What do you think?
Rate this book
Eisenhower #2
Eisenhower, Vol. 2: The President
"Eisenhower: The President" is the eagerly awaited second and concluding volume of Stephen Ambrose's brilliantly received biography. This definitive, sympathetic, objective and sometimes critical work is the culmination of twenty years of research by one of the editors of the Eisenhower Papers. Drew Middleton in The New York Times praised the first volume as "the most complete and objective work yet on the general who became President."
This volume begins with Ike as President-elect and the whole new set of problems he has to deal with. Ambrose provides us with the first assessment of a Cold War President based on access to the entire record, and the result is full of surprises on a wide range of issues that faced the President over the next eight years. Many of the documents unearthed by Ambrose have never been seen by anyone else since Ike wrote or read them, and they cover a broad range of subjects. Eisenhower's rejection of the near-unanimous advice of the National Security Council, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA and the State Department to use atomic weapons, the Eisenhower-Nixon relationship; civil rights and McCarthy; and Ike's most private views on and relationships with de Gaulle, Anthony Eden, Nixon, Kruschev, and Dulles among many others.
Ranking Eisenhower as a great President (Just below FDR and Wilson among those of the Twentieth Century), Professor Ambrose provides us with an extraordinary portrait of a good man who lived life to the fullest, and who made a real contribution to the Presidency.
This volume begins with Ike as President-elect and the whole new set of problems he has to deal with. Ambrose provides us with the first assessment of a Cold War President based on access to the entire record, and the result is full of surprises on a wide range of issues that faced the President over the next eight years. Many of the documents unearthed by Ambrose have never been seen by anyone else since Ike wrote or read them, and they cover a broad range of subjects. Eisenhower's rejection of the near-unanimous advice of the National Security Council, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA and the State Department to use atomic weapons, the Eisenhower-Nixon relationship; civil rights and McCarthy; and Ike's most private views on and relationships with de Gaulle, Anthony Eden, Nixon, Kruschev, and Dulles among many others.
Ranking Eisenhower as a great President (Just below FDR and Wilson among those of the Twentieth Century), Professor Ambrose provides us with an extraordinary portrait of a good man who lived life to the fullest, and who made a real contribution to the Presidency.
815 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 5, 1984
52 people are currently reading
522 people want to read
About the author
Stephen E. Ambrose
136 books2,397 followersStephen Edward Ambrose was an American historian and biographer of U.S. Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Richard M. Nixon. He received his Ph.D. in 1960 from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. In his final years he faced charges of plagiarism for his books, with subsequent concerns about his research emerging after his death.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
December 2, 2017
Stephen Ambrose's concluding volume on Dwight Eisenhower, covering his presidency and final years, came about at a time when Eisenhower's stock was rising as one of the greatest presidents. During his time in office, and for the first two decades afterward, Eisenhower was mainly viewed as a good steward of a peacetime economy who projected a happy demeanor and putted around the back lawn of the White House. In reality, Eisenhower ran the show, just as he had done during WWII in Europe. But he needed to give the appearance that he was a mere caretaker – that way he could do the heavy lifting behind the scenes without being subjected to constant criticism.
Ambrose is clearly an admirer of Eisenhower, but that is not meant as a criticism. For the vast majority of Americans who were alive and remembered the 1940s and 1950s, Eisenhower was THE one person who they implicitly trusted to do the right thing and keep the country safe. Unfortunately, as Ambrose does not shy away from showing, this ability to lead effectively was totally absent when it came to the subject of civil rights. To put it bluntly, Eisenhower failed miserably in this area, and it is his own fault. Despite taking an active interest in all things defense-related, he showed an almost complete lack of understanding of the plight of blacks in America during the 1950s. He, time and time again, bent over backwards to be kind and understanding to the white Southern point of view: that blacks were to be kept segregated. Clearly Eisenhower disliked the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board and only enforced it when Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus pushed his back against the wall by repeatedly defying the court order to integrate public schools in Little Rock. Even then, Eisenhower took pains to make clear that his response was to be viewed strictly in terms of his constitutional obligations as President, and not as someone who believed that segregation was wrong. While I do not think it would be accurate to classify Eisenhower as a racist (he did not seem to harbor any personal animosity or ill-will towards blacks and he did think they should be allowed the right to vote (something clearly obvious today but yet, sadly, did not see quite so obvious to white people back then)), to categorize him as neutral on race issues would be missing the mark as well. He was not neutral. He repeatedly decided against using his immense prestige and moral weight to get behind improving the lives of minorities; he refused to meet with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; and in public pronouncements, he went out of his way to urge understanding for the white Southern racist mindset while never mentioning the indignities that blacks had to deal with on a daily basis. Eisenhower did not actively try to retard the civil rights movement, but he did absolutely nothing to help it along. This, in my opinion, is the biggest black mark – no pun intended – against Eisenhower's legacy.
Another area where Ambrose rightly does not cut Eisenhower any slack is in his approach to demagogic Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy. Both Eisenhower and Harry Truman failed to openly challenge and beat back McCarthy's vicious, false attacks on people. Of the two, Eisenhower was in a much better position to do so: he was (nominally at least) of the same party, he had a sterling reputation thanks to his Army career, and nobody could question his commitment against Communism. Yet Eisenhower refused to engage publicly with McCarthy, instead trying to slowly work behind the scenes to help derail him. Whether Eisenhower's strategy ultimately worked or not is open to debate, as McCarthy's demise seemed to come at his own hand more than from anyone else. But what is clear is that many innocent people had their careers destroyed and their lives ruined thanks to McCarthy's recklessness. As with civil right, Eisenhower failed to exercise leadership.
At times, Ambrose's retelling of Eisenhower's presidency is a slog to get through. Page after page is devoted to budget negotiations or, worse, bickering about the build-up of the U.S. atomic arsenal. While this certainly was a constant issue that Eisenhower had to address, Ambrose provides far more detail than an average reader probably needs or wants. Eisenhower was an expert on defense appropriations, but reading all about the various bickering and disagreements amongst the service chiefs, Congress, and his Cabinet does not make for exhilarating reading. At least Ambrose is able to show how diligent Eisenhower was concerning restraining impetuous generals, and especially American Energy Committee head Lewis Strauss, from want to make a nuclear war with the Russians.
Yet, in contrast to his minute treatment of Eisenhower's budgetary fights, Ambrose breezes through something that was interesting: Eisenhower's foreign travels late in his presidency. With the advent of jet travel in the late 1950s, Eisenhower decided to indulge in his love of traveling and simultaneously use his trips to promote goodwill towards the U.S. abroad. Eisenhower took several long trips. Two of particular note included an extended swing through the Far East and Middle East in 1959 that had him stopping in India, Iran, Greece, and several other countries, and jam-packed trip to South America in 1960 which had Eisenhower visiting seven countries plus Puerto Rico. In his memoirs, Eisenhower writes extensively about these trips. It was a thrill for him to go, and at that time it was a novelty as he was the first President to do extensive foreign travel (which, compared to the travel schedule of today's presidents, seems quite light). But Ambrose brushes past both of these journeys, devoting about one page to each of them. Why he thinks that the reader would like to suffer through reading about interminable nuclear disarmament and test ban meetings but not want to read about exotic foreign trips is a mystery.
Ambrose also give short shrift to Eisenhower's Cabinet replacements, which is odd given that he nicely reviewed the initial Cabinet selections made when Eisenhower was President-elect. Ambrose writes quite a bit about the first Secretary of Defense, Charlie Wilson. But he barely mentions the two men who followed him, Neil McElroy and Thomas Gates. Ambrose clearly shows that Allen Dulles was inept and flighty as CIA Director, yet does not criticize Eisenhower for refusing to fire him, instead falling back on Eisenhower's known inability to fire people that he considered loyal to him. And, as far as Eisenhower's Supreme Court appointments, other than Earl Warren as Chief Justice, Ambrose fails to even mention that Eisenhower appointed four other Justices during his time in office. Being that a president's Supreme Court appointments can and often do have long-lasting consequences way beyond a president's retirement from office, it is inconceivable and disappointing that Ambrose neglects to review Eisenhower's judicial appointments. This is one of the ways that a president can leave a legacy, yet Ambrose totally neglects it.
Unfortunately, as is apparent in some other works by Ambrose, he is less than thorough. On page 42, writing about the frostiness between Eisenhower and Truman on Inauguration Day 1953, he states “...January 20 was the last time they were together, until after Eisenhower himself had left the presidency.” He mentions this again on page 636. But he is wrong. The two men encountered each other at George Marshall's funeral in 1959 (see Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, The President's Club p. 98; David McCullough, Truman p. 976). Is this a big deal? No. But is Ambrose accurate? No, he is not. If you are writing someone's biography, just how good of a product will it be if you are not thorough and accurate? And that seems to be the problem oftentimes with Ambrose: he cuts corners, he doesn't double and triple-check information, he doesn't get all of the details. Worse, he doesn't seem to care about getting all of the details right. And once a reader realizes this about an author, how likely is the reader going to be to really believe that what he is reading is the truth, or at least the most accurate depiction of the truth?
For anyone interested in Eisenhower, there are numerous other biographies of him out there now – many of them much newer and better researched than this one. Despite some positives (correctly taking Eisenhower to task on civil rights and McCarthy, not rushing through Eisenhower's retirement years, and providing a cogent and thoughtful chapter on an assessment of Eisenhower's presidency), Ambrose has produced a disappointing work. Eisenhower the man is mostly absent from this book; this feels more like a clinical study of his presidency than it does a solid biography. The writing is uneven, certain important events are ignored or skimmed over, and Ambrose's reputation for not being a diligent researcher is reinforced. Eisenhower deserves a better biography than this.
Grade: D-
Ambrose is clearly an admirer of Eisenhower, but that is not meant as a criticism. For the vast majority of Americans who were alive and remembered the 1940s and 1950s, Eisenhower was THE one person who they implicitly trusted to do the right thing and keep the country safe. Unfortunately, as Ambrose does not shy away from showing, this ability to lead effectively was totally absent when it came to the subject of civil rights. To put it bluntly, Eisenhower failed miserably in this area, and it is his own fault. Despite taking an active interest in all things defense-related, he showed an almost complete lack of understanding of the plight of blacks in America during the 1950s. He, time and time again, bent over backwards to be kind and understanding to the white Southern point of view: that blacks were to be kept segregated. Clearly Eisenhower disliked the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board and only enforced it when Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus pushed his back against the wall by repeatedly defying the court order to integrate public schools in Little Rock. Even then, Eisenhower took pains to make clear that his response was to be viewed strictly in terms of his constitutional obligations as President, and not as someone who believed that segregation was wrong. While I do not think it would be accurate to classify Eisenhower as a racist (he did not seem to harbor any personal animosity or ill-will towards blacks and he did think they should be allowed the right to vote (something clearly obvious today but yet, sadly, did not see quite so obvious to white people back then)), to categorize him as neutral on race issues would be missing the mark as well. He was not neutral. He repeatedly decided against using his immense prestige and moral weight to get behind improving the lives of minorities; he refused to meet with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; and in public pronouncements, he went out of his way to urge understanding for the white Southern racist mindset while never mentioning the indignities that blacks had to deal with on a daily basis. Eisenhower did not actively try to retard the civil rights movement, but he did absolutely nothing to help it along. This, in my opinion, is the biggest black mark – no pun intended – against Eisenhower's legacy.
Another area where Ambrose rightly does not cut Eisenhower any slack is in his approach to demagogic Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy. Both Eisenhower and Harry Truman failed to openly challenge and beat back McCarthy's vicious, false attacks on people. Of the two, Eisenhower was in a much better position to do so: he was (nominally at least) of the same party, he had a sterling reputation thanks to his Army career, and nobody could question his commitment against Communism. Yet Eisenhower refused to engage publicly with McCarthy, instead trying to slowly work behind the scenes to help derail him. Whether Eisenhower's strategy ultimately worked or not is open to debate, as McCarthy's demise seemed to come at his own hand more than from anyone else. But what is clear is that many innocent people had their careers destroyed and their lives ruined thanks to McCarthy's recklessness. As with civil right, Eisenhower failed to exercise leadership.
At times, Ambrose's retelling of Eisenhower's presidency is a slog to get through. Page after page is devoted to budget negotiations or, worse, bickering about the build-up of the U.S. atomic arsenal. While this certainly was a constant issue that Eisenhower had to address, Ambrose provides far more detail than an average reader probably needs or wants. Eisenhower was an expert on defense appropriations, but reading all about the various bickering and disagreements amongst the service chiefs, Congress, and his Cabinet does not make for exhilarating reading. At least Ambrose is able to show how diligent Eisenhower was concerning restraining impetuous generals, and especially American Energy Committee head Lewis Strauss, from want to make a nuclear war with the Russians.
Yet, in contrast to his minute treatment of Eisenhower's budgetary fights, Ambrose breezes through something that was interesting: Eisenhower's foreign travels late in his presidency. With the advent of jet travel in the late 1950s, Eisenhower decided to indulge in his love of traveling and simultaneously use his trips to promote goodwill towards the U.S. abroad. Eisenhower took several long trips. Two of particular note included an extended swing through the Far East and Middle East in 1959 that had him stopping in India, Iran, Greece, and several other countries, and jam-packed trip to South America in 1960 which had Eisenhower visiting seven countries plus Puerto Rico. In his memoirs, Eisenhower writes extensively about these trips. It was a thrill for him to go, and at that time it was a novelty as he was the first President to do extensive foreign travel (which, compared to the travel schedule of today's presidents, seems quite light). But Ambrose brushes past both of these journeys, devoting about one page to each of them. Why he thinks that the reader would like to suffer through reading about interminable nuclear disarmament and test ban meetings but not want to read about exotic foreign trips is a mystery.
Ambrose also give short shrift to Eisenhower's Cabinet replacements, which is odd given that he nicely reviewed the initial Cabinet selections made when Eisenhower was President-elect. Ambrose writes quite a bit about the first Secretary of Defense, Charlie Wilson. But he barely mentions the two men who followed him, Neil McElroy and Thomas Gates. Ambrose clearly shows that Allen Dulles was inept and flighty as CIA Director, yet does not criticize Eisenhower for refusing to fire him, instead falling back on Eisenhower's known inability to fire people that he considered loyal to him. And, as far as Eisenhower's Supreme Court appointments, other than Earl Warren as Chief Justice, Ambrose fails to even mention that Eisenhower appointed four other Justices during his time in office. Being that a president's Supreme Court appointments can and often do have long-lasting consequences way beyond a president's retirement from office, it is inconceivable and disappointing that Ambrose neglects to review Eisenhower's judicial appointments. This is one of the ways that a president can leave a legacy, yet Ambrose totally neglects it.
Unfortunately, as is apparent in some other works by Ambrose, he is less than thorough. On page 42, writing about the frostiness between Eisenhower and Truman on Inauguration Day 1953, he states “...January 20 was the last time they were together, until after Eisenhower himself had left the presidency.” He mentions this again on page 636. But he is wrong. The two men encountered each other at George Marshall's funeral in 1959 (see Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, The President's Club p. 98; David McCullough, Truman p. 976). Is this a big deal? No. But is Ambrose accurate? No, he is not. If you are writing someone's biography, just how good of a product will it be if you are not thorough and accurate? And that seems to be the problem oftentimes with Ambrose: he cuts corners, he doesn't double and triple-check information, he doesn't get all of the details. Worse, he doesn't seem to care about getting all of the details right. And once a reader realizes this about an author, how likely is the reader going to be to really believe that what he is reading is the truth, or at least the most accurate depiction of the truth?
For anyone interested in Eisenhower, there are numerous other biographies of him out there now – many of them much newer and better researched than this one. Despite some positives (correctly taking Eisenhower to task on civil rights and McCarthy, not rushing through Eisenhower's retirement years, and providing a cogent and thoughtful chapter on an assessment of Eisenhower's presidency), Ambrose has produced a disappointing work. Eisenhower the man is mostly absent from this book; this feels more like a clinical study of his presidency than it does a solid biography. The writing is uneven, certain important events are ignored or skimmed over, and Ambrose's reputation for not being a diligent researcher is reinforced. Eisenhower deserves a better biography than this.
Grade: D-
February 28, 2017
https://bestpresidentialbios.com/2017...
Published in 1984, “Eisenhower: The President” is the concluding volume in Stephen Ambrose’s series on the thirty-fourth president. Ambrose was a historian, the author of more than two-dozen books and remains one of the best-known biographers of Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. However, numerous and often convincing allegations of plagiarism and exaggeration have significantly diminished his reputation in recent years. Ambrose died in 2002 at the age of sixty-six.
This second volume in Ambrose’s series proves both lengthy and detailed with 675 pages of text. Picking up where the previous volume ends (with Eisenhower as President-elect) this volume covers his two-term presidency exhaustively. The last sixty or so pages are reserved for consideration of his legacy and a discussion of his post-presidency.
Like the first volume in this series, “Eisenhower: The President” is rigorously chronological and rarely captivating or colorful. Ironically the book begins well (with an interesting introduction to Eisenhower’s presidency) and finishes on a strong note (with an extremely thoughtful assessment of his presidency). But much of what transpires in between is tedious, dull and overly-detailed. And while there is much to see of Eisenhower the “politician” there is very little evidence of Eisenhower the “person.”
Some scholars will find the twenty-four chapters dedicated to Eisenhower’s presidency a valuable repository for the frequently sterile intricacies of his eight years in the White House. But most readers will find the pace for most of this book frustratingly slow and the coverage too often focused on issues of minor consequence while trying to understand the “big picture.”
Fortunately, this book does offer several high points. For readers interested in Eisenhower’s day-to-day life, Ambrose offers a revealing review of his daily routine (including how Eisenhower’s valet assisted him in getting dressed each morning). The discussion of his Cabinet picks is interesting and Ambrose offers the best review of the CIA’s efforts to remove Fidel Castro from power that I have read thus far.
The chapter assessing Eisenhower’s presidency and his legacy is excellent: it is objective, thoughtful and intellectually compelling. And the three concluding chapters, which cover Eisenhower’s post-presidency with an emphasis on his interactions with Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, are also comparatively absorbing.
But Ambrose may be at at his best (and most thoughtful) when he is critical of Eisenhower. Despite a strong underlying admiration for his subject, Ambrose is unabashedly critical of Eisenhower for his failure to more forcefully advance civil rights, for his tepid opposition to McCarthyism and his failure to more aggressively support Republican presidential candidates, beginning with Nixon in 1960.
Overall, Stephen Ambrose’s “Eisenhower: The President” proves a potentially valuable reference on the Eisenhower presidency as well as the final years of his life. It is, however, a generally dry and laborious read which proves “all business” with “little pleasure.” Many readers will quickly question their commitment to completing the series and wonder whether Ambrose’s single-volume abridgement (or another author’s comprehensive biography of Eisenhower) might have been a better choice.
Overall rating: 3½ stars
* I have rated this biography without regard to allegations of plagiarism by Ambrose (which are generally directed toward his other books), allegations that he greatly exaggerated the number of interviews he conducted with Eisenhower in the preparation of this series and allegations he fabricated at least one significant quote by Eisenhower.
Published in 1984, “Eisenhower: The President” is the concluding volume in Stephen Ambrose’s series on the thirty-fourth president. Ambrose was a historian, the author of more than two-dozen books and remains one of the best-known biographers of Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. However, numerous and often convincing allegations of plagiarism and exaggeration have significantly diminished his reputation in recent years. Ambrose died in 2002 at the age of sixty-six.
This second volume in Ambrose’s series proves both lengthy and detailed with 675 pages of text. Picking up where the previous volume ends (with Eisenhower as President-elect) this volume covers his two-term presidency exhaustively. The last sixty or so pages are reserved for consideration of his legacy and a discussion of his post-presidency.
Like the first volume in this series, “Eisenhower: The President” is rigorously chronological and rarely captivating or colorful. Ironically the book begins well (with an interesting introduction to Eisenhower’s presidency) and finishes on a strong note (with an extremely thoughtful assessment of his presidency). But much of what transpires in between is tedious, dull and overly-detailed. And while there is much to see of Eisenhower the “politician” there is very little evidence of Eisenhower the “person.”
Some scholars will find the twenty-four chapters dedicated to Eisenhower’s presidency a valuable repository for the frequently sterile intricacies of his eight years in the White House. But most readers will find the pace for most of this book frustratingly slow and the coverage too often focused on issues of minor consequence while trying to understand the “big picture.”
Fortunately, this book does offer several high points. For readers interested in Eisenhower’s day-to-day life, Ambrose offers a revealing review of his daily routine (including how Eisenhower’s valet assisted him in getting dressed each morning). The discussion of his Cabinet picks is interesting and Ambrose offers the best review of the CIA’s efforts to remove Fidel Castro from power that I have read thus far.
The chapter assessing Eisenhower’s presidency and his legacy is excellent: it is objective, thoughtful and intellectually compelling. And the three concluding chapters, which cover Eisenhower’s post-presidency with an emphasis on his interactions with Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, are also comparatively absorbing.
But Ambrose may be at at his best (and most thoughtful) when he is critical of Eisenhower. Despite a strong underlying admiration for his subject, Ambrose is unabashedly critical of Eisenhower for his failure to more forcefully advance civil rights, for his tepid opposition to McCarthyism and his failure to more aggressively support Republican presidential candidates, beginning with Nixon in 1960.
Overall, Stephen Ambrose’s “Eisenhower: The President” proves a potentially valuable reference on the Eisenhower presidency as well as the final years of his life. It is, however, a generally dry and laborious read which proves “all business” with “little pleasure.” Many readers will quickly question their commitment to completing the series and wonder whether Ambrose’s single-volume abridgement (or another author’s comprehensive biography of Eisenhower) might have been a better choice.
Overall rating: 3½ stars
* I have rated this biography without regard to allegations of plagiarism by Ambrose (which are generally directed toward his other books), allegations that he greatly exaggerated the number of interviews he conducted with Eisenhower in the preparation of this series and allegations he fabricated at least one significant quote by Eisenhower.
October 13, 2019
In this second volume on Dwight D. Eisenhower the presidential and retirement years are covered.
When you read Stephen Ambrose's second volume he's got certain specific criticism of some issues, but then realizes that we had eight years of peace and prosperity and no deep commitments in foreign
wars. What can you then conclude?
You can look at it a lot of ways. Eisenhower represented a last strain of moderate Republicanism
allowed its chance to govern. He was a man caught in the middle. He really thought the extreme
right wing of the GOP were idiots and Joe McCarthy dangerous. An exception was made for Robert
Taft his rival at the 1952 GOP convention. Taft in the short time he did work with Ike as Majority
Leader and president was a good partner. At the same time he was not happy with the spending
policies of the Democrats. Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn the leaders in both Houses of Congress
were both pragmatic people and Ike had for the most part worked well with them.
His great domestic issue was the Federal Highway Act that unified our system of roads. A public
works program, but a practical and not a make/work idea. I remember also as a kid another great
initiative, the massive distribution of the polio vaccine. Done under the direction of the first
Secretary for Health, Education, and Welfare Oveta Culp Hobby and her Under Secretary Nelson A.
Rockefeller. But Ike was also about fiscal responsibility and he and his Secretary Of The Treasury
George Humphrey were budget cutters. The idea of Supply Side economics where the GOP now
loves deficits hadn't been born yet.
Ambrose gives Ike his lowest marks on civil rights. Ike should have come down foursquare as his
successor John F.Kennedy did on the side of the blacks. He took a more legalistic position of just
saying the Supreme Court has made its decision and I have to enforce it. Enforce it he did when
troops went to Little Rock to protect black kids integrating the high school there
Foreign policy involves Secretary Of State John Foster Dulles and Ike and Dulles did a good cop
bad cop act for six years until Dulles died in 1959. Ike talked peaceful co-existence, Dulles talked
about 'rolling back the red tide'. Ike made use of the CIA to bring down sympathetic to Communist
governments in Iran and Guatemala. Far less successful in Cuba and he accepted a divided Vietnam.
In his own memoirs Ike was proud of the Iranian business despite what we have there now. He
dealt with his world and not that of the future.
I was impressed at the number of folks who wanted to go nuclear in war. Ike firmly resisted all
advice in that direction. If he hadn't we'd live in a different world.
I also remember the heart attack in September of 1955. Presidential disability came to the fore
then. And I remember the national concern for his health. We prayed in PS 193 in Brooklyn and
across the nation for his health.
Ike left the presidency in 1961 and lived another 8 years. He wanted the moderate wing of the
GOP to flourish, but never got behind a candidate to do it. The conservatives with Barry Goldwater
grabbed control in 1964 and have gone farther right ever since.
Read this study and come to your own conclusions.
When you read Stephen Ambrose's second volume he's got certain specific criticism of some issues, but then realizes that we had eight years of peace and prosperity and no deep commitments in foreign
wars. What can you then conclude?
You can look at it a lot of ways. Eisenhower represented a last strain of moderate Republicanism
allowed its chance to govern. He was a man caught in the middle. He really thought the extreme
right wing of the GOP were idiots and Joe McCarthy dangerous. An exception was made for Robert
Taft his rival at the 1952 GOP convention. Taft in the short time he did work with Ike as Majority
Leader and president was a good partner. At the same time he was not happy with the spending
policies of the Democrats. Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn the leaders in both Houses of Congress
were both pragmatic people and Ike had for the most part worked well with them.
His great domestic issue was the Federal Highway Act that unified our system of roads. A public
works program, but a practical and not a make/work idea. I remember also as a kid another great
initiative, the massive distribution of the polio vaccine. Done under the direction of the first
Secretary for Health, Education, and Welfare Oveta Culp Hobby and her Under Secretary Nelson A.
Rockefeller. But Ike was also about fiscal responsibility and he and his Secretary Of The Treasury
George Humphrey were budget cutters. The idea of Supply Side economics where the GOP now
loves deficits hadn't been born yet.
Ambrose gives Ike his lowest marks on civil rights. Ike should have come down foursquare as his
successor John F.Kennedy did on the side of the blacks. He took a more legalistic position of just
saying the Supreme Court has made its decision and I have to enforce it. Enforce it he did when
troops went to Little Rock to protect black kids integrating the high school there
Foreign policy involves Secretary Of State John Foster Dulles and Ike and Dulles did a good cop
bad cop act for six years until Dulles died in 1959. Ike talked peaceful co-existence, Dulles talked
about 'rolling back the red tide'. Ike made use of the CIA to bring down sympathetic to Communist
governments in Iran and Guatemala. Far less successful in Cuba and he accepted a divided Vietnam.
In his own memoirs Ike was proud of the Iranian business despite what we have there now. He
dealt with his world and not that of the future.
I was impressed at the number of folks who wanted to go nuclear in war. Ike firmly resisted all
advice in that direction. If he hadn't we'd live in a different world.
I also remember the heart attack in September of 1955. Presidential disability came to the fore
then. And I remember the national concern for his health. We prayed in PS 193 in Brooklyn and
across the nation for his health.
Ike left the presidency in 1961 and lived another 8 years. He wanted the moderate wing of the
GOP to flourish, but never got behind a candidate to do it. The conservatives with Barry Goldwater
grabbed control in 1964 and have gone farther right ever since.
Read this study and come to your own conclusions.
November 13, 2018
The first volume of Ambrose's biography of Ike is a tour de force. This second volume less so. It is still an immensely readable and comprehensive treatment of a rather pivotal 20th C. American president, but less palatable (to me, at least) than Volume 1.
This judgement of mine is somewhat unfair because, frankly, I'm having trouble evaluating the book separately from the man it describes. Ike was a great general, truly great. Volume 1, despite its warts-and-all treatment, leaves little doubt about that. In Volume 2, the warts are more obvious and more egregious.
Ike was decidedly NOT a great president, especially in the realm of domestic politics. He failed to curb McCarthy, failed to even confront him. Dishonorably, he allowed McCarthy's nasty treatment of General Marshall to pass unchallenged. A shameful act on Ike's part.
He also failed miserably in the realm of civil rights. His approach here was too hands-off, too gradualist, too segregationist-friendly. He never actively supported the Supreme Court's Brown decision except in Little Rock (a special case--read the book and see), never pushed his many influential Southern friends to do the moral thing, never used his bully pulpit to denounce institutional racism in the South and elsewhere.
Even viewing Ike from the context of his time and making appropriate allowances for that, he failed to step up when the country needed strong domestic leadership. To me, his accomplishments in foreign affairs pale beside those two heartbreaking cop-outs--McCarthy and civil rights. Of course, without Ambrose (a huge Ike fan) being so meticulously even-handed in his treatment, Ike's failures in these two areas probably would have seemed less serious, more forgiveable. So kudos to Ambrose for his strong commitment to objectivity.
Despite his forthright presentation of Eisenhower's failings, Ambrose believed Ike to be both a great man and a good one. I think this assessment is ultimately correct. But Ike could have done more, SHOULD have done more, and he didn't. That's the bottom line. That's why this volume ultimately left me disappointed. The fault lies not with the biographer but with his subject. The book itself is full of fascinating stuff and is not to be missed by any student of American political history. Read it, you'll learn something.
This judgement of mine is somewhat unfair because, frankly, I'm having trouble evaluating the book separately from the man it describes. Ike was a great general, truly great. Volume 1, despite its warts-and-all treatment, leaves little doubt about that. In Volume 2, the warts are more obvious and more egregious.
Ike was decidedly NOT a great president, especially in the realm of domestic politics. He failed to curb McCarthy, failed to even confront him. Dishonorably, he allowed McCarthy's nasty treatment of General Marshall to pass unchallenged. A shameful act on Ike's part.
He also failed miserably in the realm of civil rights. His approach here was too hands-off, too gradualist, too segregationist-friendly. He never actively supported the Supreme Court's Brown decision except in Little Rock (a special case--read the book and see), never pushed his many influential Southern friends to do the moral thing, never used his bully pulpit to denounce institutional racism in the South and elsewhere.
Even viewing Ike from the context of his time and making appropriate allowances for that, he failed to step up when the country needed strong domestic leadership. To me, his accomplishments in foreign affairs pale beside those two heartbreaking cop-outs--McCarthy and civil rights. Of course, without Ambrose (a huge Ike fan) being so meticulously even-handed in his treatment, Ike's failures in these two areas probably would have seemed less serious, more forgiveable. So kudos to Ambrose for his strong commitment to objectivity.
Despite his forthright presentation of Eisenhower's failings, Ambrose believed Ike to be both a great man and a good one. I think this assessment is ultimately correct. But Ike could have done more, SHOULD have done more, and he didn't. That's the bottom line. That's why this volume ultimately left me disappointed. The fault lies not with the biographer but with his subject. The book itself is full of fascinating stuff and is not to be missed by any student of American political history. Read it, you'll learn something.
January 27, 2024
As mentioned in my five-star review for Volume 1 of this two-volume biography on Eisenhower, if you like the writing of Stephen Ambrose you will like this rendering of Dwight D. Eisenhower. This review is for the second volume of the two volume set, and covers Eisenhower's eight years as President.
This was an engrossing tale but a bit too in-depth at times. The first volume covered 62 years of Eisenhower's life (1890-1952) and this one covers mainly eight years (his two presidential terms) ... each volume weighing in at more than 600 pages in length. I suspect readers who lived through the 1950s will enjoy this tale the most because many of the look-backs to that time will feel somewhat familiar instead of reading like ancient history.
Eisenhower was President through a tumultuous period in history. He served as President during such events as: Senator McCarthy's witch hunt for Communists, the rise of Fidel Castro and the Cuban revolution, the unsatisfactory armistice in Korea, the push of post-Stalin Communism throughout the world, the dismantling of colonial empires, the emergence of Soviet leader Khrushchev, the Russian space program, the American over-commitment in Indochina, the failure of American support in the Hungarian revolution, the fall of the French at Dien Bien Phu, and probably most significantly the nascent Civil Rights movement.
In the narrative Ambrose does not fall into the trap of hagiography, but rather takes Eisenhower to task for many periods where he either made the wrong decision or wasn't decisive enough. This objective interpretation makes the work a fair portrait of a complex man in a complex time. Highly recommended.
This was an engrossing tale but a bit too in-depth at times. The first volume covered 62 years of Eisenhower's life (1890-1952) and this one covers mainly eight years (his two presidential terms) ... each volume weighing in at more than 600 pages in length. I suspect readers who lived through the 1950s will enjoy this tale the most because many of the look-backs to that time will feel somewhat familiar instead of reading like ancient history.
Eisenhower was President through a tumultuous period in history. He served as President during such events as: Senator McCarthy's witch hunt for Communists, the rise of Fidel Castro and the Cuban revolution, the unsatisfactory armistice in Korea, the push of post-Stalin Communism throughout the world, the dismantling of colonial empires, the emergence of Soviet leader Khrushchev, the Russian space program, the American over-commitment in Indochina, the failure of American support in the Hungarian revolution, the fall of the French at Dien Bien Phu, and probably most significantly the nascent Civil Rights movement.
In the narrative Ambrose does not fall into the trap of hagiography, but rather takes Eisenhower to task for many periods where he either made the wrong decision or wasn't decisive enough. This objective interpretation makes the work a fair portrait of a complex man in a complex time. Highly recommended.
July 28, 2007
Just got this book at a Friends of the Library book sale. Might be the best presidential biography I've ever read, simply because it didn't fall quite as badly into the hero-worship trap as others. While it is obvious that Ambrose had a fondness for Ike, he quite significantly scorches him in the conclusions - that even by Ike's own goals, he wasn't particularly successful. It was a fairly balanced bio, and I appreciate that after reading a lot of garbage.
November 15, 2021
Losing my sight several years ago, I’ve had the luxury of listening to 37 audio books about are Presidents. Most have been biographical with a few novels.
Author Ambrose covers the Eisenhower Mennonite family’s arrival to America in the 18th century, his childhood, cadet, General, Supreme Commander of all allied forces in WWII, and the Presidency of Dwight David Eisenhower, magnificently!
Most historians write factual events and write with a slightly hidden bend on the perceived reality of the person.
Ambrose, over almost 20 years, captured the man, events, and the times, as well as any historical author! He easily captured the facts with an undisclosed slant of admiration for DDE. The research and time spent alone, shows dedication.
There is no doubt when the author lives during the character’s life helps in describing the person, events, and the times in an extraordinary
way.
Ambrose wrote a 2 volume set - 57 hrs of reading time. The 1st volume lead up to a short time after WWII and the 2nd picked up, and told of his presidency and death.
DDE Is the most under-rated President ever! He saved the world from Hitler and was 1 of 3 Presidents; Washington and Grant being the other 2; which saved America!! Their accomplishments, character, and leadership were extremely similar. All were humble, sneaky in battle, brilliant leaders respected by all, and always clearly seeing the
big picture.
However, President Eisenhower dealt with a fundamentally changed military, a fundamentally, larger, new American society that had no boundaries , and new forces within our government. He managed superbly, even being the top advisor to President Johnson during the Vietnam War. Not much recognition today is given him for these and other accomplishments.
No doubt DDE is one of our top 5 Presidents!!
It is on my Favorite Book Shelf! Thank you Steven Ambrose for painting an American Hero, including his faults and his inability to accomplish all of his “big pictures”.
I have terminal brain cancer and I thank my Lord Jesus Christ for saving these books and the man for probably my last long read.
Ps: This comment is posted in both Losing my sight several years ago, I’ve had the luxury of listening to 37 audio books about are Presidents. Most have been biographical with a few novels.
Author Ambrose covers the Eisenhower Mennonite family’s arrival to America in the 18th century, his childhood, cadet, General, Supreme Commander of all allied forces in WWII, and the Presidency of Dwight David Eisenhower, magnificently!
Most historians write factual events and write with a slightly hidden bend on the perceived reality of the person.
Ambrose, over almost 20 years, captured the man, events, and the times, as well as any historical author! He easily captured the facts with an undisguised slant of admiration for DDE. The research and time spent alone, shows dedication.
There is no doubt when the author lives during the character’s life helps in describing the person, events, and the times in an extraordinary
way.
Ambrose wrote a 2 volume set - 57 hrs of reading time. The 1st volume lead up to a short time after WWII and the 2nd picked up, and told of his presidency and death.
DDE Is the most under-rated President ever! He saved the world from Hitler and was 1 of 3 Presidents; Washington and Grant being the other 2; which saved America!! Their accomplishments, character, and leadership were extremely similar. All were humble, sneaky in battle, brilliant leaders respected by all, and always clearly seeing the
big picture.
However, President Eisenhower dealt with a fundamentally changed military, a fundamentally, larger, new American society that had no boundaries , and new forces within our government. He managed superbly, even being the top advisor to President Johnson during the Vietnam War. Not much recognition today is given him for these and other accomplishments.
No doubt DDE is one of our top 5 Presidents!!
It is on my Favorite Book Shelf! Thank you Steven Ambrose for painting an American Hero, including his faults and his inability to accomplish all of his “big pictures”.
I have terminal brain cancer and I thank my Lord Jesus Christ for saving these books and the man for probably my last long read.
Ps: This comment is posted in both volumes..
Author Ambrose covers the Eisenhower Mennonite family’s arrival to America in the 18th century, his childhood, cadet, General, Supreme Commander of all allied forces in WWII, and the Presidency of Dwight David Eisenhower, magnificently!
Most historians write factual events and write with a slightly hidden bend on the perceived reality of the person.
Ambrose, over almost 20 years, captured the man, events, and the times, as well as any historical author! He easily captured the facts with an undisclosed slant of admiration for DDE. The research and time spent alone, shows dedication.
There is no doubt when the author lives during the character’s life helps in describing the person, events, and the times in an extraordinary
way.
Ambrose wrote a 2 volume set - 57 hrs of reading time. The 1st volume lead up to a short time after WWII and the 2nd picked up, and told of his presidency and death.
DDE Is the most under-rated President ever! He saved the world from Hitler and was 1 of 3 Presidents; Washington and Grant being the other 2; which saved America!! Their accomplishments, character, and leadership were extremely similar. All were humble, sneaky in battle, brilliant leaders respected by all, and always clearly seeing the
big picture.
However, President Eisenhower dealt with a fundamentally changed military, a fundamentally, larger, new American society that had no boundaries , and new forces within our government. He managed superbly, even being the top advisor to President Johnson during the Vietnam War. Not much recognition today is given him for these and other accomplishments.
No doubt DDE is one of our top 5 Presidents!!
It is on my Favorite Book Shelf! Thank you Steven Ambrose for painting an American Hero, including his faults and his inability to accomplish all of his “big pictures”.
I have terminal brain cancer and I thank my Lord Jesus Christ for saving these books and the man for probably my last long read.
Ps: This comment is posted in both Losing my sight several years ago, I’ve had the luxury of listening to 37 audio books about are Presidents. Most have been biographical with a few novels.
Author Ambrose covers the Eisenhower Mennonite family’s arrival to America in the 18th century, his childhood, cadet, General, Supreme Commander of all allied forces in WWII, and the Presidency of Dwight David Eisenhower, magnificently!
Most historians write factual events and write with a slightly hidden bend on the perceived reality of the person.
Ambrose, over almost 20 years, captured the man, events, and the times, as well as any historical author! He easily captured the facts with an undisguised slant of admiration for DDE. The research and time spent alone, shows dedication.
There is no doubt when the author lives during the character’s life helps in describing the person, events, and the times in an extraordinary
way.
Ambrose wrote a 2 volume set - 57 hrs of reading time. The 1st volume lead up to a short time after WWII and the 2nd picked up, and told of his presidency and death.
DDE Is the most under-rated President ever! He saved the world from Hitler and was 1 of 3 Presidents; Washington and Grant being the other 2; which saved America!! Their accomplishments, character, and leadership were extremely similar. All were humble, sneaky in battle, brilliant leaders respected by all, and always clearly seeing the
big picture.
However, President Eisenhower dealt with a fundamentally changed military, a fundamentally, larger, new American society that had no boundaries , and new forces within our government. He managed superbly, even being the top advisor to President Johnson during the Vietnam War. Not much recognition today is given him for these and other accomplishments.
No doubt DDE is one of our top 5 Presidents!!
It is on my Favorite Book Shelf! Thank you Steven Ambrose for painting an American Hero, including his faults and his inability to accomplish all of his “big pictures”.
I have terminal brain cancer and I thank my Lord Jesus Christ for saving these books and the man for probably my last long read.
Ps: This comment is posted in both volumes..
October 2, 2018
This book covers the time from November 5, 1952 to March 28, 1969. That is, from his election as president to his death. Most of these presidential biographies at least give us the funeral and some discuss lasting impacts. Ambrose chooses to stop when Eisenhower's heart stops.
The book is organized on a strictly chronological basis. Again, this is an unusual approach. Generally presidential biographers deviate from strictly chronological order so that they can present issues as topics. I don't know that I have a big preference for one approach over the other, which just may speak to the thoroughness that Ambrose achieves here.
Ambrose makes the case that Eisenhower was the most important figure of the 20th century. I suspect that if one was to ask the average person who fit that description, the answer would more often be Hitler or Stalin or Churchill. Certainly, without the first two figures Eisenhower would not be in the conversation. Eisenhower rose to greatness in defeating Hitler and early in his presidency struggled against Stalin on the world stage. I find Ambrose's case here compelling. Before reading this book I would not have Eisenhower as most important but now do. He was instrumental in winning WWII and his policies drove the Cold War. His actions, good or bad, formed the world I grew up in.
As is typical with presidential biographies, international relations are more deeply addressed than domestic economics. Presidents can operate foreign affairs much more freely than in domestic ones, and outside of the Great Depression, economic conditions are typically downplayed or ignored. On the international front, we get Korea, Guatemala, Iran, Vietnam, Formosa, Quemoy and Matsu, Hungary, Lebanon, Cuba, Berlin. We get Sputnik and the U2, Atoms for Peace and Open Skies. Domestically we get Little Rock, McCarthy, the Interstate highway system, and, of course, the elections of 1954, 1956, 1958, and 1960.
I was expecting that Ambrose would be quite favorable towards Eisenhower but in the end I think it was fairly evenly written. For the most part, he is critical of his subject where it is most important. As Ambrose states in a short chapter near the end that assesses Eisenhower's presidency, it is impossible to separate one's own politics from how one sees Eisenhower. But I give good grades to Ambrose for giving a fair and full account.
I had already intended to read Ambrose's biography of Nixon and this fairness reinforces my decision. I know much more about Nixon's presidency than I knew of Eisenhower's and I expect I will be a tougher judge.
The book is organized on a strictly chronological basis. Again, this is an unusual approach. Generally presidential biographers deviate from strictly chronological order so that they can present issues as topics. I don't know that I have a big preference for one approach over the other, which just may speak to the thoroughness that Ambrose achieves here.
Ambrose makes the case that Eisenhower was the most important figure of the 20th century. I suspect that if one was to ask the average person who fit that description, the answer would more often be Hitler or Stalin or Churchill. Certainly, without the first two figures Eisenhower would not be in the conversation. Eisenhower rose to greatness in defeating Hitler and early in his presidency struggled against Stalin on the world stage. I find Ambrose's case here compelling. Before reading this book I would not have Eisenhower as most important but now do. He was instrumental in winning WWII and his policies drove the Cold War. His actions, good or bad, formed the world I grew up in.
As is typical with presidential biographies, international relations are more deeply addressed than domestic economics. Presidents can operate foreign affairs much more freely than in domestic ones, and outside of the Great Depression, economic conditions are typically downplayed or ignored. On the international front, we get Korea, Guatemala, Iran, Vietnam, Formosa, Quemoy and Matsu, Hungary, Lebanon, Cuba, Berlin. We get Sputnik and the U2, Atoms for Peace and Open Skies. Domestically we get Little Rock, McCarthy, the Interstate highway system, and, of course, the elections of 1954, 1956, 1958, and 1960.
I was expecting that Ambrose would be quite favorable towards Eisenhower but in the end I think it was fairly evenly written. For the most part, he is critical of his subject where it is most important. As Ambrose states in a short chapter near the end that assesses Eisenhower's presidency, it is impossible to separate one's own politics from how one sees Eisenhower. But I give good grades to Ambrose for giving a fair and full account.
I had already intended to read Ambrose's biography of Nixon and this fairness reinforces my decision. I know much more about Nixon's presidency than I knew of Eisenhower's and I expect I will be a tougher judge.
February 28, 2017
https://bestpresidentialbios.com/2017...
Published in 1984, “Eisenhower: The President” is the concluding volume in Stephen Ambrose’s series on the thirty-fourth president. Ambrose was a historian, the author of more than two-dozen books and remains one of the best-known biographers of Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. However, numerous and often convincing allegations of plagiarism and exaggeration have significantly diminished his reputation in recent years. Ambrose died in 2002 at the age of sixty-six.
This second volume in Ambrose’s series proves both lengthy and detailed with 675 pages of text. Picking up where the previous volume ends (with Eisenhower as President-elect) this volume covers his two-term presidency exhaustively. The last sixty or so pages are reserved for consideration of his legacy and a discussion of his post-presidency.
Like the first volume in this series, “Eisenhower: The President” is rigorously chronological and rarely captivating or colorful. Ironically the book begins well (with an interesting introduction to Eisenhower’s presidency) and finishes on a strong note (with an extremely thoughtful assessment of his presidency). But much of what transpires in between is tedious, dull and overly-detailed. And while there is much to see of Eisenhower the “politician” there is very little evidence of Eisenhower the “person.”
Some scholars will find the twenty-four chapters dedicated to Eisenhower’s presidency a valuable repository for the frequently sterile intricacies of his eight years in the White House. But most readers will find the pace for most of this book frustratingly slow and the coverage too often focused on issues of minor consequence while trying to understand the ���big picture.”
Fortunately, this book does offer several high points. For readers interested in Eisenhower’s day-to-day life, Ambrose offers a revealing review of his daily routine (including how Eisenhower’s valet assisted him in getting dressed each morning). The discussion of his Cabinet picks is interesting and Ambrose offers the best review of the CIA’s efforts to remove Fidel Castro from power that I have read thus far.
The chapter assessing Eisenhower’s presidency and his legacy is excellent: it is objective, thoughtful and intellectually compelling. And the three concluding chapters, which cover Eisenhower’s post-presidency with an emphasis on his interactions with Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, are also comparatively absorbing.
But Ambrose may be at at his best (and most thoughtful) when he is critical of Eisenhower. Despite a strong underlying admiration for his subject, Ambrose is unabashedly critical of Eisenhower for his failure to more forcefully advance civil rights, for his tepid opposition to McCarthyism and his failure to more aggressively support Republican presidential candidates, beginning with Nixon in 1960.
Overall, Stephen Ambrose’s “Eisenhower: The President” proves a potentially valuable reference on the Eisenhower presidency as well as the final years of his life. It is, however, a generally dry and laborious read which proves “all business” with “little pleasure.” Many readers will quickly question their commitment to completing the series and wonder whether Ambrose’s single-volume abridgement (or another author’s comprehensive biography of Eisenhower) might have been a better choice.
Overall rating: 3½ stars
* I have rated this biography without regard to allegations of plagiarism by Ambrose (which are generally directed toward his other books), allegations that he greatly exaggerated the number of interviews he conducted with Eisenhower in the preparation of this series and allegations he fabricated at least one significant quote by Eisenhower.
Published in 1984, “Eisenhower: The President” is the concluding volume in Stephen Ambrose’s series on the thirty-fourth president. Ambrose was a historian, the author of more than two-dozen books and remains one of the best-known biographers of Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. However, numerous and often convincing allegations of plagiarism and exaggeration have significantly diminished his reputation in recent years. Ambrose died in 2002 at the age of sixty-six.
This second volume in Ambrose’s series proves both lengthy and detailed with 675 pages of text. Picking up where the previous volume ends (with Eisenhower as President-elect) this volume covers his two-term presidency exhaustively. The last sixty or so pages are reserved for consideration of his legacy and a discussion of his post-presidency.
Like the first volume in this series, “Eisenhower: The President” is rigorously chronological and rarely captivating or colorful. Ironically the book begins well (with an interesting introduction to Eisenhower’s presidency) and finishes on a strong note (with an extremely thoughtful assessment of his presidency). But much of what transpires in between is tedious, dull and overly-detailed. And while there is much to see of Eisenhower the “politician” there is very little evidence of Eisenhower the “person.”
Some scholars will find the twenty-four chapters dedicated to Eisenhower’s presidency a valuable repository for the frequently sterile intricacies of his eight years in the White House. But most readers will find the pace for most of this book frustratingly slow and the coverage too often focused on issues of minor consequence while trying to understand the ���big picture.”
Fortunately, this book does offer several high points. For readers interested in Eisenhower’s day-to-day life, Ambrose offers a revealing review of his daily routine (including how Eisenhower’s valet assisted him in getting dressed each morning). The discussion of his Cabinet picks is interesting and Ambrose offers the best review of the CIA’s efforts to remove Fidel Castro from power that I have read thus far.
The chapter assessing Eisenhower’s presidency and his legacy is excellent: it is objective, thoughtful and intellectually compelling. And the three concluding chapters, which cover Eisenhower’s post-presidency with an emphasis on his interactions with Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, are also comparatively absorbing.
But Ambrose may be at at his best (and most thoughtful) when he is critical of Eisenhower. Despite a strong underlying admiration for his subject, Ambrose is unabashedly critical of Eisenhower for his failure to more forcefully advance civil rights, for his tepid opposition to McCarthyism and his failure to more aggressively support Republican presidential candidates, beginning with Nixon in 1960.
Overall, Stephen Ambrose’s “Eisenhower: The President” proves a potentially valuable reference on the Eisenhower presidency as well as the final years of his life. It is, however, a generally dry and laborious read which proves “all business” with “little pleasure.” Many readers will quickly question their commitment to completing the series and wonder whether Ambrose’s single-volume abridgement (or another author’s comprehensive biography of Eisenhower) might have been a better choice.
Overall rating: 3½ stars
* I have rated this biography without regard to allegations of plagiarism by Ambrose (which are generally directed toward his other books), allegations that he greatly exaggerated the number of interviews he conducted with Eisenhower in the preparation of this series and allegations he fabricated at least one significant quote by Eisenhower.
June 17, 2019
At one time, I thought that Eisenhower was a lightweight president. But this book portrayed a consummate diplomat, who was able to negotiate his way through trouble and preside over eight years of relative peace and prosperity. He wasn't perfect. Though he sent troops to Little Rock to protect Black students who wanted to attend a segregated high school, he was hesitant on civil rights, trying to curry favor with Southern Democrats. He advocated reducing military spending wondering just how many nuclear weapons were necessary when there were enough to devastate the Earth many times over. And this coming from a soldier. He was puzzled and frustrated by politicians, who put political gain over doing the right thing. It was a wonderful book.
December 16, 2024
Great Job!!
A thorough, balanced, objective description of the presidential years and remaining life of DDE. The text is very readable and clear and in no means resembles a textbook. SEA admits his admiration of his subject, but he presents an honest assessment of the strengths and weaknesses, of his administration and beyond. I highly recommend this book and its predecessor.
A thorough, balanced, objective description of the presidential years and remaining life of DDE. The text is very readable and clear and in no means resembles a textbook. SEA admits his admiration of his subject, but he presents an honest assessment of the strengths and weaknesses, of his administration and beyond. I highly recommend this book and its predecessor.
June 21, 2018
Good biography of a critical 20th century leader
Good and thorough biography of General Eisenhower. Treats the major decisions of his presidency thoroughly. Unfortunately, Ambrose fails to resist the need to insert his own personal political opinions in the book.
Good and thorough biography of General Eisenhower. Treats the major decisions of his presidency thoroughly. Unfortunately, Ambrose fails to resist the need to insert his own personal political opinions in the book.
December 29, 2019
Dry and long. Skipped about 300 pages...
March 21, 2020
Great read, still chewing over a lot it, lots of flaws though minor and may have more to do with what happened then his actions.
December 5, 2020
this is the third Eisenhower biography I have read in two years. This one focuses on his Presidency. Eisenhower was in the old Liberal or Progressive wing of the Republican party. Part of his motivation to run was to prevent the conservative wing from taking over. Eisenhower was also the last Fiscal Conservative Republican President in U.S. history: back when that somehow meant something. I am willing to say Eisenhower was the last decent American Republican President.
Anyways, this book is full of quotes from correspondence, interviews, memoirs, and speeches. The reader can gain an appreciation for Eisenhower's complexity of thought, as well as that of many of the people he worked with. We also gain a greater understanding of how Eisenhower arrived at the decisions he made, even as conditions on the ground changed.
A convention of Eisenhower's time was whichever party was not in the majority would campaign from a hawkish stance. The Democrats attacked Eisenhower from the right, constantly trying to ratchet up military spending, especially on nukes.
Anyways, after the Presidency, Kennedy consulted with him frequently. Then Johnson consulted with him frequently. And Eisenhower became more militant now that he was not in charge: it must be a backseat quarterback thing.
In conclusion, Eisenhower is among Roosevelt 1, Roosevelt 2, and Truman as the four essential Presidents of the last 120 years.
Anyways, this book is full of quotes from correspondence, interviews, memoirs, and speeches. The reader can gain an appreciation for Eisenhower's complexity of thought, as well as that of many of the people he worked with. We also gain a greater understanding of how Eisenhower arrived at the decisions he made, even as conditions on the ground changed.
A convention of Eisenhower's time was whichever party was not in the majority would campaign from a hawkish stance. The Democrats attacked Eisenhower from the right, constantly trying to ratchet up military spending, especially on nukes.
Anyways, after the Presidency, Kennedy consulted with him frequently. Then Johnson consulted with him frequently. And Eisenhower became more militant now that he was not in charge: it must be a backseat quarterback thing.
In conclusion, Eisenhower is among Roosevelt 1, Roosevelt 2, and Truman as the four essential Presidents of the last 120 years.
February 5, 2014
I like Ike.
Ambrose did an excellent job of discussing the positive contributions of Ike as president and also talking about his failings. Chief of those failings is probably not taking a stronger stand on civil rights issues. When asked his opinion of school segregation being struck down by the Supreme Court he said his job was to enforce the law and he would do so to the best of his ability but that he recognized that you could not pass a law to make people feel a certain way about a subject. His preference was to gradually change the south. At the same time however, he desegregated Washington DC and all of the military so no once can say he did nothing to make things better, only that he did not take a strong public stand on the issues of the day as many wanted to see.
One of the best gifts of the Eisenhower presidency was his military experience. He was asked, nay, begged by his advisors on many occaisions to use nukes. I want to say it there were 5 occasions in one year where DOD and his advisors recommended their use and he said no. I think a man without a military background would have eventually given in to the pressure and followed the military experts' advice at some point. But Ike had seen war himself. He had engaged in a lot of diplomacy with world leaders as the supreme commander in Europe and he was confident in making his own decisions on these matters even when he was practically standing alone against his advisors.
Ike identified himself as a progressive Republican. He did not feel many of the social programs of the New Deal (Social Security) could be repealed. This dismay some of the old guard Republican party. He was very serious about a balanced budget and wary of tax cuts unless they were accompanied by less spending. The only area where he wanted to spend more than many in Congress was foreign aid. He felt communism could be beaten with foreign aid better than with military might and he would rather spend dollars than soldiers.
Ike never really warmed to Nixon. He never felt like matured and grew as a person. He supported his bid for president but it's clear that he would liked to have seen someone better but couldn't find anyone.
Overall a good read though a bit dry.
Ambrose did an excellent job of discussing the positive contributions of Ike as president and also talking about his failings. Chief of those failings is probably not taking a stronger stand on civil rights issues. When asked his opinion of school segregation being struck down by the Supreme Court he said his job was to enforce the law and he would do so to the best of his ability but that he recognized that you could not pass a law to make people feel a certain way about a subject. His preference was to gradually change the south. At the same time however, he desegregated Washington DC and all of the military so no once can say he did nothing to make things better, only that he did not take a strong public stand on the issues of the day as many wanted to see.
One of the best gifts of the Eisenhower presidency was his military experience. He was asked, nay, begged by his advisors on many occaisions to use nukes. I want to say it there were 5 occasions in one year where DOD and his advisors recommended their use and he said no. I think a man without a military background would have eventually given in to the pressure and followed the military experts' advice at some point. But Ike had seen war himself. He had engaged in a lot of diplomacy with world leaders as the supreme commander in Europe and he was confident in making his own decisions on these matters even when he was practically standing alone against his advisors.
Ike identified himself as a progressive Republican. He did not feel many of the social programs of the New Deal (Social Security) could be repealed. This dismay some of the old guard Republican party. He was very serious about a balanced budget and wary of tax cuts unless they were accompanied by less spending. The only area where he wanted to spend more than many in Congress was foreign aid. He felt communism could be beaten with foreign aid better than with military might and he would rather spend dollars than soldiers.
Ike never really warmed to Nixon. He never felt like matured and grew as a person. He supported his bid for president but it's clear that he would liked to have seen someone better but couldn't find anyone.
Overall a good read though a bit dry.
August 28, 2011
Volume two of Ambrose's biography of Dwight D. Eisenhower, this one covering his years as President of the United States. A chronological account of Ike's endeavors, successes, and many frustrations during the 1950s and 1960s. I was utterly amazed at how many times his advisers were advocating the use of nuclear weapons, and am grateful that he stood up to them each time. It was interesting to read the many things that began in his presidency and which were prevalent during my childhood and early adult life. As I avoided coverage of W's second inauguration, it was rather amusing to read of Ike's anger at the bellicose Old Guard in the Republican Party, while being saddened that they reign today. I learned of this book from a tribute to Ambrose's birthday (10 Jaunary 1936) on Garrison Keillor's Writer's Almanac.
May 19, 2013
Quite adequate history of the Eisenhower Presidency and post-Presidency. Its strength is that it is not a hagiography. Far from it.
I would not, based on this book at least, rank Eisenhower as a great or near-great President. At best he was a good manager. His failings, which Ambrose did acknowledge, included failing to approach the civil rights movement from a place of morality and integrity, and failing to take a stand on McCarthyism.
I feel that Ambrose was too sympathetic to Eisenhower's ditching long-term allies such as Britain, France and Israel relating to the Suez Crisis of 1956. There was no reason to surrender to history, or presume that Nasser spoke for the Third World. Nasser spoke for himself.
I felt the book was somewhat disorganized.
I would not, based on this book at least, rank Eisenhower as a great or near-great President. At best he was a good manager. His failings, which Ambrose did acknowledge, included failing to approach the civil rights movement from a place of morality and integrity, and failing to take a stand on McCarthyism.
I feel that Ambrose was too sympathetic to Eisenhower's ditching long-term allies such as Britain, France and Israel relating to the Suez Crisis of 1956. There was no reason to surrender to history, or presume that Nasser spoke for the Third World. Nasser spoke for himself.
I felt the book was somewhat disorganized.
February 7, 2015
Second volume of two volume set. A scholarly and masterful portrayal of Dwight D Eisenhower. If you want to know the man I suggest you buy the two volume set and not the one volume abridged version. Great read full of details that you are not likely to find anywhere else. If you do not have the time or the inclination to read these two volumes then by all means get the one volume. I have both and the single volume is not as detailed but still deserving of 5 stars.
June 15, 2010
Eisenhower had to be one of the greatest presidents of all time. If not for him the world would have ended in a nuclear holocaust and he probably won the cold war for us by refusing to escalate the arms race early on. He was the first to warn about the military triangle and what it would do to the economics of the US. Amazing man.
August 31, 2016
A classic President
And classic Ambrose. Not too detailed as to be boring but enough to grasp who Ike was . Wish we hand hi around today, tough one cannot but compare his results to the Obama presidency. Both tried to go the middle road and both kept us from blowing the world up.
And classic Ambrose. Not too detailed as to be boring but enough to grasp who Ike was . Wish we hand hi around today, tough one cannot but compare his results to the Obama presidency. Both tried to go the middle road and both kept us from blowing the world up.
August 14, 2013
I am areal fan of Ambrose and have become an admirer of President Eisenhower. This volume details "Ike's" days as President, "the GOOD old days." It describes in detail how Eisenhower governed. Expanded on this desires and passions. Completely enjoyable!
May 28, 2009
If you only read one volume, this is the one.
May 2, 2014
Excellent biography, clearly illustrates Eisenhower's leadership ability and collaboration skills.
May 14, 2014
Love Ambrose's balanced treatment of Ike.
Read
April 17, 20166x9 paperback
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews