Eisenhower in War and Peace

by Jean Edward Smith

NAMED ONE OF THE BEST BOOKS OF THE YEAR BY
The Christian Science Monitor • St. Louis Post-Dispatch

In his magisterial bestseller FDR, Jean Edward Smith gave us a fresh, modern look at one of the most indelible figures in American history. Now this peerless biographer returns with a new life of Dwight D. Eisenhower that is as full, rich, and revealing as anything ever written about America’s thirty-fourth president. As America searches for new heroes to lead it out of its present-day predicaments, Jean Edward Smith’s achievement lies in reintroducing us to a hero from the past whose virtues have become clouded in the mists of history.

Here is Eisenhower the young dreamer, charting a course from Abilene, Kansas, to West Point, to Paris under Pershing, and beyond. Drawing on a wealth of untapped primary sources, Smith provides new insight into Ike’s maddening apprenticeship under Douglas MacArthur in Washington and the Philippines. Then the whole panorama of World War II unfolds, with Eisenhower’s superlative generalship forging the Allied path to victory through multiple reversals of fortune in North Africa and Italy, culminating in the triumphant invasion of Normandy. Smith also gives us an intriguing examination of Ike’s finances, details his wartime affair with Kay Summersby, and reveals the inside story of the 1952 Republican convention that catapulted him to the White House.

Smith’s chronicle of Eisenhower’s presidential years is as compelling as it is comprehensive. Derided by his detractors as a somnambulant caretaker, Eisenhower emerges in Smith’s perceptive retelling as both a canny politician and a skillful, decisive leader. Smith convincingly portrays an Eisenhower who engineered an end to America’s three-year no-win war in Korea, resisted calls for preventative wars against the Soviet Union and China, and boldly deployed the Seventh Fleet to protect Formosa from invasion. This Eisenhower, Smith shows us, stared down Khrushchev over Berlin and forced the withdrawal of British, French, and Israeli forces from the Suez Canal. He managed not only to keep the peace—after Ike made peace in Korea, not one American soldier was killed in action during his tenure—but also to enhance America’s prestige in the Middle East and throughout the world.

Domestically, Eisenhower reduced defense spending, balanced the budget, constructed the interstate highway system, and provided social security coverage for millions who were self-employed. Ike believed that traditional American values encompassed change and progress.

Unmatched in insight, Eisenhower in War and Peace at last gives us an Eisenhower for our time—and for the ages.

Praise for Eisenhower in War and Peace
 
“[A] fine new biography . . . [Eisenhower’s] White House years need a more thorough exploration than many previous biographers have given them. Smith, whose long, distinguished career includes superb one-volume biographies of Grant and Franklin Roosevelt, provides just that.”—The Washington Post
 
“Highly readable . . . [Smith] shows us that [Eisenhower’s] ascent to the highest levels of the military establishment had much more to do with his easy mastery of politics than with any great strategic or tactical achievements.”—The Wall Street Journal
 
“Always engrossing . . . Smith portrays a genuinely admirable Eisenhower: smart, congenial, unpretentious, and no ideologue. Despite competing biographies from Ambrose, Perret, and D’Este, this is the best.”—Publishers Weekly (starred review)

Genres: Biography, History, Presidents, Nonfiction, American History, Politics, Us Presidents

976 pages, Hardcover

First published February 21, 2012

About the author

Jean Edward Smith was the John Marshall Professor of Political Science at Marshall University and professor emeritus at the University of Toronto after having served as professor of political economy there for thirty-five years. Smith also served as professor of history and government at Ashland University.

A graduate of McKinley High School in Washington, D.C., Smith received an A.B. from Princeton University in 1954. While attending Princeton, Smith was mentored under law professor and political scientist William M. Beaney. Professor Beaney's American Constitutional Law: Introductory Essays & Selected Cases, became a standard text and was widely used in university constitutional law classes for several years. Serving in the military from 1954-1961, he rose from the rank of Second Lieutenant to Captain (RA) US Army (Artillery). Smith served in West Berlin and Dachau, Germany. In 1964, he obtained a Ph.D. from the Department of Public Law and Government of Columbia University. Smith began his teaching career as assistant professor of government at Dartmouth College, a post he held from 1963 until 1965. He then became a professor of political economy at the University of Toronto in 1965 until his retirement in 1999. Professor Smith also served as visiting professor at several universities during his tenure at the University of Toronto and after his retirement including the Freie Universität in Berlin, Georgetown University[2], the University of Virginia’s Woodrow Wilson Department of Government and Foreign Affairs, and the University of California at San Diego.

Reviews

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Dwight Eisenhower remains an enigma. For the majority of Americans he is a benign fatherly figure looming indistinctly out of the mists of the past – a high-ranking general who directed the Allied armies to victory in Europe, and a caretaker president who presided over eight years of international calm and domestic tranquility. To those who knew him, Ike was a tireless taskmaster who worked with incredible subtlety to move events in the direction he wished them to go. Most would agree he was a man of principle, decency, and common sense, whom the country could count on to do what was right. In both war and peace he gave the world confidence in American leadership…”
- Jean Edward Smith, Eisenhower in War and Peace

Dwight D. Eisenhower had two big jobs in his life. First, he was a soldier for roughly forty years, rising to the rank of five-star general, and serving as the Supreme Commander of the victorious Allied Expeditionary Force during the Second World War. Second, he spent eight years as the President of the United States, a period of marked prosperity and relative peace.

Each of these careers is incredibly impressive – and book-worthy – on its own. Taken together, they make Eisenhower into one of the most remarkable individuals in American history, with a resume matched only by the likes of George Washington and Ulysses Grant.

Jean Edward Smith’s massive Eisenhower in War and Peace does justice to its subject, and ably captures Eisenhower’s dueling roles as soldier and statesman. Somewhat a victim of his own success – he sits outside the top-tier presidents simply because his two-terms never involved a world-historical challenge – Smith makes a compelling case for Ike as one of the most formidable characters of his time.

***

Eisenhower lived a big life, and Smith has delivered a big book. It is a cinderblock of paper, with 766 pages of text, nearly a hundred pages of annotated endnotes, and numerous footnotes. The mere marshaling of all this information, and its coherent presentation, is an achievement in and of itself.

Alas, as I’ve noted in reviews of other single-volume biographies, no life worth learning can fit between just two covers. Excisions have to be made, and points of emphasis chosen. As Smith telegraphs in the title, his focus is on Eisenhower’s war years and presidential years. That is not to say that the other parts of his life are skipped entirely, only that they are skimmed over. Little space is devoted to his childhood or West Point years, while his post-presidential years get even less.

The choices Smith made are wholly supportable. Still, from a purely storytelling perspective, it feels a little bit unbalanced. For instance, I am always interested in following powerful people after they have left power. This period is often fascinating for what it reveals about an ex-leader as he or she tries to rationalize their actions, negotiate their past compromises, and shape their image for the future. By skipping this, I feel I have an at-best incomplete version of Eisenhower.

***

Of the two main sections, I thought Smith’s handling of the war years worked best. A rather sympathetic biographer, his critiques can be pretty sharp. In all honesty, I expected Smith to work the apologia angle, trying to turn Eisenhower – who never saw combat – into something more than a political general chiefly valuable for his ability to maintain the alliance between the United States and Great Britain. To the contrary, Smith is quite harsh in his assessment of Eisenhower’s work in North Africa, Italy, and Western Europe.

In particular, Smith writes scathingly about Ike’s broad-front strategy of advance – a slap instead of a punch – that allowed the Germans to pull back from Normandy, regroup, and delay the end of the war. This might seem a pointless criticism, since the outcome was the same, but when you look at the average number of deaths each day, you start to realize that ending the war quickly was of utmost importance.

The presidential years are also well done, though Smith is more willing to give Ike the benefit of the doubt. With regard to Indochina/Vietnam, for example, Smith credits Eisenhower for refusing to use nuclear weapons at Dien Bien Phu, but pretty much ignores any suggestion that his actions precipitated American involvement in Vietnam.

That said, Smith – as best he can – gives us the important points both high and low. He exalts Ike for his restraint during the Suez Crisis, and abjures him for supporting coups in Iran and Guatemala. His chapter on sending troops to Little Rock to enforce Brown vs. Board of Education is insightful, as it notes how Eisenhower’s belief in his constitutional duties trumped his personal reluctance to pursue integration. In this vein, Smith attempts a more nuanced view of Ike’s racial views, taking issue with statements attributed to him by the historian Stephen Ambrose – whose bestselling works have many, many problems – which lack any corroboration.

Ultimately, Smith does more than the average popular historian to explain his work and show how he arrived at his conclusions.

***

Smith – who died in 2019 – has a marvelous reputation. His books are accessible, but also learned. One of the things I most appreciated about Eisenhower in War and Peace is its deft use of a variety of sources. The primary documents are there, of course, and Smith also conducted interviews with some of the participants. Additionally, he smartly employs secondary sources, providing the wisdom and judgments of other historians along with his own.

***

As in all biographies, certain themes arise. Perhaps the most notable thread is Eisenhower’s ability to mask his ambitions behind a veneer of awe-shucks reluctance. During his military career, Ike used friends in high places to squeaky-wheel himself out of postings he didn’t like, and get himself into ones he did. When it came time to run for the highest office in the United States, he created a groundswell by not seeming to want the job.

Another thread has to do with Eisenhower’s shaping of his own image. This comes across most starkly in his relationship with Kay Summersby, an Englishwoman who served as Ike’s driver and mistress during the Second World War. There is a certain level of sordidness inherent in the discussion, especially regarding how far along the basepaths Ike and Kay traveled. After all, no one really wants to imagine Dwight David Eisenhower engaged in heavy petting.

Yet the thorough recounting serves an illustrative purpose. More specifically, when it came time to end the affair – as a necessary expedient for political life – Ike moved without hesitation. As Smith memorably notes, Eisenhower’s “dear Kay” letter was “cold blooded and ruthless,” and that “George Patton would have said a warmer good-bye to his horse.” Afterwards, Kay’s role in Ike’s life was written out of the record, and her image literally airbrushed out of photographs.

The contemporary public knew only the persona of Grandpa President, and not the conflicted lover who – according to Smith – wanted to divorce Mamie in favor of his wartime fling.

***

The twentieth century is filled with towering figures. In his own age, he had to contend with titans such as Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, and de Gaulle. On this crowded, ego-driven stage, among these shapers of fate and destiny, Dwight D. Eisenhower holds his own.

For all his flaws – and if men were angels, there’d be no need for biographies – he often did the right thing; he took responsibility for his failures; he believed in the Constitution and its parceling of powers; and he exuded a commonsensical pragmatism that allowed him to escape the confines of party politics and rigid ideologies. A complex individual masquerading as a simple Midwesterner, he is one of those leader’s whose stature seems only to grow the farther we get from him.

[Anthony · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Allrounder

I have always thought Dwight D. Eisenhower is one of those people who was born at the right time. After all he was the supreme commander of allied forces in Europe during total victory over Nazi Germany, a just war. He also became president of the United States when it was perhaps at its richest, most confident and powerful. Jean Edward Smith certainly thinks so, he believes that Eisenhower or ‘Ike’ as he was nicknamed, always had Lady Luck smiling down upon him. I feel this the accepted view of Ike, he seemed to be in the right place at the right time and was lucky enough to have his talents recognised by his superiors. Where Smith’s biography looks to change our outlook on Ike is through challenging the narrative on his presidency. It has long been the strap line that Ike easily won elections as he was coming off the back of success in WWII, but didn’t really do all that much in the Oval Office. It was a successful presidency, but was Ike a great president?Smith’s answer is ‘yes’ and states that after FDR, Ike was in fact the most successful president of the twentieth century.

