What do you think?
Rate this book
Two Americans: Truman, Eisenhower, and a Dangerous World
Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, consecutive presidents of the United States, were midwesterners alike in many ways—except that they also sharply differed. Born within six years of each other (Truman in 1884, Eisenhower in 1890), they came from small towns in the Missouri-Mississippi River Valley—in the midst of cows and wheat, pigs and corn, and grain elevators. Both were grandsons of farmers and sons of forceful mothers, and of fathers who knew failure; both were lower middle class, received public school educations, and were brought up in low-church Protestant denominations.
William Lee Miller interweaves Truman's and Eisenhower's life stories, which then also becomes the story of their nation as it rose to great power. They had contrasting experiences in the Great War—Truman, the haberdasher to be, led men in battle; Eisenhower, the supreme commander to be, did not. Between the wars, Truman was the quintessential politician, and Eisenhower the thoroughgoing anti-politician. Truman knew both the successes and woes of the public life, while Eisenhower was sequestered in the peacetime army. Then in the wartime 1940s, these two men were abruptly lifted above dozens of others to become leaders of the great national efforts.
Miller describes the hostile maneuvering and bickering at the moment in 1952–1953 when power was to be handed from one to the other and somebody had to decide which hat to wear and who greeted whom. As president, each coped with McCarthyism, the tormenting problems of race, and the great issues of the emerging Cold War. They brought the United States into a new pattern of world responsibility while being the first Americans to hold in their hands the awesome power of weapons capable of destroying civilization.
Listening to their story is a reminder of the modern American story, of ordinary men dealing with extraordinary power.
William Lee Miller interweaves Truman's and Eisenhower's life stories, which then also becomes the story of their nation as it rose to great power. They had contrasting experiences in the Great War—Truman, the haberdasher to be, led men in battle; Eisenhower, the supreme commander to be, did not. Between the wars, Truman was the quintessential politician, and Eisenhower the thoroughgoing anti-politician. Truman knew both the successes and woes of the public life, while Eisenhower was sequestered in the peacetime army. Then in the wartime 1940s, these two men were abruptly lifted above dozens of others to become leaders of the great national efforts.
Miller describes the hostile maneuvering and bickering at the moment in 1952–1953 when power was to be handed from one to the other and somebody had to decide which hat to wear and who greeted whom. As president, each coped with McCarthyism, the tormenting problems of race, and the great issues of the emerging Cold War. They brought the United States into a new pattern of world responsibility while being the first Americans to hold in their hands the awesome power of weapons capable of destroying civilization.
Listening to their story is a reminder of the modern American story, of ordinary men dealing with extraordinary power.
Audiobook
First published January 1, 2012
33 people are currently reading
353 people want to read
About the author
William Lee Miller
31 books30 followersWilliam Lee Miller is Scholar in Ethics and Institutions at the Miller Center. From 1992 until his retirement in 1999, Mr. Miller was Thomas C. Sorensen Professor of Political and Social Thought and Director of the Program in Political and Social Thought at the University of Virginia. He was professor of religious studies from 1982 to 1999, and chaired the Department of Rhetoric and Communication Studies from 1982 to 1990.
Prior to coming to the University of Virginia, he taught political science and religious studies at Indiana University, where he was also the founding director of the Poynter Center on American Institutions, and at Yale University and at Smith College.
During the 1960s, he served for six years as a member of Board of Aldermen, a government entity, of New Haven, Conn. William Lee Miller served as a speech writer for U.S. presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson's campaign in 1956. He was also a contributing editor and writer for The Reporter magazine.
Prior to coming to the University of Virginia, he taught political science and religious studies at Indiana University, where he was also the founding director of the Poynter Center on American Institutions, and at Yale University and at Smith College.
During the 1960s, he served for six years as a member of Board of Aldermen, a government entity, of New Haven, Conn. William Lee Miller served as a speech writer for U.S. presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson's campaign in 1956. He was also a contributing editor and writer for The Reporter magazine.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
September 2, 2024
Truman And Eisenhower
Harry Truman (1884 --- 1972) served as the Democratic 33d president of the United States from 1945 -- 1953 while Dwight Eisenhower (1890 -- 1969) served as a Republican as the 34th president from 1953 -- 1961. Both leaders had many similarities and many differences. Both played critical roles in the tumultuous period following WW II and, of course particularly in Eisenhower's case, in the War itself. William Lee Miller's new book, "Two Americans: Truman, Eisenhower, and a Dangerous World" (2012) is a parallel biography of these two leaders and their era. Miller is Scholar in Ethics and Institutions at the Miller Center at the University of Virginia. He writes generally about earlier periods of American history, including two books about Lincoln and a study of John Quincy Adams and the "gag" rule. In this book, as in his earlier works, Miller concentrates on ethical issues in political affairs. The book would have benefitted from a more detailed introduction and statement of the author's purpose. Miller writes:
"This book is a brief narrative of the careers of [Truman and Eisenhower]. Part of the reason I chose to interweave their stories is to compare and contrast these men, in their relationships to the great issues with which they dealt and to each other (they came to have a considerable antagonism, as we shall see; their interaction is an interesting part of the story.) Another reason for telling their story jointly is that, together, their careers reveal central aspects of American culture at crucial moments in history. Both were president at times that required important national decisions."
In their early years, Truman's and Eisenhower's paths did not cross, but their lives were somewhat parallel. The two men were born only six years and 150 miles apart in the American Midwest. Both came from rural, struggling families and both attended public schools and were raised in small Protestant denominations. Truman wanted to attend West Point but was prevented from doing so by his eyesight. Eisenhower attended West Point by accident.
Miller discusses the careers of Truman and Eisenhower during WW I and in the years between the two World Wars. Enlisting when he was already beyond draft age, Truman saw combat and showed strong leadership ability commanding an artillery unit. Following the war, Truman failed as a haberdasher, but succeeded as a local politician in Missouri with the help of the corrupt Pendergast machine. In 1940, Truman was elected to the U.S. Senate. Eisenhower was eager for combat experience during WW I, but had only a series of stateside assignments to his great frustration. In the years leading up to WW II, he made strong contacts but functioned largely in a long series of desk jobs. Miller discusses how the different experiences of Truman, as a politician, and Eisenhower, in the relatively insulated world of the professional soldier, may have shaped their subsequent conduct when each became famous.
Miller's book picks up focus when it discusses WW II as Eisenhower became the supreme allied commander and Truman an influential senator and surprise vice-president. Miller offers a brief account of Eisenhower's role in the Normandy Invasion and on his ability to secure consensus among allies in crisis times. At the same time, Miller describes how Truman assumed the presidency, for which he appeared unprepared by background, upon Roosevelt's death in April, 1945. Truman was faced immediately with decisions of moment, including the decision to use atomic weapons on Japan, and decisions on resisting Soviet aggression following the war.
From 1945 to 1952, Truman and Eisenhower worked closely together. According to Miller, Eisenhower always had certain reservations about Truman. For his part, Truman encouraged Eisenhower several times to run as the Democratic candidate for president in 1948. With Eisenhower's decision to run for president in 1952, the relationship between the two grew frosty, to say the least. Miller offers a good account of the chill for which Eisenhower apparently bore the larger responsibility.
Miller offers perceptive comparisons of the Truman and Eisenhower presidencies and of the manner in which subsequent historians have understood and evaluated them. He offers chapters on the responses of the two leaders to the demagoguery of Senator Joseph McCarthy, on Truman's and Eisenhower's accomplishments in Civil Rights, and in their conflicted attitudes towards nuclear weapons. The treatment is careful and balanced although I found it overly critical of Eisenhower in some respects. A short final chapter of the book describes the eventual resolution of the feud between the two men in the years following their presidencies.
The book is not a product of independent research in primary sources but instead draws extensively on leading published accounts about Truman, Eisenhower, the Cold War and WW II. The factual materials in this book thus have been covered more thoroughly and in greater detail in several other histories. The book lacks a bibliography and, as Miller points out, most of the many quotations and sources in the text lack ready references. The book will be difficult to use by readers interested in tracking down sources. The book is smoothly written, respectful of its subjects, and offers Miller's measured judgments. It is valuable for its broad portrayal of the United States during the Cold War and for Miller's thoughts on the leadership styles and accomplishments of two great Americans. The study will be of most value to readers with some prior knowledge of Truman, Eisenhower, and their times.
Robin Friedman
Harry Truman (1884 --- 1972) served as the Democratic 33d president of the United States from 1945 -- 1953 while Dwight Eisenhower (1890 -- 1969) served as a Republican as the 34th president from 1953 -- 1961. Both leaders had many similarities and many differences. Both played critical roles in the tumultuous period following WW II and, of course particularly in Eisenhower's case, in the War itself. William Lee Miller's new book, "Two Americans: Truman, Eisenhower, and a Dangerous World" (2012) is a parallel biography of these two leaders and their era. Miller is Scholar in Ethics and Institutions at the Miller Center at the University of Virginia. He writes generally about earlier periods of American history, including two books about Lincoln and a study of John Quincy Adams and the "gag" rule. In this book, as in his earlier works, Miller concentrates on ethical issues in political affairs. The book would have benefitted from a more detailed introduction and statement of the author's purpose. Miller writes:
"This book is a brief narrative of the careers of [Truman and Eisenhower]. Part of the reason I chose to interweave their stories is to compare and contrast these men, in their relationships to the great issues with which they dealt and to each other (they came to have a considerable antagonism, as we shall see; their interaction is an interesting part of the story.) Another reason for telling their story jointly is that, together, their careers reveal central aspects of American culture at crucial moments in history. Both were president at times that required important national decisions."
In their early years, Truman's and Eisenhower's paths did not cross, but their lives were somewhat parallel. The two men were born only six years and 150 miles apart in the American Midwest. Both came from rural, struggling families and both attended public schools and were raised in small Protestant denominations. Truman wanted to attend West Point but was prevented from doing so by his eyesight. Eisenhower attended West Point by accident.
Miller discusses the careers of Truman and Eisenhower during WW I and in the years between the two World Wars. Enlisting when he was already beyond draft age, Truman saw combat and showed strong leadership ability commanding an artillery unit. Following the war, Truman failed as a haberdasher, but succeeded as a local politician in Missouri with the help of the corrupt Pendergast machine. In 1940, Truman was elected to the U.S. Senate. Eisenhower was eager for combat experience during WW I, but had only a series of stateside assignments to his great frustration. In the years leading up to WW II, he made strong contacts but functioned largely in a long series of desk jobs. Miller discusses how the different experiences of Truman, as a politician, and Eisenhower, in the relatively insulated world of the professional soldier, may have shaped their subsequent conduct when each became famous.
Miller's book picks up focus when it discusses WW II as Eisenhower became the supreme allied commander and Truman an influential senator and surprise vice-president. Miller offers a brief account of Eisenhower's role in the Normandy Invasion and on his ability to secure consensus among allies in crisis times. At the same time, Miller describes how Truman assumed the presidency, for which he appeared unprepared by background, upon Roosevelt's death in April, 1945. Truman was faced immediately with decisions of moment, including the decision to use atomic weapons on Japan, and decisions on resisting Soviet aggression following the war.
From 1945 to 1952, Truman and Eisenhower worked closely together. According to Miller, Eisenhower always had certain reservations about Truman. For his part, Truman encouraged Eisenhower several times to run as the Democratic candidate for president in 1948. With Eisenhower's decision to run for president in 1952, the relationship between the two grew frosty, to say the least. Miller offers a good account of the chill for which Eisenhower apparently bore the larger responsibility.
Miller offers perceptive comparisons of the Truman and Eisenhower presidencies and of the manner in which subsequent historians have understood and evaluated them. He offers chapters on the responses of the two leaders to the demagoguery of Senator Joseph McCarthy, on Truman's and Eisenhower's accomplishments in Civil Rights, and in their conflicted attitudes towards nuclear weapons. The treatment is careful and balanced although I found it overly critical of Eisenhower in some respects. A short final chapter of the book describes the eventual resolution of the feud between the two men in the years following their presidencies.
The book is not a product of independent research in primary sources but instead draws extensively on leading published accounts about Truman, Eisenhower, the Cold War and WW II. The factual materials in this book thus have been covered more thoroughly and in greater detail in several other histories. The book lacks a bibliography and, as Miller points out, most of the many quotations and sources in the text lack ready references. The book will be difficult to use by readers interested in tracking down sources. The book is smoothly written, respectful of its subjects, and offers Miller's measured judgments. It is valuable for its broad portrayal of the United States during the Cold War and for Miller's thoughts on the leadership styles and accomplishments of two great Americans. The study will be of most value to readers with some prior knowledge of Truman, Eisenhower, and their times.
