyable, at times a compelling read.
May 6, 2023
Great biography on as the title states an American hero. Also a great resource for research and / or term paper. Enjoy!
June 15, 2008
This was an excellent biography of Eisenhower. I enjoyed all 700 pages, which is saying something -- Korda is an experienced author with a good sense of what makes a story.
While several reviews of this book complain that Korda was too sympathetic to Ike, and not nearly critical enough, I felt that being critical was not the point of the work. He certainly pointed out Ike's mistakes and missteps, but his thesis was that Ike demonstrated courage, military skill, hard work, integrity, and common sense -- a combination rare in a U.S. President. His feeling was that Ike was a hero in every sense of the word, and deserved to be remembered for not only what he accomplished, but who he was.
While I will admit to being one of Ike's admirers (he beat the Nazis! He built NATO! He ended segregation! He built the US highway infrastructure! He got us out of Korea! I could go on...), I would suspect that even Ike's detractors might enjoy the book, and appreciate the additional insights into Ike's goals and mindset. And for those who have absolutely no opinion about a man who died almost 40 years ago, you have an opportunity here to get significant insight into the European part of World War II, and a glimpse of life in the US in the 50's and the beginning of the Cold War. (A small glimpse -- the majority of the book is on Ike's military experience; his presidency takes up less than 100 pages at the end.) I recommend this book, both for its insights into the past and its relevance to the world stage today.
While several reviews of this book complain that Korda was too sympathetic to Ike, and not nearly critical enough, I felt that being critical was not the point of the work. He certainly pointed out Ike's mistakes and missteps, but his thesis was that Ike demonstrated courage, military skill, hard work, integrity, and common sense -- a combination rare in a U.S. President. His feeling was that Ike was a hero in every sense of the word, and deserved to be remembered for not only what he accomplished, but who he was.
While I will admit to being one of Ike's admirers (he beat the Nazis! He built NATO! He ended segregation! He built the US highway infrastructure! He got us out of Korea! I could go on...), I would suspect that even Ike's detractors might enjoy the book, and appreciate the additional insights into Ike's goals and mindset. And for those who have absolutely no opinion about a man who died almost 40 years ago, you have an opportunity here to get significant insight into the European part of World War II, and a glimpse of life in the US in the 50's and the beginning of the Cold War. (A small glimpse -- the majority of the book is on Ike's military experience; his presidency takes up less than 100 pages at the end.) I recommend this book, both for its insights into the past and its relevance to the world stage today.
May 12, 2009
As someone who loves historical biographies, this book was a treat. Korda employs a readable style with enough detail to delight, but not too much so as to overwhelm.
Without question, Korda is sympathetic towards Eisenhower. Countless places throughout the book he will state others’ criticism towards Eisenhower (i.e., not pressing to Berlin in WWII), and immediately follow with “but…” and defend the general’s decisions and character. In particular, Eisenhower’s relationship with Kay Summersby is consistently defended as unusual, but innocent.
Without a doubt the bulk of this story falls on Eisenhower’s time in the military. It chronicles how small incidents in his career proved salient later in life. For example, Eisenhower volunteered to accompany the army expedition to drive across country from coast to coast. That experience convinced him that the U.S. needed a system of roads comparable to Germany’s autobahn. Hence, the interstate system was born.
For those interested in the political side of Eisenhower’s career, this book will disappoint. In particular, Eisenhower’s second term is glossed over – in part, I would assume, because it surely was not the highlight of Eisenhower’s distinguished life. Nevertheless, this book is one of the more engaging biographies I’ve read. It comes recommended.
Without question, Korda is sympathetic towards Eisenhower. Countless places throughout the book he will state others’ criticism towards Eisenhower (i.e., not pressing to Berlin in WWII), and immediately follow with “but…” and defend the general’s decisions and character. In particular, Eisenhower’s relationship with Kay Summersby is consistently defended as unusual, but innocent.
Without a doubt the bulk of this story falls on Eisenhower’s time in the military. It chronicles how small incidents in his career proved salient later in life. For example, Eisenhower volunteered to accompany the army expedition to drive across country from coast to coast. That experience convinced him that the U.S. needed a system of roads comparable to Germany’s autobahn. Hence, the interstate system was born.
For those interested in the political side of Eisenhower’s career, this book will disappoint. In particular, Eisenhower’s second term is glossed over – in part, I would assume, because it surely was not the highlight of Eisenhower’s distinguished life. Nevertheless, this book is one of the more engaging biographies I’ve read. It comes recommended.
April 30, 2010
I've read a lot of presidential biographies. This one was, by far, the most disappointing. There were a lot of facts, but very little insight into Eisenhower as a human being. And I have to mention this because it bothered me as I was reading -- at times it was self-indulgent. He clearly likes to put events into context, but he puts them into the context of his own life - not the reader's. (At one point, we learn how his grandparents met which, by the way, had nothing whatsoever to do with Eisenhower.) He makes sure you know who his godfather was. For me, it was just very distracting to the narrative. I wanted to love this book. I wound up forcing myself to push through to the end.
April 6, 2012
Michael Korda's Ike is a fascinating look into one of the most famous men of the twentieth century. He was a first-rate solider and statesman, this life-long solider would leave office warning the nation of the growing military-industrial complex. This is an incredible story of a boy from Abilene, Kansas who would rise to become one of the most famous figures on the world stage. If history had not intervened he probably would have retired from the army a bird colonel and we never would heard about him.
The book begins with Korda explaining how the United States mistreats its heroes of the past, through endless amounts of revision it tears down one giant after another. Then the narrative shifts to the moments before the great invasion of D-Day. General Eisenhower is making not only on the most important decisions of his life, but in all of world history. Then from there the story changes again, it goes back to his time as a boy. Actually Korda spends a minute trying to explain the entire family history leading up to the birth of David Dwight Eisenhower whose first two names would later be switched around. There is almost no hint of what was ultimately going to come. His army career is pretty basic he moves slowly up the chain of command with his commanding officers seeing his greatest value as coaching the base's football team.