His achievements in the presidency are vast. He ended the Korean War, strengthened European alliances whilst overseeing the departure of European colonialism. It can be argued he recused the Republican Party from the wilderness or worse McCarthyism. He oversaw economic and technological growth and reluctantly facilitated the civil rights movement. His approval ratings which were as high when his second term ended as when he was elected. This is extremely rare. But as I said at the start, this was a time of the USA’s height of power and wealth, how would he had coped as a wartime president or one with an economic crash? Smith shows how a lifetime in the army, developed key skills in organisation, planning, leadership, logistics and managing huge personalities led to success in WWII. This in turn prepared him to become president. Almost in a Churchillian way his life was just a preparation for that moment.

Born in 1890 into a large, but relatively poor family, Ike grew up in Kansas. It appears his mothers family had some money, but his father David was deeply religious, difficult and lacked any real ambition to achieve more. But he had his sons, all of who were intelligent, driven and successful. Ike showed great promise at school, it was here that luck first shone on him. Thanks to recent changes, for the first time West Point became available through an entrance exam for the less well off. Ike won the entrance exam competition and was able to enrol. He graduated in 1915, to a particularly talented class where 59 of its members would become general officers. When WWI came, Ike requested a front line commission, but was initially held back in the US to serve in logistics. When he was eventually sent to France he commanded a unit that trained tank crews. He would never lead troops into battle, this would hang over him for the rest of his life and in some ways stifled his judgement.

Between the wars Ike chose to stay on in the army and built a key friendship with George S Patton. He also managed to serve under some of the US’s most talented generals, John Pershing, Douglas MacArthur and George Marshall. The interwar years saw a shrinkage in the military and a stall in most officer’s careers. Ike was no different. He saw various deployments, including a move Panama to watch over the canal. He was appointed chief military aid to General MacArthur and in 1935, followed the famous general to the Philippines to be a military advisor to the local government. It was here Ike disagreed with much of MacArthur’s decisions and views on military matters, especially the arrogance of MacArthur’s command. Although these differences were later played down. But this experience taught Ike vital lessons for the upcoming war and how to handle talented and opinionated men such as Winston Churchill, FDR, Alan Brooke, George Marshall, George S Patton and Bernard Montgomery. But studying military history was also vital. He read Carl von Clausewitz’s On War and knew it’s lessons perhaps more than anyone else in the US Army. He became the master of how to do as much as possible with as little as possible, therefore setting priorities was his philosophy.

WWII was his finest hour. Marshall promoted him over hundreds of more senior officers to become the army’s chief planner after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. After meeting with FDR, he was appointed Supreme Allied Commander in 1942 and oversaw Operation Torch, the invasion of North Africa. His talents, as I have said above lay not in the fighting, but organisation. He did not understand strategy as much as Brooke, Patton or Omar Bradley. This led to stretching allied forces too thin over a broad front in the winter of 1944 leading to set backs in the Battle of the Bulge. However, he was able to weigh costs verses benefits, delegate authority and maintain morale. FDR and Marshall needed no one else. Eisenhower also learnt political subtlety, for example quietly supporting Charles de Gaulle, who FDR could not stand. But in the end was forced to work with. This would be the style of his presidency, leaving no trace and working with a ‘quiet hand’. During the war the Smith shows the importance of Ike’s relationship with his driver Kay Summersby. Smith believes this was a sexual relationship, I also feel this is very likely.

Operation Overlord, the largest amphibious invasion in history was orchestrated by Ike and was a huge success. However Smith does not even mention Ike’s famous speech to the allied soldiers, delivered on the eve of D-Day! After victory in Europe and a beckoning return to the USA, he dropped Kay like a stone. Politics waited. He would follow Ulysses S Grant into the White House after winning a war. Perhaps his greatest achievement was to make his presidency look easy or boring. This has led to many underestimating him, not Smith who appreciates Ike, perhaps more as a president than as a general. He saw that doing too little risks defeat, too much exhaustion. But walking the tightrope of being in the right place was key. Here he kept the US out of any wars for his entirety of office. He also managed to improve America’s standing and respect within the world. But it was a lonely and difficult place, which eventually destroyed his health.

This biography of Ike is excellent, but as with Smith’s FDR there is no conclusion. So even though the reader can establish Smith’s general feelings, they have to be drawn out sentence by sentence throughout the text. As I have said above the D-Day speech is omitted for some reason, with his love of golf and Augusta National coming near the end of the book, but again no mention of the famous Eisenhower Tree on the 17th fairway which he also shot his ball into so many times he unsuccessfully lobbied to take it down. Alas these are minor points, but these, as a young boy growing up, were what I knew most about him. Otherwise this is a very well written book, Smith has a man easy, clear style. Ike, for me seems to have been an exceptional human, who was good at most things he put his hand to. If he’d had managed to command troops in battle, this may have overcome his lack of knowledge of military strategy which caused setbacks in WWII. In conclusion, this book is throughly enjoyable, you should go and read it.

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a fantastic book. First, it’s a very well written and organized summary. But more than that, I felt like I came away with an understanding of Eisenhower – what he was like, how he made decisions, and what was important to him.

Smith is not afraid to interject his own opinions along the way, which I liked. It was always clear what the facts were and what Smith’s analysis was. His reasoning always seemed sound, so I enjoyed hearing his assessments.

Overall Smith has a very positive opinion of Eisenhower, though more so as a President than as a military commander. There were several key military decisions Eisenhower made that Smith is extremely critical of. Smith also notes how Eisenhower was adept at disingenuously rewriting history with his accounts of these events. But he credits Eisenhower for his good decisions and ability to learn from his mistakes.

One thing I found interesting about Eisenhower’s military career is how he ascended like a rocket from 1941, when he was a Lieutenant Colonel, to 1944, when he was a 5 Star General. That’s quite a meteoric rise considering from 1919 to 1936 he stayed at Major the whole time.

Smith’s assessment of Eisenhower as President is almost universally positive. Even on events where you might think there is room for criticism, like not being more vocal about civil rights during the Arkansas National Guard standoff, or the embarrassment of being caught lying about the U2 spy plane over the Soviet Union, Smith defends him. He even goes as far to say that when he refused to fire Alan Dulles for the U2 incident and vociferously took the blame upon himself, it may have been his “finest hour” as president. This was one area where I thought Smith went too far; I'm not sure why it wasn't more important to Smith that he allowed Dulles to talk him into such an unwise plan in the first place (besides, firing Dulles for suggesting it seems completely reasonable!).

You might have some preconceived ideas in your mind about what Eisenhower was like. Smith confirms some things, but you might be surprised at times. For instance, you may have an impression of Eisenhower as passive and not very intellectual. Someone who allowed his aides to drive key decisions. However, Eisenhower was always in charge and was not afraid to overrule his advisors. He did give them wide leeway to run their departments as they see fit, and encouraged them to advise him frankly, but he always took ownership of his decisions. Perhaps a better candidate for his “finest hour” was when he rejected advice from his military advisors, political advisors, and Congressional Republicans to continue the War in Korea, and instead brought peace.

It is fair to say that the common impression of him as a “caretaker president” is a fair cop. Domestically, he focused on controlling spending and balancing the budget but was not in favor of any significant cuts. And on foreign policy, he focused (successfully) on keeping the post WW2 peace but not adding any new adventures. One thing that was startling from the book is there were 3 opportunities where Eisenhower led the way to stop or prevent War. I mentioned Korea, but there was also Vietnam in 1954 after Dien Bien Phu, and also in the same year when China attacked the islands of Quemoy and Matsu. Smith makes the convincing case that Eisenhower used sound judgment and skillful diplomacy in avoiding escalation, and with a different person in office those situations could have ended up quite differently. If being a “caretaker President” means avoiding War, controlling spending, and balancing the budget, that’s not a bad deal.

It is true that he was not vocal about promoting Civil Rights and could have done more there. I’d also say that while his foreign policy actions generally worked out and it was a time of peace, there were some covert actions he authorized that had bad long-term effects, like the coups engineered by the Dulles brothers. Also, some of his aggressive posturing seemed too risky to me (though again it always seemed to work out).

I’ll end this by mentioning my favorite story, which illustrates how engaging the book is. It’s the story of Nixon getting caught in a political fund controversy and worming out of it with his “Checkers” speech during the 1952 election. The story could have seamlessly fit into an episode of House of Cards, the way the dramatic political maneuvering and power plays between Eisenhower and Nixon played out. Nixon was one crafty fellow, the way he stuck in some subtle jabs at Eisenhower in the speech (he pointed out the Eisenhower has a similar political fund to the one Nixon is getting criticized for, which would make it really difficult for Eisenhower to dump Nixon from the ticket). The story is also hilarious – the image of Eisenhower slamming the tip of his pencil onto his tablet in anger while watching the speech, and the image of Eisenhower’s advisor Lucius Clay, after being disgusted with how maudlin and sappy the speech was, seeing the elevator man and doorman at his hotel crying in sympathy with Nixon, and gradually realizing that the speech was an unexpected success.

I would recommend this wholeheartedly to anyone interested in the topic, and I’m looking forward to reading more books by Jean Edward Smith.

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

My ongoing exploration of presidential biographies led me to explore the life of Dwight D. Eisenhower, as depicted by Jean Edward Smith. With a preponderance of information, Smith is able to develop a fairly comprehensive look at the man who rose to greatness as the Supreme Allied Commander in the European Theatre during the Second World War. This preceded taking the reins of domestic power as he led America in the early stages of Cold War aggression. As the title suggests, Eisenhower was a man who flourished in a period of war, but also thrived during a period of renewed peace. Both are highly important to the man and his legacy, while permitting the reader to visualise the contrasts. Told with a strong narrative and seamless style, Smith is able to present his arguments effectively while entertaining the reader throughout. A wonderful piece of biographical writing for those curious about this most unique man.

As with many who eventually found themselves in the Oval Office, Eisenhower lived a life of poverty in the late 19th century, held together with family love and dedication. Raised in rural Kansas, Eisenhower excelled scholastically, but was not afraid of a little hard work and dirt under his fingernails. After an almost accidental acceptance to West Point, Eisenhower found his niche with the regimented nature of a military education that promoted both conformity and individual thinking. West Point fuelled Eisenhower's ascendency within the US military and led to a highly structured future four decades. As Smith illustrates, Eisenhower could not only follow orders given to him, but became adept at leading and harnessing decision-making into productive output. His career in the military began with a small family in tow, headed by his wife, Mamie, whose prominent family had high hopes for Eisenhower. While Eisenhower was ushered around, from Washington to Paris and even to the Philippines, Mamie played military wife as she acclimated to a life of constant change. Sometimes accompanying him to his posts and at other times remaining behind with her family, Mamie developed a relationship with her husband that would be tested throughout their marriage. As Eisenhower found himself with more responsibility, he rose through the ranks and continued receiving plum postings. It was during these secondments that Eisenhower grew into the military powerhouse that would be the cornerstone of his ultimate military claim to fame. While Eisenhower worked hard, Smith recounts numerous occasions when Ike enjoyed the finer aspects of the powerful positions, some of which appeared to be quite extravagant. When the Nazis commenced their dominance in Europe, President Roosevelt stood firm with America's stance of isolationist behaviour, much to the chagrin of Eisenhower, who felt duty bound to protect those who were being overrun. After Pearl Harbour, US forces entered the war on two fronts, with Eisenhower taking up position as one of the highest ranking members in the European Theatre. With his past time in Paris and liaising with some of the most eminent political and military officials in the West, he was soon offered the position of Supreme Allied Commander, tasked not only with pushing back the Nazis, but saving France from Vichy clutches and liberating those areas overrun by the German military juggernaut. As Smith explores in numerous chapters though the middle portion of the biography, Eisenhower had his fingerprints over many of the key offensives that helped push the Nazis back and earned much respect by all those with whom he came into contact, including D-Day, which was the greatest military gamble of the entire war. However, in the aftermath of saving Europe, Eisenhower could look out over the terrain and see that he had made a difference doing what he loved, organizing military efforts in hopes of bringing peace to the region. Smith repeatedly shows Eisenhower's abilities as a man of war, though never an instigator. This would prove a key character trait in the years to come. Eisenhower's presence in a warring world proved important, though it was not the only situation in which he excelled.

After a forty year service in the US military, many would likely want to retire to a quiet life. As Smith illustrates, Eisenhower had no interest in this approach, choosing instead to let himself be lured into a prominent civilian post as President of Columbia University. Perhaps a precursor to a political future that paralleled Woodrow Wilson, Eisenhower's time at the university was short-lived, using it as a stepping stone to the political realm, when one of the major parties came calling. New York Governor Thomas Dewey wasted no time trying to prime Eisenhower for a White House run. After some key political maneuvering, Eisenhower surrounded himself with strong-willed men who helped use his military popularity to sculpt a hero persona for the electorate. Choosing Senator Richard Nixon as his running mate after securing the 1952 Republican presidential nomination might have been one of the worst political decisions Eisenhower made, though Smith chooses to recount some of the famed foibles, including the Checkers speech, which almost cost Tricky Dick the vice-presidency. For a man who had never dabbled in formal political activities beforehand, Smith argues that Eisenhower had been around political figures for much of his military career, including Roosevelt, de Gaulle, and Churchill. After a landslide victory in November, Eisenhower was able to transition nicely from the military battlefield to a political one, equally riddled with hidden enemies and land mines. America was in the midst of an ideological war in Korea and the Chinese were are thumping its own chest in a stance to create supremacy in the region. Smith weaves through some key early Cold War skirmishes that placed peace in the most precarious position, but also exemplified America's strong stance as a superpower that had tossed isolationism to the wayside. Perhaps Eisenhower's strong military background helped morph America into a watchdog, ready to pounce when it saw fit. Smith eludes to this repeatedly as Eisenhower remained firmly rooted into keeping the world from falling into the clutches of communists. Riddled with some health concerns, Eisenhower had to trust in his inner circle, a collection of powerful cabinet secretaries, to run things when he was convalescing, though Smith does not spin the narrative in such a way that the President was out of the loop at any point. Eisenhower was equally capable of running a tight ship on the domestic front, where he pushed through a plan to create an inter-state highway system that remains an essential part of travel within the continental United States. Equally important, Eisenhower used his presidential abilities to push early parts of the civil rights movement into reality, especially racial integration in southern schools. Smith presents a succinct narrative about the goings-on in Little Rock, Arkansas, which followed the Brown v. Board of Education rulings by the US Supreme Court. Eisenhower would not stand down, choosing to promote the constitution than seeking to appease the southern segregationists. This push towards equality and respect for the US Constitution lasted throughout Eisenhower's two terms in the Oval Office and helped to strengthen the importance of his peacetime leadership.

Smith uses the biography to address two further themes worth noting, which reemerge throughout the text. The first is best described as Eisenhower's fallible nature, more a man with faults than the god-like general that is depicted in the history texts. While no marriage to a soldier can be easy, the strain exemplified by both Ike and Mamie Eisenhower seems to have created numerous fissures that almost cost them their union. Smith discusses Mamie's long periods of loneliness that were only solved by regular drinking. This abuse exacerbated an already problematic situation of being apart for long periods of time. However, Ike was equally to blame when it came to strains on the marriage, having seeming found happiness in the arms of Kay Summersby, a member of Britain's Motor Transport Corps during the Second World War. Smith pulls no punches in presenting this amorous connection, though mentions that few early Eisenhower biographers focused too much on their connection, perhaps a sign of the times. That Eisenhower could foster such a connection to a woman other than his wife was only further strengthened in a letter Eisenhower sent to General Marshall around the time fighting ended in Europe. In it, Eisenhower ponders the possibility of a permanent position within the military hierarchy in Europe, thereby facilitating his ability to divorce Mamie and pursue Summersby. While this did not come to pass, it does come up throughout Smith's narrative and is worth a mention. A theme from the latter part of the biography that finds itself repeated would be the parallels Eisenhower draws between himself and General Ulysses S. Grant. It should be noted that Eisenhower did not seek to inflate his own ego in making this connection, but commented that they had both been powerful generals in prominent wars and ascended to the White House. Military men with no previous political involvement becoming Commanders-in-Chief for eight years, Eisenhower and Grant offered America the best they had to offer on the battlefield and when waging war with Congress. (As a side note, Smith has also written a comprehensive biography of Grant, though I have yet to read it, so these parallels might be partially of the author's making as he connects dots in the research he undertook with both tomes.) While neither man could be said to have surpassed the abilities of the other, Smith does offer numerous flashbacks to offer similarities in their decision-making processes at key points in their presidencies.

Jean Edward Smith has taken much time to develop and shape this biographical piece of Dwight D. Eisenhower. In it, the reader is treated to not only a plethora of information about the man, but also a cogent argument for his military and political greatness. Rising from the dirt on his Kansas farm, Eisenhower became one of the best-known Americans from the Second World War, who went on to further impact the world in a political capacity. Eisenhower gave his all to every decision he made and answered many of the callings presented to him, choosing never to take the easy path. Predominantly selfless, Eisenhower placed the greater whole before his own benefit while still being a leader at a time many might cower. Smith's biographical piece offers a wonderful sampling of the life and times of Dwight D. Eisenhower, showing Smith's superior abilities as it relates to telling a complete story while keeping the reader enthralled throughout.

Kudos, Mr. Smith for another splendid presidential biography. I have a few more of yours to complete, but have not been disappointed up to this point.

Like/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/

[John Bellamy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Few reputations are more mutable than those of former U. S. presidents. I’m ancient enough to recall the contrasting images of Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy that prevailed for several decades after they had passed from the scene: Eisenhower, likeable and grandfatherly but dim, disengaged and increasingly enfeebled; Kennedy, young, dynamic and ever open to fresh ideas and ways of doing things. Not coincidentally, Kennedy’s Camelot halo began dimming just about the time the scholarly reevaluation of Eisenhower’s worth began its upward surge with the 1982 publication of Fred I Greenstein’s startlingly revisionist Hidden-Hand: Presidency: Eisenhower as Leader. Those historiographical trends have accelerated in the 30 years since, especially as Kennedy’s conduct of both foreign (The Bay of Pigs fiasco, his humiliation by Khrushchev in Vienna, his equivocal handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis) and domestic (virtually all of Kennedy’s initiatives were stymied until Lyndon Johnson took office) policy have attracted increasingly harsh analyses. Ergo, premier biographer Jean Edward Smith is not the first to suggest that Eisenhower was a great president—but no one has ever made a more persuasive case for that proposition than Smith does in Eisenhower in War and Peace.
Smith is not an uncritical Ike idolater. There is ample evidence offered in Eisenhower to show that Eisenhower possessed not only ruthless ambition and a talent for dissimulation but likewise a penchant for covering up the often egregious mistakes he made during both his military and civilian careers. Smith’s analysis of the errors in Eisenhower’s major World War II campaigns—North Africa, Sicily, Italy, France and the final push into Germany—is brutal, detailed and largely echoes the dismissive comment of British Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery on Eisenhower’s worth as a battlefield commander: “Nice chap—no soldier.” But, simultaneously, Smith consistently and convincingly supports the enduring conventional wisdom that Ike—and only Ike—with his matchless charm and unfailing talent for managing the competitive and often antagonistic personalities of the Allied coalition, could have so successfully led the “Crusade in Europe” that defeated Nazi Germany. Smith is no less critical of Eisenhower’s 3-year-plus affair with Kay Summersby, presenting overwhelming evidence that, notwithstanding strenuous denials by the General’s past and present partisans, it indeed occurred in the flesh. Especially to be savored is Smith’s tart characterization of Ike’s final “Dear John” letter to Summersby, a model of heartless epistolary impersonality: “FDR would have been incapable of writing such a missive, and George Patton would have said a warmer good-bye to his horse.”
Many of Smith’s criticisms of Eisenhower’s defects as a military leader are hardly new; indeed, most of them were made, if often off the record, by his World War II peers. The most valuable portion of Smith’s biography, however, comes in his chronicle of Eisenhower’s eight years as president. Some huge mistakes were made, and Smith is rightly critical of the Eisenhower-approved—if successful—CIA coups mounted in Guatemala and Iran. But he makes a convincing case that Eisenhower more often than not did the right thing, and sometimes against the advice of his “best and brightest.” Particularly praiseworthy was his exasperated retort to his National Security Advisor Robert Cutler, who on May 1, 1954, brought him the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the United States drop three atomic bombs on the Vietnamese army besieging French forces at Dien Bien Phu: “I certainly do not think that the atomic bombs can be used by the United States unilaterally. You boys must be crazy. We can’t use those awful things against Asians for the second time in less than ten years. My God.”
Smith also constructs an impressive defense of several Eisenhower presidency issues that remain subject to fierce contention: his decision not to confront Senator Joseph McCarthy publicly and his alleged lukewarm support for the nascent Civil Rights movement. Scholars and readers will continue to argue about these and other matters but Smith’s summary judgment is just, if containing a sting in its tail: “As president, Eisenhower restored stability to the nation. His levelheaded leadership ensured that the United States would move forward in measured steps under the rule of law at home and collective security abroad. His sensible admonition upon leaving office to be wary of the military-industrial complex was the heartfelt sentiment of a president who recognized the perils of world leadership. Eisenhower gave the country eight years of peace and prosperity. No other present in the twentieth can make that claim.” [my italics]
Stylistically, Smith’s prose, while prolonged (766 pages of text), is easy to read and frequently graced with diverting footnotes and illustrative quotations. My favorite of that latter is Ann Whitman’s diary entry of August 30, written following a talk with Eisenhower about his Vice President, Richard Nixon: “The president is a man of integrity and sincere in his every action. He radiates this, everybody knows it, and everybody loves and trusts him. But the Vice President sometimes seems like a man who is acting like a nice man rather than being one.”

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

About as fair and balanced a biography as one is likely to find of a figure as prominent and consequential to world history as Dwight D. Eisenhower, a man who parlayed military fame into political success, ultimately resulting in a presidency which set new standards in international diplomacy, military preparedness, and civil rights reform. Jean Edward Smith can overdo it with the comparisons between Eisenhower and Ulysses S. Grant (although many are apt), and his contention that Ike shielding his subordinates in the wake of the disastrous U-2 incident might have been the "finest" moment of Ike's presidency is ludicrous even with the qualifiers Smith offers, but his book is mostly an excellent -- if rather dryly written -- warts-and-all portrait of a soldier and president whose contradictions were many, and whose place in the presidential rankings has rightly moved upward in recent years. I particularly enjoyed reading about the actions Eisenhower took in pursuit of racial equality prior to the Brown vs. Board of Education decision and the subsequent Little Rock Crisis, which, of course, concluded with one of Eisenhower's noblest political acts. You'll leave this book feeling glad that Dwight D. Eisenhower ascended to the U.S. presidency, even if you'd never want him as a husband.

[Brett C · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a clearly written narrative organized from lots of time and research. Jean Edward Smith presented Dwight Eisenhower in both the professional and the personal in his entirety. Eisenhower was an ambitious man in all the stages in his life: West Point, his perceptions of not being involved in WWI, his climb through the Army in the 1920s and 1930s, WWII (North Africa, Italy, D-Day, Battle of Bulge), Korea, and eventually entering into politics. One thing I never knew that was threaded throughout his military career in Europe was the emotional affair he had with his younger female assistant, Kay Summersby. I never knew!

Eisenhower had many challenges and obstacles throughout his life and Smith showed how they molded Eisenhower's thinking and his decision-making as both a professional soldier and civic politician. One thing that affected him was him missing the First World War: this would affect his confidence as a military leader and would create some speculations of self-doubt.

Yet he always held himself accountable, especially as military officer and president (not intervening in French Indochina, the U-2 plane ordeals, and keeping the peace with Khrushchev and the Soviet Union). But beneath all of that he was a person who could form personal relationships (General Patton, Charles De Gaulle, President Truman) yet separate them to effectively lead the nation.

Overall this was well-written and well-organized to tell Eisenhower's story clearly and logically. I would highly recommend this to anyone interested in American history and politics. Thanks!

[Joe · Rating 5 out of 5]

For those familiar with this author’s previous books on John Marshall, U.S. Grant and FDR, you know Smith’s biographies are thorough and detailed narratives, filled with anecdotes and first-hand accounts, analyses of the historical record, some personal opinion, a little wit and – yes – lengthy. The books are also very readable and engaging. Eisenhower In War And Peace is no exception and a very worthy addition to this author’s legacy and - I won’t be the only one to note this – timely – particularly for those of us who weren’t around when Ike occupied the White House, let alone acting as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in World War II.

Smith excels at bringing his subjects to “life” and one of the many ways he does this is through “balance”, both in chronology and judgment. In this book the author constructs a firm foundation of Eisenhower’s early life before he assumed the international stage. This evolution of Ike’s work habits – particularly while in uniform, Eisenhower was a workaholic - intellect, character and specifically his confidence, are all critical in understanding the military commander and political leader Eisenhower became. He learned from his mentors, including Fox Conner, Douglas MacArthur and George Marshall, and also did not hesitate to use these connections to pull strings when he felt he needed their assistance.

And though the author is a big fan of his subject he also doesn’t pull any punches when chronicling Ike’s mistakes, shortcomings or missteps. For instance borrowing a page from Max Hastings’ literary play-book, Smith has no problem making military judgments, i.e. Kasserine Pass in North Africa. Also Kay Somersby, Ike’s “driver” during WWII, is also covered extensively here. And although not “salacious”, Smith’s narrative makes it very clear the two were very close, regardless if the relationship was “physical” or not.

(On a side note, Bernard Montgomery is handled objectively here. Smith able to separate Monty’s difficult personality from his military talent/accomplishments – a distinction not many historians have been able to make.)

Although the myth that Eisenhower was simply Mr. Magoo has largely been dispelled, Smith does an excellent job reconfirming that Ike was much more than just a good-natured, bumbling administrator, focused on his next golf game, i.e. taking the “Peter Principle” to new heights. Eisenhower may not have been a military genius, but he was a supreme commander and leader of men. (It’s difficult imagining anyone else assuming the role he did as Allied Commander in WWII, let alone succeeding.) An expert delegator, Eisenhower had no qualms about making the difficult big decisions and taking the responsibility for them. This most famously evidenced when launching D-Day in June of 1944, but he did this time and time again throughout his career – Dien Bien Phu, the Suez Canal crisis and sending in the military to integrate Arkansas schools - just a few examples. (Ike’s ambivalence about Richard Nixon a notable exception.)

Eisenhower assuming the presidency was not an opportunistic “accident” and the country is a better place for his eight years in the White House. The operative term prevalent throughout this book – and possibly the biggest “eye-opener” for readers - is “learning”, for although Ike may have not been the definition of an intellectual, his brain was constantly working while he deliberated.

An excellent biography and highly recommended.

[robin friedman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jean Edward Smith's Study Of Eisenhower

Dwight David Eisenhower (1890 -- 1969) served as the 34th President of the United States (1953 -- 1961) following his career as the Supreme Commander of the Allied forces during WW II. His presidency and his generalship have been the subject of varied assessments over the years. I was a child in the 1950s and my first memories of a president are of Eisenhower. To many younger Americans, he may remain an obscure historical figure. Jean Edward Smith's new large biography, "Eisenhower in War and Peace" (2012) is an extraordinarily detailed study of Ike's public and private life. Smith is senior scholar in the history department at Columbia University, where Eisenhower served briefly as president. He has written extensively on American history, including biographies of FDR, Ulysses Grant, and John Marshall.

Although the book consists of over 760 pages of text and an additional 150 pages of notes and bibliography, the narrative flow of the story is absorbing. Smith recounts complex military and
political history in a way both understandable and entertaining. His writing style, unbiased presentation, and detailed documentation made me inclined to trust his judgment. Throughout the study, Smith draws useful parallels between Eisenhower and other American military and political leaders. In particular, Smith often compares and contrasts Eisenhower with Grant in terms of decisiveness, relationship to subordinates, and military accomplishments. The most telling parallel lies in writing and in ability to communicate. Although not having the gift for words that Grant displayed in his Memoirs, Eisenhower was an excellent, clear writer, especially of his own war memoirs, and, when he wished to be, a skilled eloquent speaker.

Smith presents Eisenhower's strengths as a leader and as a person as well as his flaws. The overall impression of Eisenhower that emerges is of a strong, capable, politically masterful individual, as both general and president, who was "a man of principle, decency, and common sense, whom the country could count on to do what was right. In both war and peace he gave the world confidence in American leadership." Eisenhower's accomplishments are inspiring in an America which frequently seems to be floundering for a sense of purpose and balance. Smith aptly describes Eisenhower as a "progressive conservative" who believed that "traditional American values encompassed change and progress." Eisenhower's moderation, high sense of responsibility, and heroism will appeal to many readers.

The book begins with a perceptive treatment of Eisenhower's early life with its humble beginnings in Texas and Kansas. A military career and attendance at West Point were something of a surprise choice for Eisenhower as they had been for Grant. The first third of Smith's book describes Eisenhower's early life and the many seemingly interminable assignments Eisenhower held as a major in the peacetime army. Eisenhower showed a talent for hard work and for impressing his superiors. He developed an ability to advance himself subtly and to use his contacts with those who would help him. When the United States entered WW II, Eisenhower's rise was meteoric; but it had been prepared over a long course of time.

Smith shows Eisenhower as a political leader in WW II who had the daunting task of coordinating the allied effort against Germany and working with highly driven and egotistical leaders in the United States, France, and Britain. Eisenhower's tact and self-confidence were rare and essential qualities indeed. As a military strategist, Eisenhower had mixed results, but he made critical decisions regarding the Normandy invasion and the Battle of the Bulge. Smith shows that Eisenhower richly deserved the accolades he received at the end of the war.

Following WW II, Eisenhower served as president of Columbia and as the commander of NATO before, with a show of reluctance, accepting the Republican presidential nomination in 1952. With the end of Eisenhower's presidency in 1961, many historians were critical; but Eisenhower's stature as president has grown with time. Smith finds Eisenhower the most successful 20th century president with the exception of FDR. Eisenhower kept the United States out of war, balanced the budget, and displayed firm, subtle leadership that was not always apparent to the public. He acted with care and prudence in Vietnam against the hawkish advice of his staff and he dealt effectively with crises in Berlin, China and elsewhere. (Some of his foreign policy ventures in Iran and Central America were ill-advised and unsuccessful.) In a non-divisive, non-confrontational way Eisenhower helped lead to the discrediting of the red-baiting Senator Joseph McCarthy. He built the national highway system and the St. Laurence Seaway. In 1956, following a heart attack and in the middle of a reelection campaign, Eisenhower showed courage in resolving the most controversial foreign policy issue in his presidency -- the Suez Canal crisis which pitted the United States against its allies, Britain, France, and Israel. In an understated, politic way, Eisenhower also did more to advance civil rights than is commonly acknowledged. His Justice Department argued before the Supreme Court in favor of school desegregation in the Brown cases. In 1958, Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce a desegregation decree against the recalcitrant state governor.

Eisenhower's personal life and feelings remained an enigma even to those close to him. Smith's book concentrates on Eisenhower's long marriage to Mamie Doud and the difficulties the couple endured over the years. Smith also describes the long relationship Eisenhower had during WW II with a young British woman, Kay Summersby. It appears that at the end of WW II, Eisenhower wrote to George Marshall about his intention to divorce Mamie and marry Kay. Marshall disuaded him from this course in no uncertain terms, and Eisenhower ended the relationship in a callous, peremptory way.

This study of Eisenhower and of what was valuable and decent in him can bring hope and wisdom to a difficult time. Smith's study deserves and surely will receive a wide readership.

Robin Friedman

[Jay Schutt · Rating 5 out of 5]

***** OUTSTANDING *****

[Piker7977 · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this biographical tome, Jean Edward Smith presents Eisenhower as a complex tactician with a knack for administrative politics. This image of Ike is somewhat at odds with popular American history and the stereotypes surrounding his presidency and character. Did he golf a lot? Yes. Was his military career without blemishes? No. Was he an outsider president who lacked political insight? Absolutely not. In Eisenhower in War and Peace, the reader encounters the life of a man that weaves in and out of the some of the most remarkable events of the 20th Century. In many instances this man shaped those events and contributed to America's wartime success and postwar peace. As an overall moderate Ike understood how America could benefit global affairs as an ideal model for societies and orders. This is evident in Smith's depictions of WWII planning, early civil rights initiatives, 1950s diplomacy, and Ike's belief in utilizing the capacity of government stimulus to benefit the lives of the nation's citizens.

I found that Smith's thesis centers around Eisenhower's administrative prowess and his ability to keep cool in times of emergency as the substance behind his success. This overall argument presents some interesting conclusions as it relates to popular perceptions of the 34th president. For instance, Smith gives an evenhanded analysis of Ike's role in the Second World War. Successes and blunders are described along with the clear distinction that Ike was not a military-oriented commander. That role was left up to the likes of Patton, Bradley, and Montgomery. Eisenhower was a consensus builder and resource allocator who believed in the power of coalitions. This is evident in the tumultuous relationship with American field commanders, the closeness with Soviet counterparts, and the long lasting, mutual respect with de Gaulle. His presidential politics are also portrayed as pragmatic and not belonging to any specific ideology. Both the right and the left will have difficulty claiming him as their own since he did not seek to destroy the New Deal, sought to avoid deficit spending, had a pro-business cabinet, and seldom gave into the military's suggestions while in office. This treatment will do his memory a service as contemporary political perspectives are grouped into aggregate indexes rather than being based on derivative principles. Thank you Jean Edward Smith.

Smith's criticisms are also relevant and thought provoking. The occasional reliance on nepotism to progress through the Army's ranks came as a surprise. Implementing the CIA in Iran and Guatemala is no secret but covered in an appropriate way in this book. The embarrassment over Powers' U2 flight is appropriately described as a black eye to Eisenhower but left even handed as he sought to take responsibility for the outcome. These are a few of the noteworthy illustrations of Eisenhower's not quite perfect career that still resonate today (most notably Iran). As a result, the overall feel of this book is more objective. Some sections come off more adoring than they should but they fit within the main idea of Eisenhower being a administrative and pragmatic realist. Some biographies lack these sentiments. (See Smith's footnote concerning Stephen Ambrose's treatment of the events at Little Rock).

There is one theme that Smith does to the point of overkill: Kay Summersby. She was his driver/assistant whom he gave preferential treatment to and more than likely had an affair with. We got it. During the WWII chapters she is mentioned quite frequently and sometimes in an irrelevant context. Were all of the card games, late nights, picnics, and letters really necessary to include? Smith presents this relationship in a way that leaves little doubt when considering the possibility of an affair. Evan Thomas disagrees with Smith but also I feel compelled to ask, does the subject really deserve so many pages? The most relevant descriptions would be Gen. George Marshall's discussion with Ike about Summersby coming to America and the note that Truman supposedly kept as political blackmail. Other than that, put the rest in the footnotes.

That is a small criticism for such a good book. I'll close with an overall impression of Smith's writing. This is a facts-forward tale of the subject and his times. If you are looking for in depth analysis of Eisenhower's command style and policies, I would look elsewhere. This biography fits in with a more general narrative of the first half of the 20th Century. Eisenhower in War and Peace is a good starting place for the reader who wants to move forward and read more academic writing while having an understanding of the man's background, outlook, and leadership style.

[Brian Eshleman · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book offers almost 1000 pages on Eisenhower, and I did not feel like I knew him. Good biographies offer such an intimate portrait of the subject's psyche that the reader knows how he or she would react in a different situation, OR they provide such a detailed, textual portrayal of the subject's times that the reader feels like he or she was present in them. Great biographies offer both. This one falls short on both counts.

Eisenhower is so magisterial and fascinating that whatever fraction of him I was able to take and is still worth three stars. I found the man, for instance, not entirely wedded to the military. He chose this as a career option because it was the only way to get a college education. At the other end of his career, from the beginning of his presidency, he was skeptical of the military establishment's claims of absolute need. Warnings about the military-industrial complex, while a memorable part of his farewell address from public life, were evident throughout his presidency as he challenged career officers to reconsider budgeting priorities and their lockstep commitment to a large standing military force. This commitment, warned the former five-star general, is stealing both resources and talent from badly needed peacetime pursuits.

I also learned that this biographer was not the only person who had a difficult time getting close to Eisenhower. He even had a somewhat distant relationship with his wife after they both suffered through the death of their young son and then work called further apart by the nature of Eisenhower's career and the far-flung stationing it required.

SECOND READING: Double down on the above..

[Jeff · Rating 3 out of 5]

I tried to give JE Smith another chance, after being less than fulfilled by his FDR, but alas, Eisenhower fared no better. The coverage of World War II was superbly detailed, but at times Ike himself fell out of focus. The extensive war presentation meant something else had to be sacrificed, I guess, and I really began to worry when I was reading about the sixth year of Ike’s presidency and there were only fifteen pages left to go.

I loathe a hasty ending, and Smith gave me one of the worst. While the final sentence was meant to be lasting, its fleeting effectiveness left me with the emptiness it implied, even though I had just read 766 pages on its subject. I tired of Smith’s promotion of his own other works (shouldn’t he cite the same sources he cites in those works, rather than those works themselves?), and it felt misplaced every time I read of the author's own experiences, as interesting as they might have been. If I had only read the footnotes, I wouldn’t know if I was reading a biography of Dwight Eisenhower, Lucius D. Clay, or Jean Edward Smith!

Smith has a tendency to repeat some things unnecessarily, while ignoring trivia that I really wanted to know, such as the origins of the nickname “Ike” (or, in fact, that his brothers were also called Ike), or if he quit smoking after his first heart attack. It’s those tiny tidbits that I crave. I also like to know the end stories of the supporting characters: Whatever happened to Kay Summersby? And how did Mamie live her final days?

Overall, it was an effective telling of the life story of a once-in-a-century kind of man. The comparisons to Ulysses Grant were perfect and entirely appropriate. But my preference for a balanced approach to a top-heavy life left me gritting my teeth a little at the end. Before the end, even.

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dwight D. Eisenhower seems at this distant remove a not terribly colorful American president. His term of office was an extraordinarily peaceful one and prosperity largely enveloped the country. So it is perhaps not surprising that many do not think of him as a particularly exciting leader. But this fine biography makes clear that this calm and methodical man was one of the most gifted leaders the country has ever known, and, between his remarkably wise guidance as commander of U.S. forces in World War II Europe and his nuanced juggling of the dangers of the Cold War as president, he is revealed as a most dramatic and remarkable figure on the world stage. A staunch Republican, Eisenhower nonetheless rejected reactionary ideas and was the first to state clearly the dangers of business becoming too entrenched in government and the defense of the nation. Not a gifted battlefield commander, his flair was in management and political subtleties during his military career, and these same gifts served him remarkably as president. A man who left the presidency even more popular than when he began, Eisenhower's career and personality are rewarding studies, and Jean Edward Smith has done a splendid job illuminating them. His prose is imminently readable and compelling, his research apparently precise and assiduous. This book is highly recommended for anyone who cares to have a clear impression of the conduct of the war in the European theater or of the dynamics of the Cold War and the beginnings of the Civil Rights movement. It is as vital, forthright, and finely organized as was the man who is its subject.

[Frank Theising · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really enjoyed this one. Smith’s enthusiasm for his subject is evident throughout and it makes this an engaging read. The first 500 pages covering his early life and military career are exceptional. The chapters are entertaining, thorough, and offer a balanced assessment of Ike’s career, covering both his strengths/successes as well as his weaknesses/shortcomings. I will say I think his admiration for Ike led him to cover some faults (most notably his affair with Kay Sommersby) with more delicacy than was warranted based on the facts he laid out. I was less impressed with the chapters covering Ike’s presidency. Part of this is just my strong personal preference for a chronological narrative. After an excellent chronological account of his military life, he shifts to a topical approach for his presidential years. In so doing, I felt like he not only cut out important context but a significant amount of detail that I would have found interesting and helpful. For example, I would’ve loved more analysis of Ike’s defense policies. He made some pretty dramatic changes in order to balance the budget and I feel like the ramifications of that were not sufficiently explored. The same can be said of many of his other policies (civil rights, covert ops, etc) that had long lasting impacts on America and the world. I don’t know how much longer it would have made this (already lengthy) book, but I think it would have been worth it. Overall, a really good biography.

What follows are my notes on the book:

Ike’s ancestors emigrated from Germany to Quaker colonies in PA. They prospered in PA but were lured to Kansas by the promise of cheap land (1-4). Distaining farm life, Ike’s father David opened a general store but left it (along with his pregnant wife and 2 year old son) to seek work in Texas. David squandered his inheritance and was at rock bottom when Ike was born in 1890. The family intervened & they moved back to Abilene, KS where Ike grew up (8-9). Abilene was a hotbed of Protestant fundamentalism and religion loomed large in the home. Ike worked at a local creamery with his father until a friend told him the military academies offered the best ticket out of Abilene. With no political connections, he had no chance of a patronage appointment. Fortuitously, Senator Bristow held a competitive examination for his academy appointments. Ike finished 2nd of eight applicants and went to West Point (18).

Ike developed a devil-may-care attitude in response to the rote memorization style of instruction. He loved sports and that probably kept him from quitting. After a football knee injury, the school’s medical officer overruled a medical board and recommended he be commissioned (27). His first assignment was to Fort Sam Houston. Having coached at West Point, he successfully coached an Army team in San Antonio and would coach several other Army teams over the next ten years. He met and fell in love with the equally extroverted Mamie Doud. Wedding plans were interrupted by Pancho Villa’s cross border raids. With the war raging in Europe, it was a bad time to get married but Ike got 10 days leave and was married in 1916 (31-35).

He served as cadre to train the draftees for WWI. He attended the Army’s first tank school at Leavenworth, joined a tank battalion at Ft Meade, and was thrilled at the possibility he would see combat. His orders to France were cancelled when the Army reorganized. Instead, he was charged with organizing the tank corps’ first stateside training facility (40-42). He was promoted to Lt Col and given new orders for France but the war ended before he left. As a professional soldier, he was morose and humiliated that he had missed out on the greatest war in history. Yet missing the war was probably beneficial. The tank corps prepared him for maneuver warfare and, unlike his British counterparts who saw the senseless slaughter in the trenches, he was not excessively cautious (48).

He befriended George Patton and the two shared strong belief in the future of tanks. He was reprimanded for publishing ideas that were against established US Army doctrine. The death of their 3 year old son to scarlet fever left a permanent scar and his and Mamie’s marriage was never the same afterwards (59). The Army was gutted in the inter-war years and Ike reverted to his permanent rank of Major, which he would hold for the next 16 years (59-60). He got orders to be the executive officer to General Fox Conner in Panama. The move hurt his marriage but was a boon to his career. Under Conner’s mentorship, he became a serious student of military history (65). He was selected to attend the Command and General Staff School, finishing first in his class.

From there he commanded an all-black infantry regiment in Georgia. Unhappy, he reached out to Fox Conner and was reassigned to the Pershing’s Battle Monuments Commission to help write the official record of American effort in France. Writing the history of the Western Front gave him a feel for the geography and challenges of coordinating Allied armies (74-79). He received a commendation from Pershing and attended the Army War College in DC, setting him on a path for bigger and better things. Pershing called him back to his service to update the official history and Ike headed to France. In his time there, he concluded that the France was inherently ungovernable, a realization that later influenced his support for de Gaulle in WWII (87). The last thing Ike wanted while fighting the Nazis was to be saddled with governing liberated France.

Feeling stuck in a dead end, he again contacted Conner and was re-assigned to be the military assistant to the assistant secretary of war (90). When MacArthur became Army chief of staff, Ike moved up with him. Under the strain, Ike’s health suffered. For all practical purposes he became MacArthur’s military secretary (100-103). When the Depression broke out, the Army dispersed a “mob” of veterans who had gathered in DC to peacefully protest their treatment. Ike self-servingly tried to separate himself from the Army’s actions in his later writings. Ike was still politically inexperienced but supported FDR and his effort to pull the country out of the Depression (115-117).

When MacArthur was assigned to the Philippines, he insisted Ike accompany him. Mamie refused to go driving them further apart. When she joined him later, they both resented the other’s vibrant social life. Ike’s relationship with MacArthur began to fray. MacArthur was living the high life while Ike did the work. When the Philippine legislature moved to abolish MacArthur’s job and put Ike in charge, MacArthur turned on Ike and he left for Ft Lewis. By mid-1941, the Army rapidly grew and Marshall needed competent officers. Promoted to Colonel, he moved to Texas to be CoS for Third Army where he helped run the great Louisiana maneuvers of 1941. He was nominated for his first star and on Dec 7 was summoned to DC to join the War Plans Division (173).

Marshall was all business, outlining the grim situation in the Pacific and asking Ike what our course of action should be. Ike returned 3 hours later with his thoughts and Marshall put him in charge of saving the Philippines (176). Marshall insisted that each theater be under a supreme commander and had Ike draft their instructions. Marshall reorganized War Plans and promoted Ike to lead it, making him the War Department’s chief planner and Marshall’s deputy for day-to-day conduct of the war. He was one of the few who believed a cross-channel attack was practical, developed a draft (BOLERO), and presented it to Marshall (184-189). While the Brits agreed with the plan in principle, FDR and Churchill kept making commitments to other theaters that undermined BOLERO.

Despite having no combat experience, Marshall named Ike the European theater commander (200). Ike organized his staff, put the army on a 7-day work week, and engaged Kay Summersby as his personal driver. Churchill was pushing for a landing in North Africa (TORCH). FDR, looking to get the US into the fight as soon as possible, agreed (212). Ike ran TORCH out of Gibraltar and had Summersby brought down to his HQ. The landings went smoothly, but the Allies grossly underestimated the resistance of the Vichy French. It wasn’t until Hitler moved into unoccupied France that the French leadership stood down (237). Ike, eager to push onto Tunisia, let the Vichy government administer Algeria and Morocco. The move caused a political firestorm in England (vocal advocates for de Gaulle and the Free French) and FDR rapped Ike’s knuckles (240).

Ike spent most of his time juggling the difficult political situation & stayed in Gibraltar. He didn’t move to the front until Nov 1942. Patton and Montgomery were critical of Ike’s leadership. In Jan ’43, FDR and Churchill met in Casablanca. Ike briefed his poorly designed plan for capturing Tunisia and was rebuffed. As one of the few politically astute officers able to hold the coalition together, his position as supreme commander was not in jeopardy but he was out of his depth militarily and Gen Alexander took over the ground war. Ike was hurt, but was reassured when FDR promoted him to full general (259).

US troops were routed by German veterans at Kasserine Pass. Censorship kept the home front ignorant of the extent of American losses. Ike was saved by German logistical problems. The Germans did not lose the battle of North Africa so much as they were overwhelmed by America’s assembly line (264). The invasion of Sicily was the largest amphibious assault ever attempted. It was as mishandled as that of North Africa. The Allies landed piecemeal and while the Italians melted away the Allies underestimated the German resistance who held the Allies for 38 days, inflicted 20K casualties, and then deftly withdrew across the Strait of Messina (281). Ike played little direct role in the battle for Sicily and faced criticism for letting the German Army escape (290). He learned from these mistakes and they were not repeated at Normandy (302).

He was not a great soldier, but he was a great Supreme Commander. Few could have handled all the contradictory instructions he received (from FDR, Churchill, Marshall, the Combined Chiefs of Staff, etc) and got things right. At SEXTANT, FDR dreaded the idea of losing Marshall to lead the invasion. Plus, Marshall had clashed with Churchill. Ike just might solve his problem. When Marshall deferred to the President, he chose Ike (which thrilled the Brits) (317). When examining the plan, Ike saw the similarity to Salerno: A shortage of landing craft that limited the wallop of the initial assault. Before the invasion, Marshall forced Ike to take leave. He returned to DC under duress. Over the last 18 months, Ike and Mamie had grown apart. Ike kept calling Mamie “Kay,” infuriating her (330). In his absence, Montgomery (as commander of ground forces) rejuvenated the planning for OVERLORD. With the shortage of landing craft, OVERLORD and ANVIL (southern France) could not happen simultaneously. Ike and Monty were on good terms as D-Day approached. Ike made several bold (& lonely) calls on D-Day (“go” despite risky weather and sending the 82nd/101st Airborne) (351). Under Bradley, the US suffered the worst of the D-Day landings.

FDR hated de Gaulle and objected to inserting him into liberated France. Ike challenged the president. FDR begrudgingly allowed Ike to make what decisions he deemed best when it came to French civil affairs (338). FDR began to hedge later but Ike had enough wiggle room thanks to Churchill’s support, avoiding a rift with the French Resistance on the eve of invasion. Ike’s decision to back de Gaulle paid off handsomely. De Gaulle was indebted to Ike and France didn’t detract from the Allied effort (371). In London, Ike grew frustrated with Monty and the stagnant lines not moving forward. Monty in turn grew frustrated with Ike’s plans to attack along the whole front rather than break through (378).

Ike moved to liberate Paris even though it allowed the Germans to regroup. It was a poor military decision, but politically and morally Ike showed courage in making “the right decision” (392). The move signaled the end of his apprenticeship. Having liberated and installed a new government in France, he had subtly outmaneuvered FDR. Ike assumed direct command of the ground war in Sept ’44. As a political general, his gifts were unparalleled but his preference for consensus became a liability on the battlefield (394). In assuming command, he likely added another 3-6 months on to the war. He overruled Monty’s plans to break through in order to maintain pressure along the whole line. This stretched logistics, weakened the attack, and spread the Allies thin and left them open to counterattack (400).

The Battle of the Bulge was Ike’s finest moment as a military commander. He moved quickly to shore up the line, ordered Patton to break through in the south, and placed US forces under Monty to attack in the north (411). Ike was responsible for stretching the line thin but also for containing the attack. When Ike ignored Berlin (“a prestige objective”) in favor of linking up with the Russians around Leipzig, it created a political firestorm in Britain. Germany surrendered in Apr ’45 (430).

At Potsdam, Ike was the only one who opposed dropping “the bomb.” By rejecting its use in his presidency, there is no question he raised the threshold for its future use (451). Ike returned to DC to succeed Marshall as Chief of Staff. He left Kay a cold-blooded “Dear John” letter as he returned home (443). He had little enthusiasm for presiding over demobilization and after 36-years in the Army, accepted an offer to be president of Columbia University. He made the equivalent of $6M for his memoirs (paying 25% capital gains instead of 82% income tax) (468). When communist witch hunts hit campus, Ike defended freedom of speech and his standing on campus soared (475).

The Korean War led to speculation over Ike’s future. Governor Dewey threw Ike’s name in the ring by endorsing him. Ike was recalled to service to take command of NATO (493). He was prepared to drop out of the presidential race if Taft would support NATO. Ike played hard-to-get with the GOP and risked losing the nomination to Taft. Truman wanted to keep the isolationist Taft out and agreed not to run if Ike did (509). In a raucous convention, Ike won on the first ballot. He essentially let Clay and Dewey pick his VP (521).

When Nixon’s fund scandal broke, Ike expected him to voluntarily step down. He was furious when Nixon made an end run around him on public TV with his “Checkers Speech.” When the public overwhelmingly backed Nixon, Ike kept him but from that point on, he never trusted Nixon (537-542). Ike’s pledge to go to Korea electrified the country. He cracked FDR’s coalition and brought the GOP into power after 20 years in the wilderness (548).

As president, Ike focused on weighty issues and delegated heavily to his subordinates (550). He dismissed the use of atomic weapons, but implied he would escalate the war if an armistice wasn’t signed (559-561). Ike brought military organization to the White House staff and expected his cabinet officers to run their departments and solve problems within their purview. The NSC was his principal tool for governing (567). Truman rarely attended the NSC; Ike presided over it every Thursday. After Stalin’s death, Ike made peace overtures to Moscow. The Korean Armistice was signed in 1953.

Ike’s principal domestic opponents were calcified Republicans (after Taft retired, McCarthy and others ran wild). He clashed with McCarthy and gave him enough rope to hang himself. Ike’s appointment of Earl Warren was one of the major events of his presidency. Many criticize Ike for moving slowly on civil rights but it was the 5 justices he appointed that made the revolution possible (606). As the French public turned against Vietnam, the US viewed the conflict in light of the Cold War and began to pick up the slack by increasing military aide. Ike overruled his NSC and declared the US would not intervene to save the French at Dien Bien Phu. Vietnam was partitioned into north and south in the peace settlement (615).

On Iran, Ike listened to his advisors (who hyped communist threats) and authorized a CIA-led coup, replacing an elected leader with the Shah (617). The success encouraged Ike to intervene elsewhere. He ordered a review of the nation’s military structure. He was critical of the quadrupling of defense spending when Korea broke out because it threw off the budget. He wanted a defense budget that was sustainable over the long run. Under his “New Look”, he downsized the Army and built up the Air Force. Rather than fight the small wars, Ike intended to deter them with a doctrine of mass retaliation. The Pentagon pushed back (639-643).

Ike’s policy preserved the peace during the Cold War but spawned a variety of side effects, some good (scientific & educational investment) and others pernicious (ICBM & thermonuclear arms race). The GOP loss of Congress in 1954 was a blessing in disguise. Republicans seemed more interested in repudiating FDR and Truman than solving problems (649). Working with Rayburn and LBJ, he was able to accomplish more. He pushed through two of the largest public works projects in US history (the St. Lawrence Seaway and the interstate highway system). Eisenhower was a fiscal conservative and achieved a balanced budget but was no ideologue interested in dismantling the national government.

In his third year in office, we almost went to war with China over Formosa. Ike was determined to defend Formosa but equally committed to avoiding war. His stance was sufficiently ambiguous that he kept both China and Formosa in check (659). Ike suffered a heart attack in 1955. The Arab-Israeli dispute was complicated by anti-colonialism, oil, and communism. The UK and France were confronting Arab nationalist movements. During Ike’s recovery, Dulles scuttled the Aswan Dam deal and Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal. The UK, France, and Israel moved to retake the canal by force, but Ike concluded Egypt was within their rights. When they moved behind Ike’s back, he was furious and refused to accept a fait accompli. He would not condone armed aggression, no matter who the attacker. He applied financial pressure and the UK backed down to avoid default. US prestige was never higher as the Third World saw the US come to its defense (705).

Ike grew up with segregation and accepted it as a fact of life. He recognized the need for change but wanted to achieve it with the cooperation of the White South. His desire for consensus was exactly what the country needed to buffer such a fundamental change (710). During the Little Rock school integration, Ike deployed the 101st Airborne in overwhelming force to uphold the rule of law and public order. He took the most divisive issue and worked to a solution. It pleased neither side at the time but proved to be the right course (723-729).

Sputnik launched in 1957 sparking national anxiety. Ike refused to panic, responding calmly and deliberately. His U-2 surveillance flights gave him inside information that the situation was not as dire as it was made out to be. US-USSR relations were much improved until the U2 shoot down in 1960. The US botched the response, giving the USSR a PR coup.

Ike refused to endorse Nixon until he was nominated by the convention. Nixon, looking to win on his own was content to keep Ike in the background. When Ike did speak, it reflected poorly on Nixon. Washington’s farewell address warned against entangling alliances, Ike’s against the perils of ever-increasing defense expenditures and the garrison state (759). Ike played little public role after retirement. He died in 1969 after a series of heart attacks.

[Manray9 · Rating 5 out of 5]

As the dust jacket blurb asserts, Smith is "indubitably America's most distinguished biographer." Eisenhower in War and Peace is detailed and erudite, but also exceedingly well written. It is a masterpiece of the biographer's art.

[John Bohnert · Rating 5 out of 5]

This biography of Ike gave me a new understanding of Eisenhower as a general and later as president. I admire Ike very much as a result.

[Cora · Rating 4 out of 5]

Usually when it comes to popular biographies of major historical figures, there's a question of why exactly another biography is necessary after umpteen thousand volumes have been written on the subject. And there are certainly no lack of books on Dwight D. Eisenhower, as a general or as President, but in this case the 'why' is clear. The most influential Eisenhower biographer is Stephen Ambrose, whose writings on DDE included eye-popping revelations like Eisenhower's private doubts about integration: "These are not bad people [in the South]. All they are concerned about is that their sweet little girls are not required to sit in school alongside some big black bucks."

That quote is famous and probably a fraud. Ambrose based many 'discoveries' on private conversations with the retired President, and those discoveries were widely accepted until Ambrose's fraud was revealed in 2010. Eisenhower In War And Peace is one of the first major biographies to take this into account, and is worthwhile for that reason alone: if you're a student of modern American history, you've probably been misinformed by Ambrose either first- or second-hand.

So fine, you might be saying, the book is not a deliberate deception; is there something else to recommend it? Well, Jean Edward Smith is a competent, generally comprehensive biographer. Eisenhower is not one of the memorable personalities to inhabit the White House, like Nixon or LBJ or (IMO) Bill Clinton; but he was more devious than commonly believed, and was once memorably described by a journalist as a cold man who appeared warm when he smiled for the cameras. And although this is a long book, Smith is brisk as well as comprehensive (no 100 pages of childhood traumas, thank god) and he's compelling on the most famous bits (D-Day, Suez, Little Rock).

I disagreed with Smith's generally cheery assessment of the Eisenhower presidency, however. Perhaps it's a biographer's failing, but he gives DDE way too much credit on civil rights and foreign policy. Eisenhower may not have been privately rooting for segregation, as previously believed; but DDE was no civil rights activist, in either words or deeds. He famously committed troops to Little Rock to enforce a court order integrating a local high school, and less famously appointed a number of pro-civil rights judges and Justice Department attorneys that worked tirelessly in the South. But Eisenhower himself was indifferent enough on the issue that he almost appointed John W. Davis, attorney for segregation in Brown v. Board, to the Supreme Court; and his policy of 'all deliberate speed' only integrated 1% of the schools in the South by 1961. What was needed was real civil rights legislation, and Eisenhower was more interested in preaching patience to black people than pursuing the kind of laws that did eventually make a real difference.

And Eisenhower's legacy on foreign policy--his area of expertise--leaves much to be desired as well. Like his successor Barack Obama, DDE's desire to cut the military budget inspired a love for covert aggression with a small budgetary footprint; and also like Obama, Eisenhower appreciated the complexities of foreign affairs but operated within the narrow confines of the foreign policy consensus. So while Eisenhower recognized that Third World countries often pursued neutralist foreign policy and socialist economic policies for defensible and even admirable reasons, his administration too often responded to Third World nationalism with brute force. For this reason, he authorized coups against Mossadegh in Iran (writing in his diary that his sole goal was to keep the oil flowing) and Guatemala, as well as failed CIA-led insurrections in Indonesia and the Bay of Pigs. In Egypt, an ailing Eisenhower permitted John Foster Dulles to cancel US funding for the Aswan Dam, prompting Nasser to nationalize the Suez canal and enter into a strategic partnership with the Soviet Union. And while he did not commit American troops to Vietnam, he put American prestige behind the proposition that a unified communist Vietnam was 'unacceptable' (even though he knew that Ho Chi Minh was vastly more popular than any South Vietnamese leader). On a global scale, Eisenhower was responsible for stabilizing relations between the Soviets and the West into a chilly modus vivendi; but his administration did not act as if there was any other choices.

Still, Eisenhower is generally beloved, and shows up high on presidential rankings for good reason. The Eisenhower era was a time of general peace and prosperity, and Eisenhower himself (a progressive 'modern conservative') was a figure who often rose above the left-right divide. (In fact, Eisenhower was often closer to leading Democrats than to many of the Republicans in Congress.) His most famous domestic accomplishment was the interstate highway system, a non-partisan accomplishment that's hard to find fault with. He's also responsible for dramatically expanding the scope of Social Security while decreasing the debt. Eisenhower's all-American persona seemed to embody the spirit of the times, but it was a mask for a savvy, often duplicitous man. Smith's conclusions don't always agree with mine, but he is effective at lifting that mask.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

https://bestpresidentialbios.com/2016...

Published in 2012, “Eisenhower in War and Peace” is Jean Edward Smith’s third presidential biography (following “Grant” in 2001 and “FDR” in 2007). Smith taught political science at the University of Toronto for 35 years and at Marshall University for 12 years. His most recent (and controversial) biography “Bush” was published in July 2016.

The first comprehensive biography of Eisenhower in a decade, Smith’s review of the 34th president is lengthy (with 766 pages) and occasionally exhausting. But rarely is it dull, and the author’s enthusiasm for his subject infuses nearly every page of this well-documented book.

Smith rates Eisenhower as one of the two most successful of twentieth-century presidents (behind only FDR) and covers his personal foibles and battlefield failures with candor and clarity. But he is unfailingly complimentary toward Eisenhower’s two-term presidency. And in the end, the character who emerges from this book is ambitious, flawed, an excellent politician and a capable (if not quite great) president…but stubbornly enigmatic.

Smith devotes half the book to Eisenhower’s military career versus about one-quarter to his presidency. Many readers will puzzle at this imbalance but Ike’s pre-presidency is where the book shines brightest. The author vividly and thoroughly describes his steady march from West Point cadet to Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. And no reader will miss how Eisenhower’s military career well-prepared him for the presidency.

Eisenhower’s military career was punctuated by frequent moves, invaluable mentors and relentless behind-the-scenes maneuvering. But while this period of his life provides a seemingly endless array of captivating stories, these fifteen chapters sometimes feel long and overly detailed.

In contrast to discussion of his military career, the eight-year Eisenhower presidency is organized topically and not chronologically. As a consequence, readers unfamiliar with American history during the 1950s will learn a great deal about the decade’s most important moments but may be unsure of (or flatly confused by) their sequencing.

This portion of the biography often seems strangely organized, with occasional non sequiturs. In one instance, no sooner has Smith introduced the reader to legendary House Speaker Sam Rayburn than he launches – without pausing or providing a segue – into a discussion of Eisenhower’s interstate highway initiative.

But this book’s high points far outweigh its shortcomings and any committed reader will find much to enjoy and absorb. Smith is excellent when incorporating new characters into the dialogue and in the case of General Marshall even provides an astute comparison of Eisenhower’s attributes with those of his fascinating one-time mentor.

And continuing a style exhibited in his earlier biography of FDR, Smith liberally incorporates insightful and often detailed footnotes into the text. Some readers will be tempted to skip over these but they consistently add important flavor and context to the narrative.

Overall, Jean Edward Smith’s biography of Dwight Eisenhower is a revealing, detailed and colorful look at a man described by many (including his wife) as mysterious and somewhat unknowable. And while Smith’s intention in writing this biography seems to have been burnishing Eisenhower’s presidential legacy, the man described here is less great and more wonderfully complex, interesting and human than may have been intended.

Overall rating: 4¼ stars

[Harold · Rating 4 out of 5]

I didn't know much about Eisenhower, who was president when I was a baby. The 50s always seemed like this backward, but idyllic time; but Eisenhower gets little credit, and is hardly noted. If Jean Smith's book is to be believed (and I have no reason to doubt it), he was a good general, more political than strategic, and a phenomenal president. Where is he today? Here was a president who could accomplish great things and who had great vision without having to announce it to the world. And he had common sense and morality to boot. He settled the Korean war, balanced the budget, built the interstate highway system, improved our relationship with Russia, advocated disarmament, defused the Suez crisis, ushered in the civil rights movement by supporting the decision on Brown vs. Board of Education, and sending in the military to Arkansas to support integration, and finally railed against military industrial complex. And he couldn't bring himself to support Nixon (at least in 1960) or McCarthy.

Oh those were the days.

So what else did I learn reading this book. I learned what we are missing. A true centrist. A military general who knew the horrors of war, and was a pacifist at heart -- but a true realist when he needed to be. A leader who didn't read public opinion polls, but really lead, and who had values and ideas, who focused on the big picture and delegated as much as he could, who could charm the pants off world leaders, using honesty as his principal weapon.

I was born too late.o

[Caroline · Rating 5 out of 5]

I always pick up a Jean Edward Smith book with a sense of anticipation. I wish there was an on-demand service where he could write a biography for all of my favourite historical figures. This one on Eisenhower, like his others on Grant and FDR, is superb. He somehow manages to balance scholarly analysis, balanced appraisal and deep research with an engaging narrative style and a touch of humour, and it makes his books an utter pleasure to read. I wish he'd take on Lincoln or Sherman or RFK.

Eisenhower is one of those Presidents I've always passed over. It was almost as though he was two people - the Supreme Commander during WW2 and the latter genial, avuncular President of the 50s, and I never really thought much about either. This biography really draws the real man out and highlights the strengths that made him such a perfect fit for both roles. Particularly as President, I think, Eisenhower has been portrayed as the safe, steady hand on the tiller during a safe, steady era, but without attributing any of that safety or steadiness to his actions, something that does him a real disservice.

Jean Edward Smith more than rectifies that here, portraying Eisenhower as man who may have lacked the military genius of a Montgomery, Patton or, indeed, President Grant, but a man who had the perhaps more important abilities: to keep calm in a crisis, to recognise talent and draw upon it, to delegate and trust his subordinates, to conciliate and work with allies. It would a curious historical 'what if' to explore what might have happened had Eisenhower not risen to the position he did in WW2.

My one criticism of this book would be the constant comparisons to Grant and the Civil War. I understand that Grant is the only real comparable figure - the only other General/President who led the country in such a massive, era-defining war - but I did find the constant allusions a little wearing after a while. But that's an incredibly minor issue, and it does nothing to diminish the achievement of this book.

[Morgan Blackledge · Rating 5 out of 5]

I went on a bit of an emotional roller coaster reading this. Unexpected from an Eisenhower bio right?

But this thing (low key but still) got me going.

I have been curious about Eisenhower for a while.

Supreme commander of allied forces in WWII.

Overlord of D Day.

Hard ass cold warieor.

And ironically.

One of the most non-partisan, peace loving, and ridiculously popular presidents in American history.

Plus:

He authored and delivered the amazingly prescient, game changing speech cautioning against the perils of the military industrial complex.

Deep!

He was no angel.

He was for sure a product of his racist time.

And while far from politically progressive.

He was fiercely pragmatic and doggedly committed to upholding the rule of law and the constitution.

Such that he ended up doing more for civil rights than (almost) any American president before him.

All without tooting his own horn about it.

Yass!!!!

I was extremely disappointed to learn of his affairs.

No idea why I had such a strong, visceral, negative reaction to this clearly uncool but all too human fact.

But it really bugged me for some reason.

However.

In the end.

The good SO completely WAY overwhelmed the bad.

That I have to say.

I like IKE.

Radical ownership of failures.

Humility regarding accomplishments.

Peaceful and prosperous presidential tenure.

!!Eisenhower Power!!

Wish we had some of that right about now.

Five Stars 🎖🎖🎖🎖🎖

[Harley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected President when I was 3 years old and left office when I was 11. I have read little about Eisenhower until this year. This is the 3rd book that I have read about him this year and is the first full biography.

Eisenhower was born on October 14, 1890 in Denison, Texas, the 3rd of 7 sons born to David and Ida Eisenhower. His father had moved the family from Kansas in 1988 to find work. The Eisenhowers only lived in Texas for 4 years before they moved back to Kansas. Dwight's ancestors originally arrived from Germany in 1741. David's father was a preacher with the River Brethren, an offshoot of the Mennonites. Like the Mennonites, the River Brethren did not believe in fighting in wars.

Religion was a major part of the fabric of Eisenhower family. David would begin the day by reading the Bible to the family. They said prayers before meals and the boys read the scriptures at night. Dwight had read the entire Bible twice before entering West Point.

Dwight's father was a very strict and stern man who did not play with his sons nor take them fishing or hunting. Ike's brother, Edgar, said about their father: "He was an inflexible man with a stern code. Life to him was a very serious proposition and that's the way he lived it, soberly and with due reflection."

Dwight's mother, Ida, had the greatest influence on the boys. She was present in their lives and usually found the humor in most situations. In spite of his pacifist upbringing, Dwight sought and received an appointment to West Point where he was admitted in June of 1911. Eisenhower graduated 61st in a class of 164 and was assigned to San Antonio where he met his future Mary Geneva Doud. They were married on July 1, 1916.

Eisenhower did not have the opportunity to see any action on the battle field during World War I. Between the two wars he held administrative posts in various places. In December of 1926 Dwight was assigned to the American Battle Monuments Commission under John J. Pershing. In December, 1927 he moved to Paris to continue the work under the Monuments Commission where he explored first hand the terrain of France.

In October 1935, Eisenhower sailed to the Philippines to serve under Douglas MacArthur. MacArthur delegated the day to day operations to Eisenhower and James Ord. MacArthur only came into the office about an hour a day.

In June of 1942, Eisenhower was given the command of the invasion of Europe. His first task was to establish a command structure. Eisenhower initially made some serious mistakes as the army tried to retake northern Africa before entering France. He had never command troops in combat and did not do well as a field commander. He was better at overall organization and in public relations. He was skilled in managing the top brass. Eisenhower was name Supreme Commander where he could devote his time to the political and inter-allied problems. Others were given direct field command of the soldiers. Dwight was promoted to a four star general. The invasion of Europe began in June, 1944. Eisenhower made the final decision when to start the attack. Victory in Europe made Eisenhower an international hero.

In 1952, Ike Eisenhower won the Republican nomination for President against Adlai Stevenson, the Democratic nominee. The 1952 campaign has been called one of nastiest on record at the time. There were bogus claims about a Communist conspiracy in the Truman administration and the GOP launched a negative campaign questioning the sexual orientation of Governor Stevenson. More than 61 million Americans voted and Ike won 55% of the popular vote. He won 442 electoral votes to Stevenson's 89.

Eisenhower served as President during eight years of peace and prosperity. When he left office in 1961, his popularity ratings were as high as when he was inaugurated.

This is an excellent biography by Jean Edward Smith. The book gains momentum with the discussion of Eisenhower's activities during World War II and his accomplishments and failures during his Presidency. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in learning more about the life of Dwight D. Eisenhower.

[Alan Tomkins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another excellent biography by Jean Edward Smith. Eisenhower was an inspirational and admired leader because of his character: he was generally a decent, honest man of integrity. That, combined with hard work and good fortune, made him a true American success story and a heroic figure. I really enjoy Smith’s biographies because first they are such well researched and thorough descriptions of their subjects, accurate and unbiased, and second because they reveal so much about the times and other influential characters involved in these life stories. Smith doesn’t just bring his subjects back to life for his readers, he really makes history come alive in all its fascinating intricacies.

[Joe · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Eisenhower in War and Peace" is a monster of a political biography. At 976 pages (only 760 if you don't read the notes and annotations at the end and who reads those, you weirdo), it is a long, long book. However, I feel like I've got a much better idea who Ike was now. Jean Edward Smith clearly admires Eisenhower but brings up issues that had previously been left out like Ike's poor performance whenever he actually had to lead any troops into battle and his affair with his driver. (And va va voom what an affair it was! Smith includes pictures of her kind of say to the reader, 'You get it, right?') But then inexplicably leaves out "Operation Wetback", a racist immigration program that should have rightfully been discussed.

Also, the book focuses much more heavily on his war years than his peace years. The presidency gets only a few hundred pages. Specifically, I'm shocked at how little is spent discussing the Interstate Highway system. This was probably THE greatest achievement of his presidency with the longest and largest impact. It literally changed how the country could travel and how it went on to be settled and Smith gives it maybe three pages.

Those minor grips aside, this is an amazing book and I'll definitely read more from Smith. His attention to detail is fascinating and he gives great context for events. Sometimes exhaustively so.

For those who currently pine for Republican leadership with a head and a heart, look no further than Eisenhower, the last great Republican president. I can safely say, I like Ike.

[Marks54 · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a well done and long biography that sets out to make a point - that contrary to popular opinion, even among those who read history, Eisenhower was the second most effective US president in the 20th century - after FDR. The author is clear in making his interpretive points, even while providing a carefully documented and reasonable account. The key to the argument is Smith's view that Eisenhower's top management skills, his moderation, and his ability to forge consensus were the key elements of why he was a great supreme allied commander in WWII and a very successful president.

The interesting part of the case is how the author carefully documents what activities Eisenhower was not good at -- such as being a battlefield commander and a "professional" tactical politician. This comes out most clearly in discussions how Eisenhower's poor results in WWI when he had operational responsibility for direction of battlefields, such as in North AFrica, Sicily, Italy, and especially in Europe once the Normandy landings had been completed. To those familiar with the conventional history or Ike's successes in WWI, the review of his poor results, and how he dealt with, is striking and even gives the appearance of taking shots at Eisenhower's reputation. (I don't believe that criticism and see the book as very effective in clarifying the richness of Eisenhower's career.)

It is hazardous to start listing "takeaways" from a detailed 900 page book about a career as rich as Eisenhower's was. However, there were several themes in the book that were distinctive.

1) Real people make mistakes, sometimes large ones, and even sometimes learn from them. That is what makes the biography of someone like Ike (or Churchill) so interesting. To show this learning, it is necessary to show the mistakes and doing so is what distinguishes good biography from hagiography. Even in covering Ike's affair with Kay Summersby, the treatment seemed fair and even reasonable.

2) A second point in this book about leaders and hierarchies is that while several leadership positions may be arrayed in a hierarchy, different positions involve very different tasks and skills. Even though Eisenhower did not have combat experience, he was a great supreme commander and US president. More generally, success as a subordinate leader does not mean someone is prepared to move up the chain. In effect, Ike reversed the Peter Principle and was promoted up to his level of competence and above those levels of leadership at which he excelled less. In this sense, the book is a superb case study of a leader making his way in the world.

The book is not without shortcomings but most I noticed were minor. For example, Ike get credit for the Interstate Highway system. That is reasonable, but recent studies (The Big Roads) show that Ike was capitalizing on longstanding developments from FDRs presidency and before. This is mentioned and the issue is more one of balance - and I certainly can give the author the benefit of the doubt.

Overall, I was engaged by the book and learned alot from this even though I am generally familiar with the historical context in which Ike developed and prospered. Once you get past the first 100 pages or so, the book will be difficult to put down.

[Wanda · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very detailed but superbly written biography of Dwight Eisenhower. I love histories and biographies the bring their subjects to life, and Smith certainly does that. Bravo to the writing and research. I only have a few minor quibbles with his details. Later.
Smith is even in his treatment of Eisenhower. He admires the man and his contribution to the U.S. and to the war in Europe, but he is also a bit criticial of his also somewhat critical of his military performance, during the North African Campaign, which led to his being taken to the woodshed by his superiors. He also spends a great deal of time explaining why Eisenhower, a military man who had never commanded combat troops, became Supreme Commander in Europe. To be sure he was Marshall's fair haired boy, but he was also a consummate politician who managed his career very, very well.
Smith discusses Eisenhower's rather poor performance as president of Columbia University, a topic not well detailed in other biographies. It was pretty obvious that putting a 5 star general, who managed by rigid chain of command, in charge of a university which should be governed by faculty consensus, was a recipe for disaster. Or is should have been obvious anyway.
I learned a lot in this book: 1) Eisenhower's role in deep sixing Joseph McCarthy, 2) his stanch anti war stance, 3) his role in ending the Korean war, 4) his resistance to the hawks who would have expanded our military misadventures around the globe, 5) his resistance to involvement in Viet Nam, 6) his support of court ordered desegregation, 6) desegregating the VA, navy yards and schools on military basis and eliminating segregated military units.
Smith also does a great job of rounding out historical characters of that time including Truman, Omar Bradley, Marshall, Patton, Kate Summersby and Mamie among others who were key in Eisenhower's life.
The only quibbles I have is that Smith states that Pershing was a 6 star general. Not. There has never been a 6 star general in the U.S. He was General of the Armies, but this did not raise him to the status of 6 stars. The other was that he made a great deal of Eisenhower's relationship with Kay Sommersby. I think that the evidence there is flimsy and the notion that there was an affair is based on pure speculation. While Summersby did say that she was in love with Eisenhower, her version of events contained in her book has been refuted by both scholars and the Eisenhower family. While I find it difficult to believe that having spent 4 years away from Mamie that he was completely celibate, given how disciplined he was, it is equally hard to believe that he would be stupid enough to carry on an affair under the noses of the many people who surrounded him during that time. If, and it's a qualified if, he did have a love affair, then the way that he left her was exceedingly shabby and the affair was as instrumental to his ambition as any other of his relationships. Not an attractive thought.
Great read. Thoroughly enjoyable.

[Susan O · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 -
Jean Edward Smith's biography of Eisenhower is excellent, well-researched and well-written. It was a little lackluster, but this admittedly might be the subject rather than the book. It is an even-handed description of the man pointing out both strengths and weaknesses as a good biography should. I was left with a better understanding of why he was so popular as a President, but doubting that I would have liked the man.

Eisenhower was not the best military general of the war. Patton, Montgomery, and Bradley were probably better, but as Supreme Commander of the armed forces in Europe he was excellent. What he lacked in military brilliance, he possessed in political savvy and the ability to pull together allies into an efficient fighting force. It's hard to imagine anyone doing a better job, except possibly Marshall. However, I am NOT very well-informed about the military aspects of the war. I might have enjoyed that portion of the book more if I had known more about the battles going in.

What I found more interesting in the book was Eisenhower's time as President. Other accounts I've read have portrayed him as uninvolved in the running of the government. I'm not sure that is a fair assessment. It seems that he was very efficient at delegating responsibilities, however. He brought the Korean war to a close and kept American soldiers out of battle during his tenure. Domestically, he was responsible for the construction of the interstate highway system which served the dual purposes of provided much needed infrastructure and a boost to the economy in the post-war years.

Overall the book is very comprehensive and I highly recommend it. I would like to have known more about his family life, but I'm not sure there is that much more to know.

[Jonathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the third Presidential biography by Jean Edward Smith that I have read, and they don't disappoint. Eisenhower was something of an enigma: hard to pin down - like most expert bridge players, he kept his cards close to his chest - and he was always much smarter and more decisive then he outwardly appeared. While not what one would call an intellectual (for relaxation, Ike read western novels), his razor-sharp political instincts in both army and national politics and his ability to cut to the heart of the matter at hand served him well in the army, in the Second World War and in the White House. He was the only post-WWII President under whom, after he ended the fighting in Korea, not a single American soldier died in combat. He also kept several international crises from spiraling out of control and balanced the budget; not bad for a guy who supposedly spent his Presidency playing golf. Smith is correct to criticize Ike's strategic ability, but it wasn't for that he was supreme commander, but rather his political and diplomatic abilities; when he tried commanding troops in Europe, he was less than successful. A fascinating figure in both war and peace, and Smith does him justice with this extremely readable book. I was sorry to finish it.

[Emmett Hoops · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of those rare books that provide a new understanding of a man we all safely assumed had already been properly disposed of by a competent biographer. As it turns out, much of what is known or believed to be known about Dwight D. Eisenhower is due to Stephen Ambrose, Eisenhower's previously principal biographer. Should you choose to read this excellent book, you will find reasons to doubt and disbelieve some of Ambrose's more controversial conclusions.

In Jean Edward Smith's more than competent hands, Eisenhower is at last presented as a coherent historical figure. It's a pity that more people likely will not read this book due to a common perception that Eisenhower's presidency was marked by nothing but somnambulent politics and golf games. Nothing could be further from the truth. Eisenhower ended the Korean War; he prevented the military from launching nuclear weapons on China; he appointed five Supreme Court judges; he sent the 101st Airborne into Little Rock to enforce a court order; he kept the country calm after Sputnik; he gained the respect of the world for this country by his handling of the Suez Crisis in 1956. Surely this book deserves a place on your list of t0-be-read.