Robin Friedman
October 16, 2020
William Lee Miller has not written a straight presidential biography of either president he profiles here, but rather a comparison and a contrasting of the two men: their backgrounds, personalities, leadership styles, decisions, and reactions to events. The result is an engaging look at two men who both occupied the most powerful position in the world in the middle of the 20th century.
Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower grew up in roughly the same time period, separated by less than 200 miles in the middle of America. Given that, one might think that they would share a lot of personality traits. But that is not the case, as Miller shows. Truman was decisive, often impulsive, while Eisenhower was more reserved and measured. Yet both men had firm grasps of history, and worked together in the immediate aftermath of WWII before politics drove them apart.
The book is chronological up until WWII, then switches to a topical format. While I understand why Miller did this (setting the backgrounds of both, their early youth, struggles in their respective professions), generally I do not care for books that adopt this approach. I think it is somewhat disorienting for the reader to be moving along on a clear path through time, only to be suddenly bounced back and forth like a yo-yo. Also, Miller has a tendency to repeat things. A lot. The same incident might be referred to three or more times. I feel like a good editor would have curtailed that, so I will not entirely blame him for this.
But this is overrode by Miller's excellent analysis of the two. He examines their interactions with each other, and especially when things began to deteriorate in 1952 over Eisenhower's decision to run for president on the Republican ticket. Miller shows that Truman clearly had an enormous amount of respect for Eisenhower, but that Eisenhower, while he was professional towards Truman, kept his distance and did not seem to personally like him. At a minimum, Eisenhower remained aloof from Truman, and one does get the hint that Eisenhower viewed him at least slightly with disdain for being a politician while Eisenhower considered himself above the political fray.
Miller does not play favorites; each man is given his due, criticized where appropriate, and praised where he should be. One chapter is on how each man dealt with race relations, with Miller showing how Truman did more than Eisenhower ever gave him credit for, and Eisenhower squandering the moral power of the presidency by not speaking out against segregation. Yet at the same time, Miller notes that, after leaving office, Truman seemed to regress somewhat on the subject, while Eisenhower very slowly moved in the opposite direction. Miller also contrasts their views on atomic weapons, dealing with Joseph McCarthy (both failed at this, for different reasons, even though Eisenhower - very belatedly - ultimately helped contribute to McCarthy's downfall), moral principles, how they handled the Korean War, and each man's own conception of what a successful president should look like.
While I do wish some of the repetitive anecdotes had been removed or at least cut back on, and that Miller had not started out chronologically (since this is a comparison of the two men, the topical structure seems to work better), I did enjoy this book. Miller's insightful, even-handed analysis of both men is very good. In fact, seldom have I come across an author who has done such a fine job in this type of endeavor, while being able to maintain objectivity and neutrality between the two subjects. These two men remain incredibly important presidents, and their actions helped shape history. Their differing styles, actions, and interactions make them both interesting men to read about. If only this had been edited better...
Grade: B
Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower grew up in roughly the same time period, separated by less than 200 miles in the middle of America. Given that, one might think that they would share a lot of personality traits. But that is not the case, as Miller shows. Truman was decisive, often impulsive, while Eisenhower was more reserved and measured. Yet both men had firm grasps of history, and worked together in the immediate aftermath of WWII before politics drove them apart.
The book is chronological up until WWII, then switches to a topical format. While I understand why Miller did this (setting the backgrounds of both, their early youth, struggles in their respective professions), generally I do not care for books that adopt this approach. I think it is somewhat disorienting for the reader to be moving along on a clear path through time, only to be suddenly bounced back and forth like a yo-yo. Also, Miller has a tendency to repeat things. A lot. The same incident might be referred to three or more times. I feel like a good editor would have curtailed that, so I will not entirely blame him for this.
But this is overrode by Miller's excellent analysis of the two. He examines their interactions with each other, and especially when things began to deteriorate in 1952 over Eisenhower's decision to run for president on the Republican ticket. Miller shows that Truman clearly had an enormous amount of respect for Eisenhower, but that Eisenhower, while he was professional towards Truman, kept his distance and did not seem to personally like him. At a minimum, Eisenhower remained aloof from Truman, and one does get the hint that Eisenhower viewed him at least slightly with disdain for being a politician while Eisenhower considered himself above the political fray.
Miller does not play favorites; each man is given his due, criticized where appropriate, and praised where he should be. One chapter is on how each man dealt with race relations, with Miller showing how Truman did more than Eisenhower ever gave him credit for, and Eisenhower squandering the moral power of the presidency by not speaking out against segregation. Yet at the same time, Miller notes that, after leaving office, Truman seemed to regress somewhat on the subject, while Eisenhower very slowly moved in the opposite direction. Miller also contrasts their views on atomic weapons, dealing with Joseph McCarthy (both failed at this, for different reasons, even though Eisenhower - very belatedly - ultimately helped contribute to McCarthy's downfall), moral principles, how they handled the Korean War, and each man's own conception of what a successful president should look like.
While I do wish some of the repetitive anecdotes had been removed or at least cut back on, and that Miller had not started out chronologically (since this is a comparison of the two men, the topical structure seems to work better), I did enjoy this book. Miller's insightful, even-handed analysis of both men is very good. In fact, seldom have I come across an author who has done such a fine job in this type of endeavor, while being able to maintain objectivity and neutrality between the two subjects. These two men remain incredibly important presidents, and their actions helped shape history. Their differing styles, actions, and interactions make them both interesting men to read about. If only this had been edited better...
Grade: B
February 25, 2013
This is a book well worth reading; however, it really needs a good edit. I learned so much about the two men and the times in which they lived. They were very different yet had so much in common. They were only six years different in age, and both contributed so much to this country! I hadn't realized that Truman actually led troops in WW I; while Ike, who had recently graduated from West Point, was consigned to duty here in the states training troops. The man who led a platoon then became commander-in-chief at the end of WW II--commander of Ike, commander of the forces.
Most interesting to me was the realization that WW II was the first time nations had joined together to fight--under a united command; previously, nations maintained their own command and control during such combat.