Eisenhower gets married to Mamie Doud, and she ends up becoming a typical Army wife always looking to `push hubby' through. Eisenhower played no significant role in World War I; he was just a staff officer, although, he did run into another officer, only slightly senior to him, George Patton.
"Both men were fiercely ambitious, but Ike did his best to conceal his ambition, whereas Patton wore his on his sleeve. Unlike Ike, Patton was eccentric, erratic, vain, deeply emotional, and a full-fledged military romantic, in love with the whole idea of glory, capable of writing, as Ike would surely not have been, of his beloved cavalry, `You must be: a horse master, a scholar; a high minded gentleman; a cold blooded hero; a hot-blooded savage.' Such words--and sentiments--came easily to Patton, who saw himself (and wanted others to see him) as a cavalier, a swashbuckling hero on horseback, a student of war history and war poetry; and who at times seriously believed himself to be the reincarnation of great warriors of the past. Perhaps no solider has ever had a more romantic view of war, and, at the same time, a better understanding of its hard practicalities, than Patton."p.148
Dwight D. Eisenhower spent sixteen years at the rank of major. He was just a major when Herbert Hoover was elected president in 1928, which is odd when it is considered that Major Eisenhower would be the next Republican to win election. Eisenhower spent a few good years as the top aid to General MacArthur when the General was the Chief of Staff of the United States Army. At this point Eisenhower had actually made lieutenant colonel.
"MacArthur's remaining year as Army Chief of Staff was painful, as Roosevelt, with the deft political cunning for which he soon became famous, carefully undercut the position of the person he regarded as one of the two `most dangerous men in America,' while all the time continuing to profess admiration and warm affection for him, he was only too aware that the New Dealers, as they were already beginning to be known, viewed him with deep suspicion, hated him for his reactionary political views, and were afraid he might harbor political ambitions which would bring him in open conflict with the administration--that he might become, in fact, the proverbial `man on a white horse' in the event of a fascist putsch in America. In short, their feelings about General MacArthur were a paranoid as his about them."p.205
When World War II broke out Eisenhower would begin to make his mark on the world, in a little over three and half years he would rise from lieutenant colonel to five-star-general. In that time he over saw the invasion of Sicily and the invasion of the Italian mainland. As the Supreme Allied Commander, he had to be both politician and solider. He was great at both roles. In the politician angle he had great success, especially in Britain. While in Britain there was one lady there named Kay Summersby, who Eisenhower may have known a little too well. She was officially his chauffeur but she proved to be a lot more than that.
"Perhaps the only people of consequence who snubbed Kay were King George VI, who was always petrified by the slightest hint of an improper relationship because of the misfortunes of his older brother, and who deliberately treated her like a chauffeur, which is to say a servant; and General Marshall, who considered part of his job to telephone Mamie once a week, and was deeply suspicious of Kay Summersby. Whatever virtues Ike may have had, however--and he had many--discretion about his friendship with Kay was not one of them, and people can hardly be blamed then or now for drawing the logical conclusion."p.284
During the D-Day invasion Eisenhower, like General Grant in the Civil War--as Kordra points out--was concerned with armies not territories. His primary mission was to defeat the Army of Germany not to capture particular points of real estate. It was this attitude that attracts his primary criticism as a general. However, it was Eisenhower who kept allies bound together and united no matter how hot-headed their leaders' personalities may have been, Eisenhower got the best out of each of them.
"Since 1945, almost everybody has had a say about the supposed mistakes that were made in the last year of the war--especially the presumed failure of on the part of the western Allies to take Berlin and the failure to confront the Soviet Union over the borders and the independence of the eastern European countries. Many if not most of these have been blamed on Roosevelt, but it should always be borne in mind that the president did not live to write his own memoirs, or to criticize those of others. Ike, when he came to write his, was careful not to join in postwar criticism of Roosevelt. Ike himself had shown no interest in wasting the lives of American soldiers to get to Berlin, and several times he offended even angered Churchill by going over the heads of the prime minister and the president to deal directly with Stalin, as if he himself were a head of state, to ensure that there would be no accidental clashes between Allied and Soviet troops as their front lines began to touch." p.432-3
When Eisenhower he served in a number of posts, finally, in 1952, Eisenhower decided to run for the Republican Nomination for president. He would win beating Senator Robert Taft, and he would go on to win the election against his Adlai E. Stevenson. He would have an eventful and successful presidency. Under him there would be an inter-state highway system and an end to the Korean War. He would send soldiers to protect the `Little Rock Nine' students who braved the way against segregation in education and all other aspects of life. The Cold War would continue with spy planes and talks of a `missal gap.' There also was the crisis in Hungry and Suez Canal.
"It was the end of more than Eden's career--it was the end of Britain's remaining pretensions to independent, imperial power; it was the end of the fiction, still persisting from World War II, that the United States, Great Britain, and France were equal world powers. (Britain would shortly abandon Malaya, Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, and much else besides; France would shortly lose Morocco, Algeria, and most of its African colonies.) Ike had acted swiftly, decisively, and undeniably for the good; and although he felt great sympathy for his old friends in Britain, and even greater sympathy for the gallant but ill-advised Hungarians, he carefully managed events to avoid a clash with the Soviet Union, and he preserved peace--not a perfect peace, to be sure, or one without victims and compromises., but still peace. The Soviet Union had threatened to use atomic weapons on London and Paris at the height of the Suez Crisis, and in order to discourage American intervention in Hungary, but Ike had taken all this blustering calmly in his stride and kept a firm control of events." p.693-4
Eisenhower retired for good, in 1961, when his successor John F. Kennedy, who had beaten Ike's vice president, Richard Nixon, took office. He would live into 1969, just long enough to see Nixon, whose daughter would marry his grandson, become president.
Michael Korda wrote a great biography on the thirty-fourth president very detailed and informative. There are also historical allusions to other time periods littered thought the book, which as a history buff, I really do appreciate that. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who wanted to know more about Dwight D. Eisenhower and World War II.
The book begins with Korda explaining how the United States mistreats its heroes of the past, through endless amounts of revision it tears down one giant after another. Then the narrative shifts to the moments before the great invasion of D-Day. General Eisenhower is making not only on the most important decisions of his life, but in all of world history. Then from there the story changes again, it goes back to his time as a boy. Actually Korda spends a minute trying to explain the entire family history leading up to the birth of David Dwight Eisenhower whose first two names would later be switched around. There is almost no hint of what was ultimately going to come. His army career is pretty basic he moves slowly up the chain of command with his commanding officers seeing his greatest value as coaching the base's football team.
Eisenhower gets married to Mamie Doud, and she ends up becoming a typical Army wife always looking to `push hubby' through. Eisenhower played no significant role in World War I; he was just a staff officer, although, he did run into another officer, only slightly senior to him, George Patton.
"Both men were fiercely ambitious, but Ike did his best to conceal his ambition, whereas Patton wore his on his sleeve. Unlike Ike, Patton was eccentric, erratic, vain, deeply emotional, and a full-fledged military romantic, in love with the whole idea of glory, capable of writing, as Ike would surely not have been, of his beloved cavalry, `You must be: a horse master, a scholar; a high minded gentleman; a cold blooded hero; a hot-blooded savage.' Such words--and sentiments--came easily to Patton, who saw himself (and wanted others to see him) as a cavalier, a swashbuckling hero on horseback, a student of war history and war poetry; and who at times seriously believed himself to be the reincarnation of great warriors of the past. Perhaps no solider has ever had a more romantic view of war, and, at the same time, a better understanding of its hard practicalities, than Patton."p.148
Dwight D. Eisenhower spent sixteen years at the rank of major. He was just a major when Herbert Hoover was elected president in 1928, which is odd when it is considered that Major Eisenhower would be the next Republican to win election. Eisenhower spent a few good years as the top aid to General MacArthur when the General was the Chief of Staff of the United States Army. At this point Eisenhower had actually made lieutenant colonel.
"MacArthur's remaining year as Army Chief of Staff was painful, as Roosevelt, with the deft political cunning for which he soon became famous, carefully undercut the position of the person he regarded as one of the two `most dangerous men in America,' while all the time continuing to profess admiration and warm affection for him, he was only too aware that the New Dealers, as they were already beginning to be known, viewed him with deep suspicion, hated him for his reactionary political views, and were afraid he might harbor political ambitions which would bring him in open conflict with the administration--that he might become, in fact, the proverbial `man on a white horse' in the event of a fascist putsch in America. In short, their feelings about General MacArthur were a paranoid as his about them."p.205
When World War II broke out Eisenhower would begin to make his mark on the world, in a little over three and half years he would rise from lieutenant colonel to five-star-general. In that time he over saw the invasion of Sicily and the invasion of the Italian mainland. As the Supreme Allied Commander, he had to be both politician and solider. He was great at both roles. In the politician angle he had great success, especially in Britain. While in Britain there was one lady there named Kay Summersby, who Eisenhower may have known a little too well. She was officially his chauffeur but she proved to be a lot more than that.
"Perhaps the only people of consequence who snubbed Kay were King George VI, who was always petrified by the slightest hint of an improper relationship because of the misfortunes of his older brother, and who deliberately treated her like a chauffeur, which is to say a servant; and General Marshall, who considered part of his job to telephone Mamie once a week, and was deeply suspicious of Kay Summersby. Whatever virtues Ike may have had, however--and he had many--discretion about his friendship with Kay was not one of them, and people can hardly be blamed then or now for drawing the logical conclusion."p.284
During the D-Day invasion Eisenhower, like General Grant in the Civil War--as Kordra points out--was concerned with armies not territories. His primary mission was to defeat the Army of Germany not to capture particular points of real estate. It was this attitude that attracts his primary criticism as a general. However, it was Eisenhower who kept allies bound together and united no matter how hot-headed their leaders' personalities may have been, Eisenhower got the best out of each of them.
"Since 1945, almost everybody has had a say about the supposed mistakes that were made in the last year of the war--especially the presumed failure of on the part of the western Allies to take Berlin and the failure to confront the Soviet Union over the borders and the independence of the eastern European countries. Many if not most of these have been blamed on Roosevelt, but it should always be borne in mind that the president did not live to write his own memoirs, or to criticize those of others. Ike, when he came to write his, was careful not to join in postwar criticism of Roosevelt. Ike himself had shown no interest in wasting the lives of American soldiers to get to Berlin, and several times he offended even angered Churchill by going over the heads of the prime minister and the president to deal directly with Stalin, as if he himself were a head of state, to ensure that there would be no accidental clashes between Allied and Soviet troops as their front lines began to touch." p.432-3
When Eisenhower he served in a number of posts, finally, in 1952, Eisenhower decided to run for the Republican Nomination for president. He would win beating Senator Robert Taft, and he would go on to win the election against his Adlai E. Stevenson. He would have an eventful and successful presidency. Under him there would be an inter-state highway system and an end to the Korean War. He would send soldiers to protect the `Little Rock Nine' students who braved the way against segregation in education and all other aspects of life. The Cold War would continue with spy planes and talks of a `missal gap.' There also was the crisis in Hungry and Suez Canal.
"It was the end of more than Eden's career--it was the end of Britain's remaining pretensions to independent, imperial power; it was the end of the fiction, still persisting from World War II, that the United States, Great Britain, and France were equal world powers. (Britain would shortly abandon Malaya, Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, and much else besides; France would shortly lose Morocco, Algeria, and most of its African colonies.) Ike had acted swiftly, decisively, and undeniably for the good; and although he felt great sympathy for his old friends in Britain, and even greater sympathy for the gallant but ill-advised Hungarians, he carefully managed events to avoid a clash with the Soviet Union, and he preserved peace--not a perfect peace, to be sure, or one without victims and compromises., but still peace. The Soviet Union had threatened to use atomic weapons on London and Paris at the height of the Suez Crisis, and in order to discourage American intervention in Hungary, but Ike had taken all this blustering calmly in his stride and kept a firm control of events." p.693-4
Eisenhower retired for good, in 1961, when his successor John F. Kennedy, who had beaten Ike's vice president, Richard Nixon, took office. He would live into 1969, just long enough to see Nixon, whose daughter would marry his grandson, become president.
Michael Korda wrote a great biography on the thirty-fourth president very detailed and informative. There are also historical allusions to other time periods littered thought the book, which as a history buff, I really do appreciate that. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who wanted to know more about Dwight D. Eisenhower and World War II.
July 18, 2019
An unconventional biography of Dwight D. Eisenhower. Korda provides several keen insights into Ike but at other times focuses more on events around Ike than on the man himself. Most of the book focuses on Ike’s war experiences and devotes little space to his presidential years (about 100 pages). While this is a decent overview of Ike, I would recommend Jean Edward Smith or Carlo D’Este if you want a deeper look into his life.
March 10, 2024
In this book, Michael paints a vidid portrait of one of the greatest men of the Greatest Generation. Ike’s story is nearly unparalleled in US history (except of the eerily similar life of U.S. Grant) and is one that kept me enthralled throughout the whole journey. Highly recommend to anyone looking for a solid biography of one of modern history’s most important men.
Favorite Quote: “People tended to think of Ike - and many still do - as something of a country bumpkin, uneducated compared with Winston Churchill say; but in fact Dwight Eisenhower, like Churchill, was above all self-educated, a product of reading, rather than school learning.”
Favorite Quote: “People tended to think of Ike - and many still do - as something of a country bumpkin, uneducated compared with Winston Churchill say; but in fact Dwight Eisenhower, like Churchill, was above all self-educated, a product of reading, rather than school learning.”
February 2, 2021
A deep read into the life and legacy of an American hero. Many details of interactions between world leaders in the 20th century. Fascinating insights into events Ike managed to guard against that came into being with subsequent US Presidents. Appreciated the writing about racial injustice and Ike’s steadfastness to doing what was right, supporting the Supreme Court on desegregation in particular.
February 2, 2013
This is top-down history, an example of the "great man" school of historiography. Korda makes clear from the start that he leaves to others the chronicle of the "little people" who did the bleeding and dying. The result is a sort of Masterpiece Theater drama of manners and personalities, as Ike maneuvers to hold together the alliance, and shape the strategy that won the war in the West. The clash of egos between Churchill, DeGaulle, Montgomery, Patton, Tedder, Harris, and Brooke has been told many times before. Korda's re-telling is particularly vivid. He leaves no doubt that Ike's achievement was singular, and decisive.
He gives much attention to the relationship between Ike and Kay Summersby. With careful propriety, he describes their almost-constant companionship, in both work and social settings, in public and in private. He strongly hints--but stops short of avouching--that the liaison was physically intimate as well.
Korda devotes only 60 pages of a 700-page book to the eight years of Ike's presidency. He obviously decided that his treatment here would be be "all or minimal", and he defensibly opted for "minimal". The treatment of Ike's youth and early Army years is much fuller.
The history alone makes the book worthwile, but it has the extra virtue of serving as a lesson in clear writing from the longtime editor-in-chief of Simon and Schuster. Korda writes with unpretention and simplicity. The narration is so silky smooth that you almost forget you are reading. It is a rare writer who can use "indeed" several times in a chapter and not sound stuffy.
The Miss Grundys of the world should also note that this great editor is immune from their pedantic scoldings. He freely uses dashes, semicolons, digressive clauses, and exclamation marks, all without causing a flicker of distraction. He breezes past such non-rules as that as "farther" can only refer to physical distance, and that "between" can only refer to two.
He gives much attention to the relationship between Ike and Kay Summersby. With careful propriety, he describes their almost-constant companionship, in both work and social settings, in public and in private. He strongly hints--but stops short of avouching--that the liaison was physically intimate as well.
Korda devotes only 60 pages of a 700-page book to the eight years of Ike's presidency. He obviously decided that his treatment here would be be "all or minimal", and he defensibly opted for "minimal". The treatment of Ike's youth and early Army years is much fuller.
The history alone makes the book worthwile, but it has the extra virtue of serving as a lesson in clear writing from the longtime editor-in-chief of Simon and Schuster. Korda writes with unpretention and simplicity. The narration is so silky smooth that you almost forget you are reading. It is a rare writer who can use "indeed" several times in a chapter and not sound stuffy.
The Miss Grundys of the world should also note that this great editor is immune from their pedantic scoldings. He freely uses dashes, semicolons, digressive clauses, and exclamation marks, all without causing a flicker of distraction. He breezes past such non-rules as that as "farther" can only refer to physical distance, and that "between" can only refer to two.
February 25, 2009
Michael Korda has to be the most arrogant biographer ever to be published. Not only does he insert himself into just about every interesting story about Dwight Eisenhower that he tells in the book, but even the book itself - underneath the jacket - doesn't feature the name of the book, but does feature the initials of the biographer. Seriously, this guy is painful to read, and it's a shame because his subject is so interesting and he managed to ruin it by drawing you out of the story and into his (the biographer's) life, or by creating such ridiculous asides that he'll have four whole lines between m-dashes as an aside in a sentence that is literally eight words long otherwise. He doesn't know that he should just create a different sentence when the aside is longer than the sentence it's held within. Seriously, this guy sucks. Don't buy this book.
May 16, 2019
There is understandably just so much that an author can put into a one volume biography of a person. Especially if the subject has spent an entire life in the military and believes that once one is out of the military acts the same in civilian life as one did in the military. Eisenhower is not different. As the author Michael Korda points out on every page from the early childhood of this novel which is filled with the human struggles which shape character.
The novel is filled with anecdotes, personality conflicts which clash with Eisenhower own personality and how he dealt with not only ones bombastic egocentric personality ( Montgomery) but the overall details and planning.
One can discuss what is missing in this one volume biography. The presidential years as an example. I recall listening to a talk by Sergi Khrushchev, the son of the Russian premier Nikita Khrushchev, who stated that when Eisenhower became President that the Soviet Union firmly believe that this General would be waging war and that the Soviet Union had to hurry and build up their missile defense systems in order to defend itself against an attack.
Wouldn't it had been a change of history if Eisenhower had gone to the Soviet Union and waged peace instead of listing to those around to scramble and come up with a missle base program to keep up with the Soviet Union. The math curriculum exploded in public schools because of the shortage of engineering. All because the Soviet Union on the one hand and the fear of the spread of Communism keep those two countries for decades.
There is a book that the author describes a meeting of industry leaders during the early 1930's that described FDR as being a person who wanted to get rid of God in America.
What is missing in this biography is the how these man vision succeed with the election of Eisenhower which resulted in a Christian revival in the 1950's. Prayer in schools, claiming that America is founded on Christian principles, placing of 'In God We Trust" on the coinage. The faith of Eisenhower who publically displayed his religious beliefs..
It is difficult to write a one volume bio of anyone who has been in the spot light. Michael Korda does succeed in showing the reader the entire person.
The novel is filled with anecdotes, personality conflicts which clash with Eisenhower own personality and how he dealt with not only ones bombastic egocentric personality ( Montgomery) but the overall details and planning.
One can discuss what is missing in this one volume biography. The presidential years as an example. I recall listening to a talk by Sergi Khrushchev, the son of the Russian premier Nikita Khrushchev, who stated that when Eisenhower became President that the Soviet Union firmly believe that this General would be waging war and that the Soviet Union had to hurry and build up their missile defense systems in order to defend itself against an attack.
Wouldn't it had been a change of history if Eisenhower had gone to the Soviet Union and waged peace instead of listing to those around to scramble and come up with a missle base program to keep up with the Soviet Union. The math curriculum exploded in public schools because of the shortage of engineering. All because the Soviet Union on the one hand and the fear of the spread of Communism keep those two countries for decades.
There is a book that the author describes a meeting of industry leaders during the early 1930's that described FDR as being a person who wanted to get rid of God in America.
What is missing in this biography is the how these man vision succeed with the election of Eisenhower which resulted in a Christian revival in the 1950's. Prayer in schools, claiming that America is founded on Christian principles, placing of 'In God We Trust" on the coinage. The faith of Eisenhower who publically displayed his religious beliefs..
It is difficult to write a one volume bio of anyone who has been in the spot light. Michael Korda does succeed in showing the reader the entire person.
October 14, 2018
So next up on my Presidential Biography Reading Project was Dwight Eisenhower. I narrowed it down to two books available from the library: this one, which is more of a biography of General Eisenhower, and another, which focused more on his presidency. It caused me to stop and remember why I had embarked on this project--to get a better understanding of the sweep of United States history. While politics play a big role in that, I am just as interested in the events and life experiences that formed the leaders of our country. So I opted for Ike, the book that had more coverage of Eisenhower's life before World War II and his presidency.
The book was quite enjoyable to read. The narrative flowed smoothly. Like Harry Truman, Eisenhower grew up in a working class family. Tight finances and a desire for more education led him to the United States Military Academy. His success there led him to a variety of postings in training and administration. He found it frustrating, but those experiences equipped him to become the supreme commander of the Allied forces in Europe, where, in Mr. Korda's opinion, Eisenhower did a superb job of leading combat operations as well. (I learned that there is plenty of controversy over how well General Eisenhower did his job. Mr. Korda acknowledges that but then makes the case in Eisenhower's defense.)(I also learned that the first enemy American troops engaged in North Africa were the French! So much I need to learn...) After 352 pages of Eisenhower's war time exploits, Mr. Korda breezes through Eisenhower's campaign and eight years in the White House in a mere 83 pages. At that point, I was beginning to wonder if I should have borrowed both of the books I looked at. But brief as that section was, I did feel I got a sufficient overview of the decade. All in all, the book was well worth checking out.
The book was quite enjoyable to read. The narrative flowed smoothly. Like Harry Truman, Eisenhower grew up in a working class family. Tight finances and a desire for more education led him to the United States Military Academy. His success there led him to a variety of postings in training and administration. He found it frustrating, but those experiences equipped him to become the supreme commander of the Allied forces in Europe, where, in Mr. Korda's opinion, Eisenhower did a superb job of leading combat operations as well. (I learned that there is plenty of controversy over how well General Eisenhower did his job. Mr. Korda acknowledges that but then makes the case in Eisenhower's defense.)(I also learned that the first enemy American troops engaged in North Africa were the French! So much I need to learn...) After 352 pages of Eisenhower's war time exploits, Mr. Korda breezes through Eisenhower's campaign and eight years in the White House in a mere 83 pages. At that point, I was beginning to wonder if I should have borrowed both of the books I looked at. But brief as that section was, I did feel I got a sufficient overview of the decade. All in all, the book was well worth checking out.
April 25, 2023
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, 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?
I did like the way he started the book as the narrative shifts to the moments before the great invasion of D-Day. General Eisenhower is making not only one of the most important decisions of his life, but in all of world history. Then as he is about to make his decision to go for the invasion of D-Day the story changes again, it goes back to his time as a boy and how he became a great general.
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 Presidential career than Korda does.
Other than that, I still recommend reading this book. 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 points on Ike's military career.
I did like the way he started the book as the narrative shifts to the moments before the great invasion of D-Day. General Eisenhower is making not only one of the most important decisions of his life, but in all of world history. Then as he is about to make his decision to go for the invasion of D-Day the story changes again, it goes back to his time as a boy and how he became a great general.
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 Presidential career than Korda does.
Other than that, I still recommend reading this book. 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 points on Ike's military career.
May 8, 2012
Dwight D. Eisenhower was the first president I remember knowing or thinking much about. FDR was dead before I was five. I was ten when Truman left office. I recall my father criticizing him for his unpresidential language--a man in his position shouldn’t be saying “damn” and “hell” in public--but not much else. But I do remember Ike vs. Adlai. I even listened to one of the conventions on the radio, or at least parts of it. Why or what I got out of it, I can’t say. It was probably the democratic convention, since my folks were democrats, and we were certainly for Adlai. Why, again, I can’t say since dad was so conservative he squeaked. However, he was also a veteran of the depression and as such a great admirer of FDR. Whether he was a Republican before that, I don’t know. Part of the political battle lines were over Ike’s intellect. Democrats said he had little or none. Right or not, it didn’t matter to the voters.
According to Michael Korda, he had a great deal more upstairs than people gave him credit for. He was drubbed by some of his military colleagues for lack of battle sense. His contribution to the allied effort, it was said, was mainly as a politician able to keep multiple factions from destroying the various projects he oversaw, but his acumen as a strategist was low. Yet, he was from an early age steeped in history, particularly military history. He had heroes ranging from Caesar to Hannibal to Grant. This, before he’d formulated any idea of a military career, a profession he entered mainly as a way to get to college when his family couldn’t afford to send him.
Add to this reading background to a West Point education (though he didn’t distinguish himself) and you have a man well-prepared to lead troops. Problem was, he wasn’t given the opportunity for some time. He was too good at teaching, organizing, and other nuts and bolts. So, WWI found him being held stateside training men to go to the battles he wanted to fight himself. When he finally got to go abroad, it was as an aid to General MacArthur in the Phillipines, where he became was MacArthur later called “the best clerk I ever had.”
During all this, though, he was being exposed to high-level military politics and operations, kept abreast of the latest weapons technology--including aircraft--as well as being introduced to (and impressing) quite a number of distinguished brass. All of which became one of those moments when opportunity meets preparation. In a couple of years following Pearl Harbor, he rose from lieutenant colonel to four- then five-star general in command of the allied armies and (for D-day) air forces of five countries, with the results everyone knows about.
Korda (who is, incidentally, a nephew of Sir Alexander Korda, a distinguished film producer from Britain and one of the group of remarkable Hungarian Jews who escaped to the west and changed all our lives, for which see my comment on The Great Escape, Dec. 29, 2007.) counters as he enumerates the rumors and attacks that have followed Ike. Spends so much time on them, in fact, that he begins to seem a bit of apologist. Patton and Montgomery, two of Ike’s main antagonists (though Patton was also a friend) come off looking almost juvenile. The idea of an affair (which seems to me almost certainly to have happened) with his “driver”, Kay Summersby, is dismissed for lack of concrete evidence. He even gets a pass for his rather shabby treatment of Mamie, a gregarious child of some privilege for whose social proclivities Ike apparently had little sympathy. I came away from the book feeling quite sorry for her. She was virtually abandoned for years and years. Even when Ike wasn’t overseas, he was immersed in his job. And even when they went to Paris for a time (largely to indulge her) he seems to have given her short shrift. And that’s not counting rather miserable stays in Panama and the Phillipines, where she suffered both physically and emotionally from heat and loneliness. And when he was in Europe, the rumors of affairs with Summersby were often in print, which promoted enormous anxiety for Mamie. Instead of getting a different driver, he expanded Summersby’s duties and increased the amount and quality of the time they spent together. When Mamie mentioned her concerns, he made light of them. How would a man as busy as he, constantly surrounded by people, have time for affairs? Of course, as an army wife, she might have expected that hubby’s duty always came first, but Ike seems to have been particularly insensitive to her.
It’s during the presidency that Korda stretches his apologies for Ike the farthest. Even beneath the excuses, it seems that Ike’s health impaired his performance during his second term, especially the last couple of years. I’m glad he didn’t quit, though, because Nixon (whom he had the good instincts to despise) was waiting in the wings, and who needed more of him earlier? We might never have gotten Kennedy. And here are some things I didn’t know that I appreciate now:
--Truman’s order desegregating the armed forces came in 1948, but was in many places not enforced even by the time Ike took office in 1952. He made sure it went into effect in the most effective and unheralded way. He ordered refurbishing of southern barracks, had all the whites only signs painted over and never redone.
--As his magnificent Interstate Highway system came into being, he prohibited segregation wherever it went and among whoever worked on it.
--Although he regretted appointing Earl Warren, when the time came for him to enforce the supreme court’s order in Little Rock, he did what he (and Grant, to whom repeatedly compares him) had always done militarily--invoked irresistible force in the form of the 101st Airborne, with which he had special ties from the combat days.
--He had a chance to get us into Vietnam, refused, and warned others against the whole idea.
For none of these things did he get much credit. Maybe if he’d been more flamboyant, made more out of the principles he followed to accomplish all this, he might have had more of an effect on the future. But who knows?
His swan song, of course, was a warning against the military-industrial complex--a phrase he created and an establishment he helped build--and we should have listened. Apparently we can’t.
Korda’s created a valuable piece of history here. Perhaps he’s a bit kinder to Eisenhower than he needed to be. Perhaps it was a necessary correction to all the negative that appears to lie around out there. It would be nice to know what Mamie would say about it all.
According to Michael Korda, he had a great deal more upstairs than people gave him credit for. He was drubbed by some of his military colleagues for lack of battle sense. His contribution to the allied effort, it was said, was mainly as a politician able to keep multiple factions from destroying the various projects he oversaw, but his acumen as a strategist was low. Yet, he was from an early age steeped in history, particularly military history. He had heroes ranging from Caesar to Hannibal to Grant. This, before he’d formulated any idea of a military career, a profession he entered mainly as a way to get to college when his family couldn’t afford to send him.
Add to this reading background to a West Point education (though he didn’t distinguish himself) and you have a man well-prepared to lead troops. Problem was, he wasn’t given the opportunity for some time. He was too good at teaching, organizing, and other nuts and bolts. So, WWI found him being held stateside training men to go to the battles he wanted to fight himself. When he finally got to go abroad, it was as an aid to General MacArthur in the Phillipines, where he became was MacArthur later called “the best clerk I ever had.”
During all this, though, he was being exposed to high-level military politics and operations, kept abreast of the latest weapons technology--including aircraft--as well as being introduced to (and impressing) quite a number of distinguished brass. All of which became one of those moments when opportunity meets preparation. In a couple of years following Pearl Harbor, he rose from lieutenant colonel to four- then five-star general in command of the allied armies and (for D-day) air forces of five countries, with the results everyone knows about.
Korda (who is, incidentally, a nephew of Sir Alexander Korda, a distinguished film producer from Britain and one of the group of remarkable Hungarian Jews who escaped to the west and changed all our lives, for which see my comment on The Great Escape, Dec. 29, 2007.) counters as he enumerates the rumors and attacks that have followed Ike. Spends so much time on them, in fact, that he begins to seem a bit of apologist. Patton and Montgomery, two of Ike’s main antagonists (though Patton was also a friend) come off looking almost juvenile. The idea of an affair (which seems to me almost certainly to have happened) with his “driver”, Kay Summersby, is dismissed for lack of concrete evidence. He even gets a pass for his rather shabby treatment of Mamie, a gregarious child of some privilege for whose social proclivities Ike apparently had little sympathy. I came away from the book feeling quite sorry for her. She was virtually abandoned for years and years. Even when Ike wasn’t overseas, he was immersed in his job. And even when they went to Paris for a time (largely to indulge her) he seems to have given her short shrift. And that’s not counting rather miserable stays in Panama and the Phillipines, where she suffered both physically and emotionally from heat and loneliness. And when he was in Europe, the rumors of affairs with Summersby were often in print, which promoted enormous anxiety for Mamie. Instead of getting a different driver, he expanded Summersby’s duties and increased the amount and quality of the time they spent together. When Mamie mentioned her concerns, he made light of them. How would a man as busy as he, constantly surrounded by people, have time for affairs? Of course, as an army wife, she might have expected that hubby’s duty always came first, but Ike seems to have been particularly insensitive to her.
It’s during the presidency that Korda stretches his apologies for Ike the farthest. Even beneath the excuses, it seems that Ike’s health impaired his performance during his second term, especially the last couple of years. I’m glad he didn’t quit, though, because Nixon (whom he had the good instincts to despise) was waiting in the wings, and who needed more of him earlier? We might never have gotten Kennedy. And here are some things I didn’t know that I appreciate now:
--Truman’s order desegregating the armed forces came in 1948, but was in many places not enforced even by the time Ike took office in 1952. He made sure it went into effect in the most effective and unheralded way. He ordered refurbishing of southern barracks, had all the whites only signs painted over and never redone.
--As his magnificent Interstate Highway system came into being, he prohibited segregation wherever it went and among whoever worked on it.
--Although he regretted appointing Earl Warren, when the time came for him to enforce the supreme court’s order in Little Rock, he did what he (and Grant, to whom repeatedly compares him) had always done militarily--invoked irresistible force in the form of the 101st Airborne, with which he had special ties from the combat days.
--He had a chance to get us into Vietnam, refused, and warned others against the whole idea.
For none of these things did he get much credit. Maybe if he’d been more flamboyant, made more out of the principles he followed to accomplish all this, he might have had more of an effect on the future. But who knows?
His swan song, of course, was a warning against the military-industrial complex--a phrase he created and an establishment he helped build--and we should have listened. Apparently we can’t.
Korda’s created a valuable piece of history here. Perhaps he’s a bit kinder to Eisenhower than he needed to be. Perhaps it was a necessary correction to all the negative that appears to lie around out there. It would be nice to know what Mamie would say about it all.
April 8, 2018
One of the better biographies I've read in recent years. Starting with Dwight Eisenhower's birth and growing up in Texas and Kansas before he entered West Point. Interesting tidbit - he originally wanted to join the Navy. His disappointment at not given command of troops in combat in the Great War was a big factor in his on-going military career. He might not have become the famous figure well-established in history if not for some outside intervention, including Blackjack Pershing and George Marshall bringing him into the staffs. Equally important was his 2nd in command role under MacArthur in the Phillipines in the years before the war.
Given the chance to command Operation Torch, he distinguished himself after some rough patches and that led to him being designated the Supreme Allied Commander.
The book did not gloss over the difficulties he and Mamie had even as they had a long life together. In a like vein, Michael Korda didn't specifically deny Ike's affair with his British driver, Kay Summersby, but did show how unlikely it was, given the staff almost always surrounding the general.
The Second World War seemed to be the focus of the book but that makes sense, given the scope of the war and how much it changed the boy from Abilene from a soldier to a statesman. Unfortunately, his presidency was less in-depth to the point that one of his biggest, obvious successes, the interstate highway system, was relegated to footnotes and bibliographic references.
Still, I found the book highly informative and far from a dull recitation of a man's life.
Given the chance to command Operation Torch, he distinguished himself after some rough patches and that led to him being designated the Supreme Allied Commander.
The book did not gloss over the difficulties he and Mamie had even as they had a long life together. In a like vein, Michael Korda didn't specifically deny Ike's affair with his British driver, Kay Summersby, but did show how unlikely it was, given the staff almost always surrounding the general.
The Second World War seemed to be the focus of the book but that makes sense, given the scope of the war and how much it changed the boy from Abilene from a soldier to a statesman. Unfortunately, his presidency was less in-depth to the point that one of his biggest, obvious successes, the interstate highway system, was relegated to footnotes and bibliographic references.
Still, I found the book highly informative and far from a dull recitation of a man's life.
May 19, 2020
A very readable biography, which is good because it's a whopping 720 pages of text. It has taken me longer to get thorough similar books, which is a testament to the readability. It is not un-biased, though. Clearly the author is a fan, and has very little criticism for the man/general/president. In fact, many parts seem to refute past criticism, and try to repaint his legacy on certain matters. This is perhaps the goal of this biography, since there are a number of previous and noteworthy bios of Ike.
The bulk of the book focuses on Ike's time as general, and ultimately the supreme commander of the Allied Forces in Europe. But like many WWII books, the writing gets mired in the constant bickering and posturing of the other generals and commanders, both American and British. Many sections feel more like a history of the invasion strategies and the battling egos behind them rather than a focus on Ike, and I've read that story before.
Ike's formative years and his time as president feel like bookends to the WWII years. True, his role was monumental, but I would have liked a little more well-rounded story. It also feels like the presidential years were glossed over. Perhaps it's dull by comparison to WWII, but the early years of the cold war, international diplomacy and growing domestic crises represent a critical time, and we get not much more than a taste.
Overall good, but may not satisfy those looking for a more intimate biography of his entire life.
The bulk of the book focuses on Ike's time as general, and ultimately the supreme commander of the Allied Forces in Europe. But like many WWII books, the writing gets mired in the constant bickering and posturing of the other generals and commanders, both American and British. Many sections feel more like a history of the invasion strategies and the battling egos behind them rather than a focus on Ike, and I've read that story before.
Ike's formative years and his time as president feel like bookends to the WWII years. True, his role was monumental, but I would have liked a little more well-rounded story. It also feels like the presidential years were glossed over. Perhaps it's dull by comparison to WWII, but the early years of the cold war, international diplomacy and growing domestic crises represent a critical time, and we get not much more than a taste.
Overall good, but may not satisfy those looking for a more intimate biography of his entire life.
June 2, 2019
This is the second book by Korda I've read, the first being Hero about T.E. Lawrence. They we're both well written, engrossing, and we'll researched. Korda's abilities are at their best when describing military men and campaigns. He is likely an author I will seek out in the future. While Ike is perhaps a bit less inspired that Hero, that is understandable based on the subjects.
I think Korda is sometimes a bit overly apologetic for Ike, willing to take his side of events, but this is natural and expected of biographers unless they set out to tear this subjects down. Particularly regarding Ike's relationship with Kay Summersby, one gets the sense that he's either willfully turning a blind eye or choosing to take a lack of concrete evidence as proof of exoneration.
The book suffers a little from unequal time devoted to different parts of Ike's life. While the WWII years are wonderfully detailed and interesting, the white house years are crammed into the last 60-80 pages of the book and where once Korda used a fine pen to sketch events he then switches to broad brush strokes. I will likely want to read another book to fill out these years. Possible Waging Peace. This isn't entirely surprising, Korda primary interest and talent seems to be military history and biography, so the political years are likely less interesting for him.
All in all, a particularly good biography especially if your interested in the European theater of WWII.
I think Korda is sometimes a bit overly apologetic for Ike, willing to take his side of events, but this is natural and expected of biographers unless they set out to tear this subjects down. Particularly regarding Ike's relationship with Kay Summersby, one gets the sense that he's either willfully turning a blind eye or choosing to take a lack of concrete evidence as proof of exoneration.
The book suffers a little from unequal time devoted to different parts of Ike's life. While the WWII years are wonderfully detailed and interesting, the white house years are crammed into the last 60-80 pages of the book and where once Korda used a fine pen to sketch events he then switches to broad brush strokes. I will likely want to read another book to fill out these years. Possible Waging Peace. This isn't entirely surprising, Korda primary interest and talent seems to be military history and biography, so the political years are likely less interesting for him.
All in all, a particularly good biography especially if your interested in the European theater of WWII.
July 8, 2024
Eisenhower is one of those names everyone may recognize but not really know what he did. He was born to a poor family with five brothers besides himself. They all made a good life and especially Dwight starting when he realized he could go to college for free by attending West Point. There he was athletic and a mediocre student. He met and married Mamie and all this before World War I. He made the right connections to advance his career especially when it became obvious he was smarter than his grades showed. He served in Panama before working under MacArthur in the Philippines and got slow but sure promotions. He never saw combat in these years but got educated in military tactics and theory. When World War II started, he was seen as a good liaison with the British and eventually became the overall commander of Allied forces in Europe. Here he got his first combat experience leading the landings in North Africa during 1942 and Overlord in 1944. Eisenhower had the personality to deal with the difficult prima donnas in the British, French, and American armies. He was against using the atomic bomb on Japan but also believed once fighting started, all available resources must be used to minimize casualties and duration. He became a good president and continued to handle difficult leaders of other countries. This book is an excellent narrative of Eisenhower’s life and times, despite maps that are oversimplified and incomplete.
September 28, 2018
"I Like Ike!" this was a campaign slogan in 1952 and also in 1956, when Dwight D. Eisenhower was running for President of the United States. I have "liked Ike" ever since I was a little girl, when I looked on the President of my country as a grandfather figure. I remember reading a short kids' biography of Ike that I ordered from the Scholastic Book Club when I was in 4th grade. As I entered collage and decided that I wanted to focus primarily of World War II history, Ike, as the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe, became very interesting to me. As time has gone on, I have heard a lot of comments about the 1950's and Eisenhower's presidency as a time to general good will and "do nothingness." Nothing could be further from the truth.
Korda's biography of Eisenhower covered his entire life, with emphasis, of course on the WWII years and his post-war activities. I thought it a very fair and somewhat favorable review of those years in Ike's life. It was very interesting to read, very understandable and engaging. I totally recommend it to anyone interested in mid 20th Century history and especially the life one of America's great heroes.
Korda's biography of Eisenhower covered his entire life, with emphasis, of course on the WWII years and his post-war activities. I thought it a very fair and somewhat favorable review of those years in Ike's life. It was very interesting to read, very understandable and engaging. I totally recommend it to anyone interested in mid 20th Century history and especially the life one of America's great heroes.
November 6, 2018
I love reading history books, especially biographies of individuals who helped to shape history. I was especially excited to read a biography about Eisenhower, because I knew it would contain elements of different periods of American history.
Overall, I enjoyed this book. The author did an impressive amount of research, and there is a great deal of detail, especially as it relates to Ike's WWII years. The book does delve most heavily into the WWII years, in my opinion. I would have liked to have an equal amount of detail on Ike's presidential years.
The author is also clearly a big "fan" of Eisenhower. Ike is given the benefit of the doubt in virtually every area by the author. After finishing the book, I feel like I would also like to read another perspective, perhaps one that provides more detail on the presidency and a greater analysis of Ike's impact on history.
All of that said, I enjoyed this book a great deal and felt like I learned new things about Eisenhower.
Overall, I enjoyed this book. The author did an impressive amount of research, and there is a great deal of detail, especially as it relates to Ike's WWII years. The book does delve most heavily into the WWII years, in my opinion. I would have liked to have an equal amount of detail on Ike's presidential years.
The author is also clearly a big "fan" of Eisenhower. Ike is given the benefit of the doubt in virtually every area by the author. After finishing the book, I feel like I would also like to read another perspective, perhaps one that provides more detail on the presidency and a greater analysis of Ike's impact on history.
All of that said, I enjoyed this book a great deal and felt like I learned new things about Eisenhower.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 145 reviews