So much of import faced them both: the wars, the bombs, racial integration in the armed forces and in schools. Both men played an important role in this country and are counted high in the "most important presidents" of this country.
Not the best written book...too long and rambling...but very interesting and educational!
Most interesting to me was the realization that WW II was the first time nations had joined together to fight--under a united command; previously, nations maintained their own command and control during such combat.
So much of import faced them both: the wars, the bombs, racial integration in the armed forces and in schools. Both men played an important role in this country and are counted high in the "most important presidents" of this country.
Not the best written book...too long and rambling...but very interesting and educational!
July 12, 2024
should’ve kissed sooner
November 7, 2014
TWO AMERICANS: TRUMAN, EISENHOWER, AND A DANGEROUS WORLD
by William Lee Miller
This very readable book has two purposes: it is a dual biography of our 33rd and 34th presidents, as well as an impressive feat of interpretation and analysis. Truman and Eisenhower were Middle Americans, we are reminded (Truman from Missouri and Ike from Kansas,) who became unlikely seminal figures of World War II and beyond. Vice-President Harry Truman assumed the presidency upon the death of FDR and saw the fall of Nazi Germany a few months later; it was his decision to drop newly minted atomic bombs on Japan and thereby end the war with the Japanese Empire. Dwight Eisenhower, the military man, rose to the position of the supreme commander of the Allied forces in Europe and was an architect of the successful D-Day invasion, the beginning of the end of the Third Reich.
Truman, a Democrat, was an unpopular president. Part of the public's disenchantment with Harry was the fact he wasn't FDR; he was plain spoken and an average joe, not well known, unlike the charismatic Roosevelt, the man who had been president for over a decade. Truman involved us in Korea, a war or “police action” that sought to contain the spread of communism by countering Soviet backed North Korea's invasion of South Korea in 1950. This quickly became an unpopular war: since Korea was backed by the Soviet Union and China entered the war on the side of the North, American goals were limited. Not total war, which may have led to World War III, but a police action repelling the North. This irked many Americans who were accustomed to thinking total victory after WWII and didn't want to sacrifice their children to anything less. When Truman dismissed the commanding general of the war for insubordination, the very popular hero of the World War II Pacific theater Douglas MacArthur, the president's approval ratings plummeted. As president, Truman's popularity was mostly in the basement occupied later by Richard Nixon and George W. Bush at the end of their presidencies.
Eisenhower's political career was much different. He was an immensely popular war hero whose popularity never seriously waned after he entered the political arena. Initially, his party affiliation was unknown. Both Democrats and Republicans wanted him to head their presidential ticket. When he decided to run as a Republican, it was almost a forgone conclusion that he would bring a Republican back to the White House after decades of Democratic rule. First, however, it took some deft political maneuvering for Ike's team to deny the nomination to the right wing candidate, Robert Taft, during the Republican convention of 1952.. Eisenhower then increased his already solid appeal when, as a former military giant, he vowed to visit the Korean war front personally if elected. What he saw there convinced him of the untenability of the conflict and he ended the war, even if ambiguously, within months of assuming the presidency. As president, Ike was a moderate Republican who previously had committed himself, as a military man, to most of Truman's foreign policy, but was against the former president's liberal Fair Deal domestic policies. At the end of Eisenhower's tenure, it was perceived by some as mediocre and by many others as a welcome era of “peace and prosperity.”
Initially Truman, as Ike's commander-in-chief, admired General Eisenhower and sought his council. The president even offered to help Eisenhower become president himself someday. After Ike left the service and became the president of Columbia University, Truman had enough confidence in him to ask if Ike would accept the new appointment of commander of NATO forces. Ike accepted. However, Truman and Eisenhower had a falling out that left both men bitter and led to a highly publicized feud that wasn't thawed until the 1960s.
Author Miller has four concluding chapters of analysis: Judging Presidents, The Miasma of McCarthy, Ike and Harry on Race and Bombs. When Truman ran for President on his own in 1948, it was widely believed that he had no chance to retain the presidency, such was his lack of popularity. But the ever tenacious Harry created what was the greatest upset in presidential campaign history when he beat Thomas Dewey, the heavily favored Republican candidate. Much of the credit goes to Truman individually, as he whistle-stopped his way throughout the country at a blistering pace. Even though Truman never achieved popular acclaim during his presidency, the author notes in his chapter, Judging Presidents, the 33rd president later was acknowledged as a “near great” or even great president by historians and other scholars. They looked back and saw his achievements meeting the test of time: the Marshall Plan that sought to mitigate starvation in Europe after the war, altruistic but also forward looking as curtailing Soviet expansion; the response to the Soviet blockade of Berlin, the Berlin airlift, massive in its implementation, that outmaneuvered the Soviets; The North Atlantic Treaty; the integration of the armed forces; and the making of hard but necessary decisions, such as the removal of MacArthur in Korea. And I'll add, the general public warmed up to Harry too. After the Kennedy assassination and the controversial Warren Report, Johnson's shady and tragic Vietnam initiatives, and Nixon, Americans fondly remembered the plain speaking, The Buck Stops Here, honest, “Give Em Hell Harry.”
Eisenhower's historical track record is different. The amiable Ike was generally well liked as president. With the passage of time, though, historians decided that Ike unfortunately escalated the Cold War and had no moral courage to confront the issues of the day, such as McCarthyism and racial segregation, and otherwise was a mediocre president. Miller points to a seminal article that resurrected Ike's reputation: “The Underestimation of Dwight Eisenhower” by Murray Kempton. Kempton argued that Ike was a more complex thinker than he appeared on the surface (especially at news conferences); he was more aggressive behind the scenes in his administration and not the complacent president he appeared to be to the public; and that he was not a naive or bumbling decision maker, he was decisive. Another revisionist, Fred Greenstein, argued that Ike had a “hidden-hand” style of leadership as president. In this view, the Eisenhower administration took many actions outside of public view. As Miller writes, “So the distinctiveness of Eisenhower's leadership as seen by the new scholarship was that it was in considerable part unseen by the public, and that in his hidden activity he was a conscious and effective politician.” In other words, there was more to Ike as president than thought.
The chapter, The Miasma of McCarthy, focuses on what the author terms the “mephitic atmosphere” known as “McCarthyism” that engulfed the nation. Right wing Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin initiated a series of congressional “witchhunts” to root out alleged Communists in the U.S. Government, the film and television industries, and the U.S. military. As the author recognizes, the powerful McCarthy's methods and tactics were dishonest and souless, in a word, evil, and led to the ruin of many careers and lives. Miller adds: “An essential ingredient in McCarthy's power was the support by conservative Republican senators for what he was doing.”
The “Ike and Harry on Race” chapter recounts the efforts to move the country forward during the decades of awakening civil rights issues. It was a time of the desegregation of the military, the Brown vs. the Board of Education 1954 Supreme Court decision, the southern states resistance by force to desegregation court decisions, the end of discrimination based on race in the federal bureaucracy, and more. And the chapter on “Bombs” concerns itself with the dawn of the nuclear age, the advent of weaponry so destructive as to be virtually unusable.
The chapters on McCarthy, race, and bombs are Miller at his analytical best. He gives us solid analysis of how both Presidents handled these trying issues, with varying degrees of success. TWO AMERICANS is well worth the read just for these three chapters alone.
by William Lee Miller
This very readable book has two purposes: it is a dual biography of our 33rd and 34th presidents, as well as an impressive feat of interpretation and analysis. Truman and Eisenhower were Middle Americans, we are reminded (Truman from Missouri and Ike from Kansas,) who became unlikely seminal figures of World War II and beyond. Vice-President Harry Truman assumed the presidency upon the death of FDR and saw the fall of Nazi Germany a few months later; it was his decision to drop newly minted atomic bombs on Japan and thereby end the war with the Japanese Empire. Dwight Eisenhower, the military man, rose to the position of the supreme commander of the Allied forces in Europe and was an architect of the successful D-Day invasion, the beginning of the end of the Third Reich.
Truman, a Democrat, was an unpopular president. Part of the public's disenchantment with Harry was the fact he wasn't FDR; he was plain spoken and an average joe, not well known, unlike the charismatic Roosevelt, the man who had been president for over a decade. Truman involved us in Korea, a war or “police action” that sought to contain the spread of communism by countering Soviet backed North Korea's invasion of South Korea in 1950. This quickly became an unpopular war: since Korea was backed by the Soviet Union and China entered the war on the side of the North, American goals were limited. Not total war, which may have led to World War III, but a police action repelling the North. This irked many Americans who were accustomed to thinking total victory after WWII and didn't want to sacrifice their children to anything less. When Truman dismissed the commanding general of the war for insubordination, the very popular hero of the World War II Pacific theater Douglas MacArthur, the president's approval ratings plummeted. As president, Truman's popularity was mostly in the basement occupied later by Richard Nixon and George W. Bush at the end of their presidencies.
Eisenhower's political career was much different. He was an immensely popular war hero whose popularity never seriously waned after he entered the political arena. Initially, his party affiliation was unknown. Both Democrats and Republicans wanted him to head their presidential ticket. When he decided to run as a Republican, it was almost a forgone conclusion that he would bring a Republican back to the White House after decades of Democratic rule. First, however, it took some deft political maneuvering for Ike's team to deny the nomination to the right wing candidate, Robert Taft, during the Republican convention of 1952.. Eisenhower then increased his already solid appeal when, as a former military giant, he vowed to visit the Korean war front personally if elected. What he saw there convinced him of the untenability of the conflict and he ended the war, even if ambiguously, within months of assuming the presidency. As president, Ike was a moderate Republican who previously had committed himself, as a military man, to most of Truman's foreign policy, but was against the former president's liberal Fair Deal domestic policies. At the end of Eisenhower's tenure, it was perceived by some as mediocre and by many others as a welcome era of “peace and prosperity.”
Initially Truman, as Ike's commander-in-chief, admired General Eisenhower and sought his council. The president even offered to help Eisenhower become president himself someday. After Ike left the service and became the president of Columbia University, Truman had enough confidence in him to ask if Ike would accept the new appointment of commander of NATO forces. Ike accepted. However, Truman and Eisenhower had a falling out that left both men bitter and led to a highly publicized feud that wasn't thawed until the 1960s.
Author Miller has four concluding chapters of analysis: Judging Presidents, The Miasma of McCarthy, Ike and Harry on Race and Bombs. When Truman ran for President on his own in 1948, it was widely believed that he had no chance to retain the presidency, such was his lack of popularity. But the ever tenacious Harry created what was the greatest upset in presidential campaign history when he beat Thomas Dewey, the heavily favored Republican candidate. Much of the credit goes to Truman individually, as he whistle-stopped his way throughout the country at a blistering pace. Even though Truman never achieved popular acclaim during his presidency, the author notes in his chapter, Judging Presidents, the 33rd president later was acknowledged as a “near great” or even great president by historians and other scholars. They looked back and saw his achievements meeting the test of time: the Marshall Plan that sought to mitigate starvation in Europe after the war, altruistic but also forward looking as curtailing Soviet expansion; the response to the Soviet blockade of Berlin, the Berlin airlift, massive in its implementation, that outmaneuvered the Soviets; The North Atlantic Treaty; the integration of the armed forces; and the making of hard but necessary decisions, such as the removal of MacArthur in Korea. And I'll add, the general public warmed up to Harry too. After the Kennedy assassination and the controversial Warren Report, Johnson's shady and tragic Vietnam initiatives, and Nixon, Americans fondly remembered the plain speaking, The Buck Stops Here, honest, “Give Em Hell Harry.”
Eisenhower's historical track record is different. The amiable Ike was generally well liked as president. With the passage of time, though, historians decided that Ike unfortunately escalated the Cold War and had no moral courage to confront the issues of the day, such as McCarthyism and racial segregation, and otherwise was a mediocre president. Miller points to a seminal article that resurrected Ike's reputation: “The Underestimation of Dwight Eisenhower” by Murray Kempton. Kempton argued that Ike was a more complex thinker than he appeared on the surface (especially at news conferences); he was more aggressive behind the scenes in his administration and not the complacent president he appeared to be to the public; and that he was not a naive or bumbling decision maker, he was decisive. Another revisionist, Fred Greenstein, argued that Ike had a “hidden-hand” style of leadership as president. In this view, the Eisenhower administration took many actions outside of public view. As Miller writes, “So the distinctiveness of Eisenhower's leadership as seen by the new scholarship was that it was in considerable part unseen by the public, and that in his hidden activity he was a conscious and effective politician.” In other words, there was more to Ike as president than thought.
The chapter, The Miasma of McCarthy, focuses on what the author terms the “mephitic atmosphere” known as “McCarthyism” that engulfed the nation. Right wing Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin initiated a series of congressional “witchhunts” to root out alleged Communists in the U.S. Government, the film and television industries, and the U.S. military. As the author recognizes, the powerful McCarthy's methods and tactics were dishonest and souless, in a word, evil, and led to the ruin of many careers and lives. Miller adds: “An essential ingredient in McCarthy's power was the support by conservative Republican senators for what he was doing.”
The “Ike and Harry on Race” chapter recounts the efforts to move the country forward during the decades of awakening civil rights issues. It was a time of the desegregation of the military, the Brown vs. the Board of Education 1954 Supreme Court decision, the southern states resistance by force to desegregation court decisions, the end of discrimination based on race in the federal bureaucracy, and more. And the chapter on “Bombs” concerns itself with the dawn of the nuclear age, the advent of weaponry so destructive as to be virtually unusable.
The chapters on McCarthy, race, and bombs are Miller at his analytical best. He gives us solid analysis of how both Presidents handled these trying issues, with varying degrees of success. TWO AMERICANS is well worth the read just for these three chapters alone.
May 14, 2020
I was hoping to learn a lot about these two great presidents, but the story just didn't hold my interest. Lots of "facts" about their lives, and they were indeed incredible people. But the book just doesn't hold together or tell a story that keeps you interested.
March 5, 2019
Interesting read on the lives of two former presidents & their roles in Am. History.
October 23, 2019
I may be biased, but two of my favorite presidents to study who represent the Midwest! I enjoyed this book!
December 7, 2019
Interesting, important history but not well organized and in need of a trim.
Want to read
May 14, 2024Started reading May 14, 2024
January 23, 2026
interesting insights and contrasts of these two important men. Each followed unique paths to becoming President. A worthwhile read to understand these complex men.
October 18, 2016
Interesting book but it was long! Great perspectives on the dropping of the bomb in WW2 and the fact Eisenhower didn't agree with dropping it.
June 7, 2014
Interesting book for Midwesterners to read (both of these men were from their respective states of Kansas and Missouri but not "of" them, having strong counter-culture tendencies) - and this region of the country continues to play an outsized role in national politics. As the author notes, Eisenhower would have left the GoP long ago (he was really on the fence between both parties anyway), whether Truman would have stuck with the Dems, I dunno.
The most interesting part of this book was the discussion of Eisenhower's Supreme Court and other federal court picks and his behavior during Brown v. Board of Ed.
I think the author's assessment is correct that Truman's Achilles Heel was his cronyism (leading him to pick less capable and qualified advisers than the more neutral Eisenhower did). I will always be a Truman fan, though, for his double veto of the 1948 GoP effort (finally successfully unfortunately) to introduce the economic fiction of "earned income splitting" in the federal tax code to the US (which is unconstitutional, I think). The author omits this.
With regard to Eisenhower I think he misses the mark somewhat. While I agree with the author that Eisenhower's individualistic, pacifist Mennonite upbringing likely made him humble, reflective and confident, something that served him especially during the invasion of Europe (he was almost uniquely well-positioned to defeat Hitler coming from such a long counter-culture German background), but perhaps too quick, paradoxically, to use force. His reserved, white-identified posture during Brown v. Board of Ed. and the desegregation efforts, and his not providing any grandiose moral statements from the White House, I am not sure was an entirely bad thing (his lack of empathy for the black parents and lack of invitation to Thurgood Marshall to the White House to dine with Earl Warren as he invited the pro-segregation lawyer is reprehensible, however). I think the author misses the psychological deficit caused by the religiosity and male-centrism in his upbringing and outlook; he doesn't even look at the alleged affair with Kay Summersby - or at the fact Mamie Eisenhower was the last First Lady the US has had never to have had earned income of her own. What was needed from the White House was not a pompous or grandiose moral statement, but simply a clear and humane statement which Eisenhower could not access, despite his many good qualities, because of this religiosity and male-centrism, I think.
Also, a big problem for people of Mennonite and Quaker (such as Richard Nixon) background in dealing with slavery-related issues is that they were not slave-owners. Being at a competitive disadvantage in not owning slaves, this this leaves them without the resources to help the ex-slaves that go to seek their help, but also angry that they had to compete in a marketplace that included slave-owners. Managing this complex emotional state has not been handled well by leaders such as Eisenhower or Nixon, perhaps somewhat understandably. The 300 years of Mennonite background on both sides of Eisenhower's family is a pretty solid non-slaveowning background; it's not surprising that the only states he didn't carry were the Deep South, but also not surprising, if not excusable, that he had trouble helping the ex-slaves during desegregation from a more grounded position.
Also, I have a bet with myself that anyone who refers to the United States as "America" and U.S. citizens as "Americans" is then going to go on to miss the issue of gendering; the side of me that believes this is true definitely won as in this book the author misses it in connection with discussing these men's ethics.
The most interesting part of this book was the discussion of Eisenhower's Supreme Court and other federal court picks and his behavior during Brown v. Board of Ed.
I think the author's assessment is correct that Truman's Achilles Heel was his cronyism (leading him to pick less capable and qualified advisers than the more neutral Eisenhower did). I will always be a Truman fan, though, for his double veto of the 1948 GoP effort (finally successfully unfortunately) to introduce the economic fiction of "earned income splitting" in the federal tax code to the US (which is unconstitutional, I think). The author omits this.
With regard to Eisenhower I think he misses the mark somewhat. While I agree with the author that Eisenhower's individualistic, pacifist Mennonite upbringing likely made him humble, reflective and confident, something that served him especially during the invasion of Europe (he was almost uniquely well-positioned to defeat Hitler coming from such a long counter-culture German background), but perhaps too quick, paradoxically, to use force. His reserved, white-identified posture during Brown v. Board of Ed. and the desegregation efforts, and his not providing any grandiose moral statements from the White House, I am not sure was an entirely bad thing (his lack of empathy for the black parents and lack of invitation to Thurgood Marshall to the White House to dine with Earl Warren as he invited the pro-segregation lawyer is reprehensible, however). I think the author misses the psychological deficit caused by the religiosity and male-centrism in his upbringing and outlook; he doesn't even look at the alleged affair with Kay Summersby - or at the fact Mamie Eisenhower was the last First Lady the US has had never to have had earned income of her own. What was needed from the White House was not a pompous or grandiose moral statement, but simply a clear and humane statement which Eisenhower could not access, despite his many good qualities, because of this religiosity and male-centrism, I think.
Also, a big problem for people of Mennonite and Quaker (such as Richard Nixon) background in dealing with slavery-related issues is that they were not slave-owners. Being at a competitive disadvantage in not owning slaves, this this leaves them without the resources to help the ex-slaves that go to seek their help, but also angry that they had to compete in a marketplace that included slave-owners. Managing this complex emotional state has not been handled well by leaders such as Eisenhower or Nixon, perhaps somewhat understandably. The 300 years of Mennonite background on both sides of Eisenhower's family is a pretty solid non-slaveowning background; it's not surprising that the only states he didn't carry were the Deep South, but also not surprising, if not excusable, that he had trouble helping the ex-slaves during desegregation from a more grounded position.
Also, I have a bet with myself that anyone who refers to the United States as "America" and U.S. citizens as "Americans" is then going to go on to miss the issue of gendering; the side of me that believes this is true definitely won as in this book the author misses it in connection with discussing these men's ethics.
February 21, 2015
In recent years, I have experienced a resurgence of interest in presidential history. Having read books on Washington, Garfield and FDR, I stumbled across this book which promised an interesting juxtaposition of two very different presidents who were contemporaries of each other, and who presided over the period from the end of WWII to the election of Kennedy. That period represents the time in which I made my appearance on planet earth. By comparing and contrasting Truman and Eisenhower in the ways that their careers developed, and then how they presided, and how they have been perceived, both during and after their presidencies, the author helped me to appreciate both and to better understand some of the conditions that existed when I first began to become aware of more than my little Arkansas neighborhood.
Perhaps the most striking comment in the whole book was the author's note that if either Truman or Eisenhower had died at age 50, we would not be talking about them at all now. Truman was first elected to the US Senate at age 50; Eisenhower turned 50 in 1940, and at the time the war began, he had yet to lead anyone in battle, and was not the guy anyone would have guessed was about to play such a huge role in the outcome of the war.
I knew Truman had ended the war against Japan with his decisions on the bomb, and that he was a novice president when this happened. And I knew his win over Dewey in 1948 was a surprise, but I did not realize that it was not really that close. I learned about the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, the key pieces of Truman's post war foreign policy, and grew to appreciate the way in which Truman assumed the presidency and steered us through that period. The Korean War (conflict?) placed a terrible cloud over the last two years of his presidency, causing him to leave public office at a low point in popularity, and creating an opportunity for Eisenhower to come in appearing to be on track to fix those things that were wrong in Washington.
Eisenhower's emergence during WWII, after years of serving in the shadow of Douglas McArthur, is amazing, and this author gives Eisenhower great credit for both his war exploits and his post war roles.
Two of the most interesting chapters of the book are the discussions of civil rights and McCarthyism under the two presidents. The author sorts through the many opinions that have flowed over the years, and works to give credit to each where credit is due, while fully discussing those shortcomings.
I want to read more about both civil rights and McCarthyism. as those chapters were but a small portion of this book.
Perhaps the most striking comment in the whole book was the author's note that if either Truman or Eisenhower had died at age 50, we would not be talking about them at all now. Truman was first elected to the US Senate at age 50; Eisenhower turned 50 in 1940, and at the time the war began, he had yet to lead anyone in battle, and was not the guy anyone would have guessed was about to play such a huge role in the outcome of the war.
I knew Truman had ended the war against Japan with his decisions on the bomb, and that he was a novice president when this happened. And I knew his win over Dewey in 1948 was a surprise, but I did not realize that it was not really that close. I learned about the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, the key pieces of Truman's post war foreign policy, and grew to appreciate the way in which Truman assumed the presidency and steered us through that period. The Korean War (conflict?) placed a terrible cloud over the last two years of his presidency, causing him to leave public office at a low point in popularity, and creating an opportunity for Eisenhower to come in appearing to be on track to fix those things that were wrong in Washington.
Eisenhower's emergence during WWII, after years of serving in the shadow of Douglas McArthur, is amazing, and this author gives Eisenhower great credit for both his war exploits and his post war roles.
Two of the most interesting chapters of the book are the discussions of civil rights and McCarthyism under the two presidents. The author sorts through the many opinions that have flowed over the years, and works to give credit to each where credit is due, while fully discussing those shortcomings.
I want to read more about both civil rights and McCarthyism. as those chapters were but a small portion of this book.
October 16, 2013
I was too lazy to read two books on Truman and Eisenhower separately, and I feel that I got the main points. I also got something extra, which was a very balanced view of both of their leadership qualities, and an unbiased look into their rift which lasted from approximately the beginning of the Korean War until the day of JFK’s funeral. The author seemed to like both of his subjects and presents them as fairly similar, but with a few key differences. Truman placed tremendous value in loyalty, sometimes to his detriment as he was frequently accused with cronyism. Eisenhower was more opaque with his thoughts and feelings, but not when he was disappointed with someone. Truman was able to make difficult and strongly decisive choices, while Eisenhower was more of a long-term planner who could accurately predict outcomes. As presidents they both faced the same issues; internationally, as the world reorganized itself after the war, and domestically with McCarthyism and civil rights. Many times, Eisenhower simply continued the policies put into action by Truman. There was no tremendous shift in agenda other than ending the Korean War swiftly and keeping the U.S. out of other conflicts to the best of Eisenhower’s ability.
This book was hard to connect with initially, as the author tended to relate these men’s early lives in tandem. There was a lot of ‘Truman had it like this, but Eisenhower had it like that’ until we got to WWII, at which point they were allowed greater time in their very different stories. After the war the author presents their presidencies by the major issues they faced, not chronologically. This was an easy adjustment for me as a reader, and this device made their strengths and weaknesses more apparent. The author even discusses their popularity during and after their presidencies, and how scholarship has changed its view of Eisenhower over the years. Truman was not particularly beloved while he was president, but soon afterwards graduated to the top ten presidents. Eisenhower was extremely popular and likeable, but was disregarded soon after he left office. Subsequent presidents, however, have made him look better for the things he didn’t do, like get the U.S. entangled in more wars. He is now considered one of the top ten presidents, usually one or two places below Truman. The author’s only major issue with Eisenhower is his reluctance to throw moral support to social issues (like civil rights) and instead hide behind the pragmatic stance of upholding laws (like sending the troops into Little Rock). All in all, a very enlightening history that successfully pulls off a few literary tricks as well.
This book was hard to connect with initially, as the author tended to relate these men’s early lives in tandem. There was a lot of ‘Truman had it like this, but Eisenhower had it like that’ until we got to WWII, at which point they were allowed greater time in their very different stories. After the war the author presents their presidencies by the major issues they faced, not chronologically. This was an easy adjustment for me as a reader, and this device made their strengths and weaknesses more apparent. The author even discusses their popularity during and after their presidencies, and how scholarship has changed its view of Eisenhower over the years. Truman was not particularly beloved while he was president, but soon afterwards graduated to the top ten presidents. Eisenhower was extremely popular and likeable, but was disregarded soon after he left office. Subsequent presidents, however, have made him look better for the things he didn’t do, like get the U.S. entangled in more wars. He is now considered one of the top ten presidents, usually one or two places below Truman. The author’s only major issue with Eisenhower is his reluctance to throw moral support to social issues (like civil rights) and instead hide behind the pragmatic stance of upholding laws (like sending the troops into Little Rock). All in all, a very enlightening history that successfully pulls off a few literary tricks as well.
October 24, 2014
Miller proposes an interesting theme: a comparison and contrast of the two Midwestern presidents of the latter 20th century. Miller provides summaries of many of the events in the careers of these two fascinating men. I appreciated them as reviews of events covered more specifically in other books, as an example, Halberstam's "The Coldest,Winter". The book became tedious to me at times and as others have said, repetitive, as though he had written each chapter for separate publication. I also believe he editorialized frequently, used inflammatory adjectives at other times, lending a personal bias.
Having said this, I finished the book. I do think he based his book on the research and writings of other biographers and journalists, such as David McCoullogh, Merle Miller, Stephan Ambrose, Haoberstam, and David Nichols. Having just reading "Ike's Bluff" by Evan Thomas, I'd love to sit in on a discussion between these two men.
Having said this, I finished the book. I do think he based his book on the research and writings of other biographers and journalists, such as David McCoullogh, Merle Miller, Stephan Ambrose, Haoberstam, and David Nichols. Having just reading "Ike's Bluff" by Evan Thomas, I'd love to sit in on a discussion between these two men.
September 12, 2014
Truman last w/o college Captain of Irish battery could have honored Stafford and Dodge put something in bag each day at Potsdam Burns-Wallace-T VP Marshall plan gains support of both houses first to recognize Israel Wallace left of T desperate to win 48 blamed republicans for all Korea like probing action in eastern Europe scandals in admin 22% approval, slow starts, E 16 years captain and major awful atomic bomb bitter transition no party racial integration don’t deal in personalities popular out of Korea not in Vietnam, 3.7M to 125K, nothing to fear but fear itself yet Japanese Americans were interned.
February 4, 2016
Two of our better presidents of the 20th century could not get along. When Ike was inaugurated, they had fights over what hat to wear, who would visit whom first, transition talks, George Marshall, who would get out of the car first, thank you gifts, etc. They were two presidents from the MidWest. But they acted like 8 year boys according to the author. The author attempts to show how two near great presidents (according to current presidential historians--Truman 7th and Ike from 8th to 12th) were two very different presidents who in spite of their Midwest origins had very dissimilar backgrounds and paths to the presidency.
October 11, 2012
This book drove me crazy and it took about five weeks for me to finish it. I swear the chapters were edited by different people, some were well written while others were very redundant and took 20 pages to repeat what could have been said in two pages. There was lots of good historical information but at times the author felt it necessary to interpret the info and make judgements. I would prefer to be given the facts and come to my own conclusions.
March 8, 2013
In this book, the author tries painheardetly to draw parrallels between the lives and careers of Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower---as they were the two most powerful men of the Free World during the late 40s and 50s. Although the two leaders worked side by side in bringing WWII to an end, they parted ways politically (and did not reconcile until JFK's funeral). Not sure if Miller accomplishred what he set out to do!
August 19, 2014
Though the book covered a very interesting topic, namely the relationship and interaction of Presidents Truman and Eisenhower, the execution was poor. Miller insists on interjecting his opinions throughout, normally via snarky rhetorical questions. Toward Eisenhower he employs a marked hermeneutic of suspicion while giving Truman pass after pass. I would not recommend this book and will continue to search for a better analysis of the Eisenhower presidency.
September 17, 2012
Joint biography, well done. The author is quite opinionated at times, but he makes clear where he is injecting his own judgments. It took me a long time to read this one, with lots of mysteries and other books between starting and finishing. It's interesting, but not especially gripping. You have to be a history buff to enjoy it.
February 10, 2013
My advice: Open it in the middle and get straight to the chapters on World War II, Korea, and their presidencies. The earlier biographical stuff has is supposed to be focused on the odd synchronous connections and similarities between the two men, and it doesn't really show anything new or interesting.
November 16, 2014
Woody Allen's quote , and I paraphrase--90 percent of success is just being there, applies to both these presidents. Truman and Eisenhower succeeded because circumstances made them available. I do not think Miller's book illuminates any dark corners in these two men's lives or the history of the U.S. in the years leading up to WWII and the cold war that followed.
May 6, 2013
well written very interesting read of two presidents who came along at the right time with their life experiences enabling them to make very difficult decisions for the greater good. two great americans.
Want to read
June 7, 2014The book review from "BookPage" adds more to this important book & pivotal point in history, the Cold War. Here it is, by Roger Bishop: (http://bookpage.com/reviews/7364-will...).
February 8, 2016
I learned so much from this book about things that were happening when I was too young to fully understand or be aware of. Sentence structure was often complex making this a slow read, but well worth it. The was written recently and benefits from information not accessible to earlier biographers.
May 28, 2012
Probably too much detail (would have been a good winter read) but I finally got through it all. A lot of interesting information about them and the times they lived in.
Read
March 24, 2014I agree with the reviews below: interesting dynamic, needed a better editor. If I don't finish the book it will be because I got tired of the unnecessary repetitions.
March 17, 2015
learned quite a bit, it was very interesting..but the author repeats himself quite a bit in many sections throughout the book. I feel it could have been edited more.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews