What do you think?
Rate this book
Ike and Winston: World War, Cold War, and an Extraordinary Friendship
From New York Times bestselling author Jonathan W. Jordan comes a riveting portrait of friendship, politics, and power at the highest the extraordinary bond between Dwight Eisenhower and Winston Churchill.
One was the soldier-statesman who would become America’s thirty-fourth president. The other was the British icon who refused to surrender in democracy’s darkest hour. Together they launched invasions, toppled tyrants, and shaped the world as the nations they served drifted apart. From world war to Cold War, from Pearl Harbor to the hydrogen bomb, Winston Churchill and Dwight Eisenhower faced down Hitler, Stalin, and Khrushchev and stood together in the uneasy dawn of the nuclear age. Through triumph and loss, they forged a remarkable friendship that weathered the decline of an empire and rise of a superpower.
Told in rich and gripping detail, drawn from the words of the men themselves, Ike and Winston is a deeply human story of loyalty, leadership, and affection—a kinship forged in war, strained by duty, nurtured in peace.
One was the soldier-statesman who would become America’s thirty-fourth president. The other was the British icon who refused to surrender in democracy’s darkest hour. Together they launched invasions, toppled tyrants, and shaped the world as the nations they served drifted apart. From world war to Cold War, from Pearl Harbor to the hydrogen bomb, Winston Churchill and Dwight Eisenhower faced down Hitler, Stalin, and Khrushchev and stood together in the uneasy dawn of the nuclear age. Through triumph and loss, they forged a remarkable friendship that weathered the decline of an empire and rise of a superpower.
Told in rich and gripping detail, drawn from the words of the men themselves, Ike and Winston is a deeply human story of loyalty, leadership, and affection—a kinship forged in war, strained by duty, nurtured in peace.
576 pages, Hardcover
Published May 12, 2026
About the author
Jonathan W. Jordan
6 books50 followersA native of Savannah, Georgia, Jon grew up on Air Force bases, from which his father flew C-141 Starlifters for the Military Air Command during the Vietnam War. He lived in New Jersey, Ohio, and the Philippines until 1976, when his family moved to Selma, Alabama. Jon obtained an accounting degree from Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama and his law degree from Vanderbilt University. He practiced law in Texas for nine years before moving to Marietta, Georgia. He lives in Marietta with his wife, Kate, and their three children. He currently practices commercial litigation and corporate bankruptcy law at the Atlanta-based firm King & Spalding LLP.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
June 30, 2026
An excellent and researched history of the war relationship between General Dwight Eisenhower and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. It is a must read for history buffs of World War Two and the men and women who played their parts.
June 25, 2026
Jonathan W. Jordan has written a superbly blended dual biography of Dwight D. Eisenhower and Winston S. Churchill entitled IKE AND WINSTON:WORLD WAR, COLD WAR, AN EXTRAORDINARY FRIENDSHIP. He focuses on their relationship from the time they met in 1941 carrying through World War II and the Cold War. It is carefully researched and written for the general reader rather than the professional historian as there is little that is new, though to the author’s credit he highlights the most important components of their relationship. The monograph explores their enduring and complex relationship as disagreements abounded, but they always seemed to come together exhibiting a genuine respect for each other. The differences center on their backgrounds as Eisenhower was an amiable man from the Midwest, Abilene, Kansas who could also exhibit a cold and ruthless drive to achieve his goals which could be hidden by genial facial expressions. Churchill, on the other hand, was a charismatic aristocrat who often came across as a 19th century figure as he did his best to preserve the British Empire. Despite differences in approach to war and diplomacy they worked closely together to defeat Nazism and deal with the crisis that emanated from the Cold War, but in all cases they seem to have their own agendas.
At the outset Churchill held the upper hand as Prime Minister of England as a wartime leader who held his country together in its darkest moments fighting Nazi Germany. Eisenhower was a career military officer who worked his way up the bureaucratic chain of command behind a desk and never held a military command. As World War II evolved their positions in the hierarchy of power and influence shifted dramatically as Churchill became more dependent on the United States to defeat Nazism, and Eisenhower with the support of General George C. Marshall became the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe who developed the ability to say no to Churchill’s whims and desires. At times there was great tension between the two particularly over Eisenhower’s refusal to kowtow to Churchill’s wishes in Greece as the Prime Minister believed Eisenhower owed him deference because of his previous support for the general. They would also come to larger heads over planning for an invasion of France to create a two front war and how to approach Russia as it conquered Eastern Europe as its army moved west.
Jordan delves into the bureaucratic machinations associated with Operation Overlord, the Normandy invasion deftly as Eisenhower wanted to use a bombing campaign near the beaches to block any German reinforcements in the area. Eisenhower wanted to make the landings as safe as possible by preventing the Nazis from strengthening their positions in the area. The problem was the thousands of French citizens who would be collateral damage which Churchill refused to agree to fearing for the postwar hatred of the French toward England. Jordan presents the different personalities and arguments accurately as Churchill unhappily gave in to Eisenhower who was willing to sacrifice French lives to save the lives of American soldiers to win the war. His view was clear – if the bombing did not take place even more French citizens would be killed by the Germans. As the debate unfolded Eisenhower was dumbfounded by Churchill’s opposition.
Throughout IKE AND WINSTON Jordan pits “Winston the romantic against Ike the realist.” Eventually Churchill would admit a grudging respect for Eisenhower, recognizing he possessed “a great creative, constructive and combining genius.” However, Churchill was often angered and puzzled over Eisenhower’s analytical coldness in his decision making. Eisenhower’s refusal to take the Greek Island of Rhodes in 1943 facilitating Churchill’s overall view of the Balkans was a case in point as Eisenhower viewed it as a distraction and unnecessarily as it withdrew troop strength from Italy.
Jordan should be commended for his ability to describe the private lives of his two main characters, their numerous meetings and conversations, and their overall opinions of each other. He takes the reader inside their relationship providing a greater understanding as to how they interacted and reached the decisions they did. Many insights are offered as at first Eisenhower would develop exceptional physical and intellectual stamina to keep up with Churchill whose daily schedule was the opposite of most people. As the war progressed and Churchill began to realize that the United States might take over Britain’s preeminent position in the world he needed a voice to influence Roosevelt and Marshall, and that would be Eisenhower. An interesting insight is offered as Churchill believed Eisenhower was out of his depth in dealing with the French be its Generals Henri Giroud, Francois Darlan, and Charles De Gaulle in 1942, so he sent Harold MacMillan to advise Eisenhower and steer him the right way. If we fast forward to the Suez Crisis of 1956 it would be Eisenhower who would help install MacMillan as English Prime Minister after the failures of Anthony Eden. From the time Churchill sent MacMillan to be at Eisenhower’s side in 1942, the two men would develop a strong friendship.
World War II produced a number of outsized personalities Eisenhower had to deal with aside from Churchill. Chief among them was Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery whose ego knew no bounds. Montgomery believed that he should be in charge of all land forces in Europe and was not shy about complaining to Churchill and others that he was not. Once the Ardennes Forest (Battle of the Bulge) fiasco took place in December 1944 it provided Montgomery with the fuel to go after Eisenhower’s command once again. His letters and other correspondence with Eisenhower were demeaning and insulting constantly, accusing Eisenhower of “failure.” Eisenhower resented Montgomery’s ill treatment of General Omar T. Bradley and finally read the British general the riot act. Eventually a contrite Montgomery would back off, but he never would change his opinion of the Allied Supreme Commander.
In terms of ego, it is hard to discern whose was larger Montgomery or the leader of the French Free forces, General Charles De Gaulle. Eisenhower repeatedly had to deal with disagreements with De Gaulle especially over the French city of Strasbourg. When Eisenhower would not cave to De Gaulle’s wishes the French general threatened that he would pull the First French Army out of the allied fold and fight on its own. Eisenhower had vowed never to shortcut military objectives to please political leaders, and when Eisenhower threatened to cut De Gaulle’s supplies, a compromise was reached.
Jordan argues that the most important disagreement between Eisenhower and Churchill emerged at the end of the war over who should seize the city of Berlin. Churchill wanted to beat the Russians to Berlin and seize as much eastern territory as possible. The issue became a bone of contention when Eisenhower decided to halt his army at the Elbe River. Churchill was fresh from the Yalta Conference, and his distrust of Stalin was growing, fearing for the post-war world. Eisenhower’s viewpoint was purely military, arguing that the most efficient way to finish off the Nazis was to drive through Leipzig and Bavaria. Churchill had no choice but to back off and despite his anger he would defend Eisenhower from criticism from the British Joint Chiefs as no matter how many riffs existed Churchill valued Eisenhower’s friendship and usual support. Despite these feelings Churchill never got over Eisenhower’s Berlin decision as he knew it signaled trouble for the future.
Jordan does not deal with the post war era in as much detail apart from Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech on March 5, 1946, in Fulton, Missouri, and a few other events. He picks up their relationship substantively as Churchill returns to 10 Downing Street on October 26, 1951. He had concerns about Eisenhower in that his supporters for the presidency were bankers, lawyers, and corporate types who were more concerned about money and profits as opposed to military matters. Further, he believed he did not trust John Foster Dulles and his moralistic approach to foreign policy. Lastly, he feared he would not be able to maintain the special relationship with his wartime ally.
The main point of contention between Eisenhower and Churchill would center on the Prime Minister’s obsession with having a summit meeting with the Russian leadership, a recreation of the “Big Three” especially after Stalin died in March 1953 and Eisenhower assumed the presidency. Eisenhower would refuse any summit until the Russians took steps to lessen tensions in Austria and Eastern Europe. When Churchill tried to go it alone and meet with the Chairman of the Soviet Council of Ministers, Georgy Malenkov, Eisenhower rejected his plan. Churchill would blame Dulles for manipulating the President and the two held very low opinions of each other. The idea that Dulles was the most prominent architect of US foreign policy is a misnomer. In my own research for my monograph DAWN OVER SUEZ: THE RISE OF AMERICAN POWER IN THE MIDDLE EAST 1953-1957 documents clearly show that Eisenhower was in charge and at times had to rein in his Secretary of State.
If there was an area that the two agreed it was over events in Iran. When Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossedegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1953 an Anglo-American coup took place as it was feared that Mossadegh was creating inroads for Russia in the region. However, the summit issue with Russia would drive them apart as did Eisenhower’s new approach to defense. “The New Look” would rely less on conventional weapons due to their expense and put the emphasis on covert operations by the CIA and arguing that threats of small nuclear weapons would save money. Churchill was horrified as he believed if it came to a nuclear showdown with Moscow, London would be one of the first Russian targets. The Prime Minister would argue with Eisenhower over the possible use of weapons of mass destruction repeatedly. More and more Eisenhower saw Churchill “as a man past his prime. A cavalier in an atomic age….Winston is a curious mixture of belligerence and caution, sometimes amounting to almost hysterical fear.” Churchill could not accept he had lost his influence over Eisenhower and continued to blame Dulles.
Jordan correctly delves into the ideological split between the two men which rested on the issue of “colonialism.” Eisenhower feared that Moscow was taking advantage by promising to break the chains of old world oppression – chains forged by England and France. To keep Moscow from exploiting populist rage, the United States needed to show support for independence movements and self-determination when speaking in public. England was seen as the epitome of underdeveloped world bullying. The example of Egypt and the Suez Canal reflected this reputation as Egyptian President Gamal Nasser was able to use American pressure on England to agree to the “Heads of Agreement” to gain greater control of the Canal, a topic that Jordan does not discuss in enough detail. As far as French colonialism is concerned, events in Vietnam which produced the disaster at Dienbienphu, and the deterioration of their Algerian colony created hatred for France throughout the underdeveloped world. Eisenhower would have to navigate a public stance of sympathy for colonialist oppression and in private he would engage what Blanche Wessen Cooke argues in her book DECLASSIFIED EISENHOWER being ”the coup president,” as was seen in Iran in 1953 and Guatemala in 1954.
Churchill finally agreed to leave office and turn 10 Downing Street over to his Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden in April 1955. Jordan will recount the Suez Crisis in detail reflecting how Eisenhower refused to go along with the Sevres Agreement whereby England, France, and Israel agreed on a plot to recover the Suez Canal which Nasser had nationalized. Eden believed he would have Eisenhower’s support and twisted their communications to reinforce this pipe dream. Jordan discusses the main aspects of the crisis and the final pressure by Eisenhower that would force the three conspirator countries to withdraw from Egypt by March 1957. What he leaves out is the hypocrisy of the Eisenhower administration which had its own coup planned for Syria at the end of October 1956 the same week the Israeli invasion of Egypt took place. At that point, the coup had to be called off. Further in December 1956 Eisenhower would work behind the scenes for Harold MacMillan to replace Eden as Prime Minister when Eden was visiting Jamaica. Some might call it a coup! It is clear that the US was actively working to replace English domination of the Middle East with American control. With the issuance of the Eisenhower Doctrine in January 1957 which would be first tested in Lebanon the transfer was complete.
In evaluating Jordan’s work, he has produced a wonderful synthesis of the Eisenhower-Churchill relationship, one in which remained a true friendship despite the lack of agreement on a myriad of issues over the years. The book is written in a style that the general reader would enjoy, and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in one of the most important personal relationships of the 20th century.
At the outset Churchill held the upper hand as Prime Minister of England as a wartime leader who held his country together in its darkest moments fighting Nazi Germany. Eisenhower was a career military officer who worked his way up the bureaucratic chain of command behind a desk and never held a military command. As World War II evolved their positions in the hierarchy of power and influence shifted dramatically as Churchill became more dependent on the United States to defeat Nazism, and Eisenhower with the support of General George C. Marshall became the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe who developed the ability to say no to Churchill’s whims and desires. At times there was great tension between the two particularly over Eisenhower’s refusal to kowtow to Churchill’s wishes in Greece as the Prime Minister believed Eisenhower owed him deference because of his previous support for the general. They would also come to larger heads over planning for an invasion of France to create a two front war and how to approach Russia as it conquered Eastern Europe as its army moved west.
Jordan delves into the bureaucratic machinations associated with Operation Overlord, the Normandy invasion deftly as Eisenhower wanted to use a bombing campaign near the beaches to block any German reinforcements in the area. Eisenhower wanted to make the landings as safe as possible by preventing the Nazis from strengthening their positions in the area. The problem was the thousands of French citizens who would be collateral damage which Churchill refused to agree to fearing for the postwar hatred of the French toward England. Jordan presents the different personalities and arguments accurately as Churchill unhappily gave in to Eisenhower who was willing to sacrifice French lives to save the lives of American soldiers to win the war. His view was clear – if the bombing did not take place even more French citizens would be killed by the Germans. As the debate unfolded Eisenhower was dumbfounded by Churchill’s opposition.
Throughout IKE AND WINSTON Jordan pits “Winston the romantic against Ike the realist.” Eventually Churchill would admit a grudging respect for Eisenhower, recognizing he possessed “a great creative, constructive and combining genius.” However, Churchill was often angered and puzzled over Eisenhower’s analytical coldness in his decision making. Eisenhower’s refusal to take the Greek Island of Rhodes in 1943 facilitating Churchill’s overall view of the Balkans was a case in point as Eisenhower viewed it as a distraction and unnecessarily as it withdrew troop strength from Italy.
Jordan should be commended for his ability to describe the private lives of his two main characters, their numerous meetings and conversations, and their overall opinions of each other. He takes the reader inside their relationship providing a greater understanding as to how they interacted and reached the decisions they did. Many insights are offered as at first Eisenhower would develop exceptional physical and intellectual stamina to keep up with Churchill whose daily schedule was the opposite of most people. As the war progressed and Churchill began to realize that the United States might take over Britain’s preeminent position in the world he needed a voice to influence Roosevelt and Marshall, and that would be Eisenhower. An interesting insight is offered as Churchill believed Eisenhower was out of his depth in dealing with the French be its Generals Henri Giroud, Francois Darlan, and Charles De Gaulle in 1942, so he sent Harold MacMillan to advise Eisenhower and steer him the right way. If we fast forward to the Suez Crisis of 1956 it would be Eisenhower who would help install MacMillan as English Prime Minister after the failures of Anthony Eden. From the time Churchill sent MacMillan to be at Eisenhower’s side in 1942, the two men would develop a strong friendship.
World War II produced a number of outsized personalities Eisenhower had to deal with aside from Churchill. Chief among them was Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery whose ego knew no bounds. Montgomery believed that he should be in charge of all land forces in Europe and was not shy about complaining to Churchill and others that he was not. Once the Ardennes Forest (Battle of the Bulge) fiasco took place in December 1944 it provided Montgomery with the fuel to go after Eisenhower’s command once again. His letters and other correspondence with Eisenhower were demeaning and insulting constantly, accusing Eisenhower of “failure.” Eisenhower resented Montgomery’s ill treatment of General Omar T. Bradley and finally read the British general the riot act. Eventually a contrite Montgomery would back off, but he never would change his opinion of the Allied Supreme Commander.
In terms of ego, it is hard to discern whose was larger Montgomery or the leader of the French Free forces, General Charles De Gaulle. Eisenhower repeatedly had to deal with disagreements with De Gaulle especially over the French city of Strasbourg. When Eisenhower would not cave to De Gaulle’s wishes the French general threatened that he would pull the First French Army out of the allied fold and fight on its own. Eisenhower had vowed never to shortcut military objectives to please political leaders, and when Eisenhower threatened to cut De Gaulle’s supplies, a compromise was reached.
Jordan argues that the most important disagreement between Eisenhower and Churchill emerged at the end of the war over who should seize the city of Berlin. Churchill wanted to beat the Russians to Berlin and seize as much eastern territory as possible. The issue became a bone of contention when Eisenhower decided to halt his army at the Elbe River. Churchill was fresh from the Yalta Conference, and his distrust of Stalin was growing, fearing for the post-war world. Eisenhower’s viewpoint was purely military, arguing that the most efficient way to finish off the Nazis was to drive through Leipzig and Bavaria. Churchill had no choice but to back off and despite his anger he would defend Eisenhower from criticism from the British Joint Chiefs as no matter how many riffs existed Churchill valued Eisenhower’s friendship and usual support. Despite these feelings Churchill never got over Eisenhower’s Berlin decision as he knew it signaled trouble for the future.
Jordan does not deal with the post war era in as much detail apart from Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech on March 5, 1946, in Fulton, Missouri, and a few other events. He picks up their relationship substantively as Churchill returns to 10 Downing Street on October 26, 1951. He had concerns about Eisenhower in that his supporters for the presidency were bankers, lawyers, and corporate types who were more concerned about money and profits as opposed to military matters. Further, he believed he did not trust John Foster Dulles and his moralistic approach to foreign policy. Lastly, he feared he would not be able to maintain the special relationship with his wartime ally.
The main point of contention between Eisenhower and Churchill would center on the Prime Minister’s obsession with having a summit meeting with the Russian leadership, a recreation of the “Big Three” especially after Stalin died in March 1953 and Eisenhower assumed the presidency. Eisenhower would refuse any summit until the Russians took steps to lessen tensions in Austria and Eastern Europe. When Churchill tried to go it alone and meet with the Chairman of the Soviet Council of Ministers, Georgy Malenkov, Eisenhower rejected his plan. Churchill would blame Dulles for manipulating the President and the two held very low opinions of each other. The idea that Dulles was the most prominent architect of US foreign policy is a misnomer. In my own research for my monograph DAWN OVER SUEZ: THE RISE OF AMERICAN POWER IN THE MIDDLE EAST 1953-1957 documents clearly show that Eisenhower was in charge and at times had to rein in his Secretary of State.
If there was an area that the two agreed it was over events in Iran. When Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossedegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1953 an Anglo-American coup took place as it was feared that Mossadegh was creating inroads for Russia in the region. However, the summit issue with Russia would drive them apart as did Eisenhower’s new approach to defense. “The New Look” would rely less on conventional weapons due to their expense and put the emphasis on covert operations by the CIA and arguing that threats of small nuclear weapons would save money. Churchill was horrified as he believed if it came to a nuclear showdown with Moscow, London would be one of the first Russian targets. The Prime Minister would argue with Eisenhower over the possible use of weapons of mass destruction repeatedly. More and more Eisenhower saw Churchill “as a man past his prime. A cavalier in an atomic age….Winston is a curious mixture of belligerence and caution, sometimes amounting to almost hysterical fear.” Churchill could not accept he had lost his influence over Eisenhower and continued to blame Dulles.
Jordan correctly delves into the ideological split between the two men which rested on the issue of “colonialism.” Eisenhower feared that Moscow was taking advantage by promising to break the chains of old world oppression – chains forged by England and France. To keep Moscow from exploiting populist rage, the United States needed to show support for independence movements and self-determination when speaking in public. England was seen as the epitome of underdeveloped world bullying. The example of Egypt and the Suez Canal reflected this reputation as Egyptian President Gamal Nasser was able to use American pressure on England to agree to the “Heads of Agreement” to gain greater control of the Canal, a topic that Jordan does not discuss in enough detail. As far as French colonialism is concerned, events in Vietnam which produced the disaster at Dienbienphu, and the deterioration of their Algerian colony created hatred for France throughout the underdeveloped world. Eisenhower would have to navigate a public stance of sympathy for colonialist oppression and in private he would engage what Blanche Wessen Cooke argues in her book DECLASSIFIED EISENHOWER being ”the coup president,” as was seen in Iran in 1953 and Guatemala in 1954.
Churchill finally agreed to leave office and turn 10 Downing Street over to his Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden in April 1955. Jordan will recount the Suez Crisis in detail reflecting how Eisenhower refused to go along with the Sevres Agreement whereby England, France, and Israel agreed on a plot to recover the Suez Canal which Nasser had nationalized. Eden believed he would have Eisenhower’s support and twisted their communications to reinforce this pipe dream. Jordan discusses the main aspects of the crisis and the final pressure by Eisenhower that would force the three conspirator countries to withdraw from Egypt by March 1957. What he leaves out is the hypocrisy of the Eisenhower administration which had its own coup planned for Syria at the end of October 1956 the same week the Israeli invasion of Egypt took place. At that point, the coup had to be called off. Further in December 1956 Eisenhower would work behind the scenes for Harold MacMillan to replace Eden as Prime Minister when Eden was visiting Jamaica. Some might call it a coup! It is clear that the US was actively working to replace English domination of the Middle East with American control. With the issuance of the Eisenhower Doctrine in January 1957 which would be first tested in Lebanon the transfer was complete.
In evaluating Jordan’s work, he has produced a wonderful synthesis of the Eisenhower-Churchill relationship, one in which remained a true friendship despite the lack of agreement on a myriad of issues over the years. The book is written in a style that the general reader would enjoy, and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in one of the most important personal relationships of the 20th century.
January 31, 2026
Ike and Winston: World War, Cold War, and an Extraordinary Friendship by Jonathan W. Jordan is an excellent history of the surprising relationship behind the infamous men.
This is an excellently researched nonfiction that gives the reader an in depth look at the two men and their surprisingly deep relationship and friendship between Dwight Eisenhower and Winston Churchill.
Of course both men had more in common than one would initially think, and the author does an amazing job presenting this deep, rich, and gratifying friendship. The extraordinary world changes, wars, and instability brought them together and strengthened their resolve.
The author presented all of this in a way that was engaging, inspiring, and just overall entertaining. I thoroughly enjoyed.
5/5 stars
Thank you NG and Dutton for this wonderful arc and in return I am submitting my unbiased and voluntary review and opinion.
I am posting this review to my GR and Bookbub accounts immediately and will post it to my Amazon, Instagram, and B&N accounts upon publication on 5/12/26.
This is an excellently researched nonfiction that gives the reader an in depth look at the two men and their surprisingly deep relationship and friendship between Dwight Eisenhower and Winston Churchill.
Of course both men had more in common than one would initially think, and the author does an amazing job presenting this deep, rich, and gratifying friendship. The extraordinary world changes, wars, and instability brought them together and strengthened their resolve.
The author presented all of this in a way that was engaging, inspiring, and just overall entertaining. I thoroughly enjoyed.
5/5 stars
Thank you NG and Dutton for this wonderful arc and in return I am submitting my unbiased and voluntary review and opinion.
I am posting this review to my GR and Bookbub accounts immediately and will post it to my Amazon, Instagram, and B&N accounts upon publication on 5/12/26.
June 22, 2026
An entertaining and informative read about two of the most important people of the 20th century.
June 19, 2026
In the crucible of World War II, General Eisenhower and Prime Minister Churchill forged a friendship unlike any other … it weathered the storms of political disagreements during Ike’s presidency, and remained a bedrock after they were both out of office … quite a yarn …
June 16, 2026
Interesting, informative and entertaining! I have read many Churchill biographies, several books focused on Eisenhower and a raft of World War II histories, but Jonathan Jordan’s “Ike and Winston” brought me a new perspective on these men, their experiences and impact. Careful research, an excellent writing style and a unique perspective can do that. This is a book that general readers and history buffs should both enjoy.
June 8, 2026
A dual biography with history lessons so well-crafted that you didn’t realize you were learning. The exact reason we need to read to books like this: so much of what these men did with their lives around the globe (and how their countries reacted to that) is cycling back. Enough “gossip” to make these men real.
June 26, 2026
Poucos livros conseguem transformar uma parceria política e militar em uma narrativa tão envolvente quanto *Ike and Winston: World War, Cold War, An Extraordinary Friendship*. Em vez de simplesmente recontar acontecimentos históricos, Jonathan W. Jordan utiliza a relação entre Dwight D. Eisenhower e Winston Churchill como fio condutor para explicar decisões que moldaram a Segunda Guerra Mundial e os primeiros anos da Guerra Fria.
A obra acompanha a convivência entre os dois líderes desde o primeiro encontro, em 1941, mostrando como uma amizade construída em meio a conflitos sobreviveu a profundas divergências estratégicas. Embora ambos compartilhassem o objetivo de derrotar a Alemanha Nazista e conter a expansão soviética, frequentemente discordavam sobre os caminhos para alcançar esses resultados.
Jordan destaca que as diferenças entre eles começavam muito antes da política. Eisenhower era um militar pragmático, disciplinado e extremamente racional, enquanto Churchill agia movido pela intuição, pelo carisma e por uma visão quase romântica do papel histórico do Império Britânico. Essas características influenciaram diretamente a forma como encaravam campanhas militares e negociações diplomáticas.
Durante a guerra, a relação de poder entre os dois mudou significativamente. Churchill iniciou o conflito como a figura dominante do bloco aliado, mas, à medida que os Estados Unidos ampliaram sua participação, Eisenhower assumiu o comando supremo das forças aliadas na Europa e passou a tomar decisões sem ceder às preferências do primeiro-ministro britânico.
Um dos episódios mais marcantes abordados pelo autor envolve os preparativos para o Dia D. Eisenhower defendia bombardeios intensivos próximos às praias da Normandia para impedir reforços alemães, mesmo sabendo que civis franceses seriam atingidos. Churchill temia as consequências políticas e morais dessa decisão, receoso de comprometer o relacionamento com a França após o fim da guerra. O impasse evidencia o contraste entre o cálculo militar de Eisenhower e a preocupação política de Churchill.
Ao longo da narrativa, Jordan resume bem essa oposição ao apresentar "Churchill, o idealista" diante de "Eisenhower, o pragmático". Mesmo quando discordava das escolhas do comandante americano, Churchill passou a reconhecer sua extraordinária capacidade de liderança e organização, embora nunca deixasse de questionar sua frieza na tomada de decisões.
Além das questões militares, o livro dedica espaço às conversas privadas, aos bastidores diplomáticos e ao desenvolvimento da confiança entre ambos. Esses momentos ajudam a compreender como dois homens de origens completamente diferentes conseguiram preservar uma amizade apesar dos inúmeros conflitos.
A obra também mostra que Churchill não foi o único desafio enfrentado por Eisenhower. Personalidades como Bernard Montgomery e Charles de Gaulle frequentemente criavam atritos com o comandante aliado, seja por disputas de autoridade, ego ou prioridades estratégicas. Em cada situação, Eisenhower buscava preservar os objetivos militares, mesmo quando isso significava enfrentar líderes políticos ou militares influentes.
Outro ponto de forte divergência surgiu nos últimos meses da Segunda Guerra Mundial. Churchill defendia avançar rapidamente até Berlim para limitar a influência soviética na Europa Oriental. Eisenhower, porém, acreditava que essa ofensiva teria alto custo militar e preferiu concentrar seus esforços em outras frentes, decisão que desagradou profundamente o britânico e alimentou discussões que se estenderiam por muitos anos.
Na parte dedicada ao pós-guerra, o foco recai sobre as mudanças provocadas pela ascensão de Eisenhower à presidência dos Estados Unidos. Churchill esperava manter a mesma proximidade construída durante o conflito, mas encontrou um líder mais independente e menos disposto a seguir as prioridades britânicas.
As tensões aumentaram principalmente em torno das relações com a União Soviética. Enquanto Churchill defendia negociações diretas com Moscou após a morte de Stalin, Eisenhower condicionava qualquer encontro a sinais concretos de redução das tensões internacionais. A discordância foi agravada pelas diferenças de visão entre Churchill e o secretário de Estado John Foster Dulles, a quem o primeiro-ministro atribuía grande parte das decisões americanas.
O livro também examina divergências sobre armas nucleares, operações secretas e o futuro do colonialismo. Churchill demonstrava preocupação com a estratégia nuclear adotada pelos Estados Unidos e insistia na preservação da influência britânica em regiões estratégicas. Eisenhower, por sua vez, via o processo de descolonização como uma realidade inevitável e procurava adaptar a política externa americana ao novo cenário internacional.
Essas diferenças ficaram evidentes durante a Crise de Suez, quando Washington recusou apoiar a intervenção militar de Reino Unido, França e Israel contra o Egito. O episódio simbolizou não apenas o enfraquecimento da influência britânica, mas também a consolidação dos Estados Unidos como principal potência ocidental no período pós-guerra.
No conjunto, Jonathan W. Jordan oferece um retrato equilibrado da amizade entre Churchill e Eisenhower. Sem ignorar os conflitos, mostra como respeito mútuo, pragmatismo e objetivos compartilhados permitiram que dois líderes de personalidades tão distintas mantivessem uma das relações políticas mais importantes do século XX. O resultado é uma leitura acessível, bem organizada e recomendada para qualquer pessoa interessada em história militar, diplomacia e liderança.
A obra acompanha a convivência entre os dois líderes desde o primeiro encontro, em 1941, mostrando como uma amizade construída em meio a conflitos sobreviveu a profundas divergências estratégicas. Embora ambos compartilhassem o objetivo de derrotar a Alemanha Nazista e conter a expansão soviética, frequentemente discordavam sobre os caminhos para alcançar esses resultados.
Jordan destaca que as diferenças entre eles começavam muito antes da política. Eisenhower era um militar pragmático, disciplinado e extremamente racional, enquanto Churchill agia movido pela intuição, pelo carisma e por uma visão quase romântica do papel histórico do Império Britânico. Essas características influenciaram diretamente a forma como encaravam campanhas militares e negociações diplomáticas.
Durante a guerra, a relação de poder entre os dois mudou significativamente. Churchill iniciou o conflito como a figura dominante do bloco aliado, mas, à medida que os Estados Unidos ampliaram sua participação, Eisenhower assumiu o comando supremo das forças aliadas na Europa e passou a tomar decisões sem ceder às preferências do primeiro-ministro britânico.
Um dos episódios mais marcantes abordados pelo autor envolve os preparativos para o Dia D. Eisenhower defendia bombardeios intensivos próximos às praias da Normandia para impedir reforços alemães, mesmo sabendo que civis franceses seriam atingidos. Churchill temia as consequências políticas e morais dessa decisão, receoso de comprometer o relacionamento com a França após o fim da guerra. O impasse evidencia o contraste entre o cálculo militar de Eisenhower e a preocupação política de Churchill.
Ao longo da narrativa, Jordan resume bem essa oposição ao apresentar "Churchill, o idealista" diante de "Eisenhower, o pragmático". Mesmo quando discordava das escolhas do comandante americano, Churchill passou a reconhecer sua extraordinária capacidade de liderança e organização, embora nunca deixasse de questionar sua frieza na tomada de decisões.
Além das questões militares, o livro dedica espaço às conversas privadas, aos bastidores diplomáticos e ao desenvolvimento da confiança entre ambos. Esses momentos ajudam a compreender como dois homens de origens completamente diferentes conseguiram preservar uma amizade apesar dos inúmeros conflitos.
A obra também mostra que Churchill não foi o único desafio enfrentado por Eisenhower. Personalidades como Bernard Montgomery e Charles de Gaulle frequentemente criavam atritos com o comandante aliado, seja por disputas de autoridade, ego ou prioridades estratégicas. Em cada situação, Eisenhower buscava preservar os objetivos militares, mesmo quando isso significava enfrentar líderes políticos ou militares influentes.
Outro ponto de forte divergência surgiu nos últimos meses da Segunda Guerra Mundial. Churchill defendia avançar rapidamente até Berlim para limitar a influência soviética na Europa Oriental. Eisenhower, porém, acreditava que essa ofensiva teria alto custo militar e preferiu concentrar seus esforços em outras frentes, decisão que desagradou profundamente o britânico e alimentou discussões que se estenderiam por muitos anos.
Na parte dedicada ao pós-guerra, o foco recai sobre as mudanças provocadas pela ascensão de Eisenhower à presidência dos Estados Unidos. Churchill esperava manter a mesma proximidade construída durante o conflito, mas encontrou um líder mais independente e menos disposto a seguir as prioridades britânicas.
As tensões aumentaram principalmente em torno das relações com a União Soviética. Enquanto Churchill defendia negociações diretas com Moscou após a morte de Stalin, Eisenhower condicionava qualquer encontro a sinais concretos de redução das tensões internacionais. A discordância foi agravada pelas diferenças de visão entre Churchill e o secretário de Estado John Foster Dulles, a quem o primeiro-ministro atribuía grande parte das decisões americanas.
O livro também examina divergências sobre armas nucleares, operações secretas e o futuro do colonialismo. Churchill demonstrava preocupação com a estratégia nuclear adotada pelos Estados Unidos e insistia na preservação da influência britânica em regiões estratégicas. Eisenhower, por sua vez, via o processo de descolonização como uma realidade inevitável e procurava adaptar a política externa americana ao novo cenário internacional.
Essas diferenças ficaram evidentes durante a Crise de Suez, quando Washington recusou apoiar a intervenção militar de Reino Unido, França e Israel contra o Egito. O episódio simbolizou não apenas o enfraquecimento da influência britânica, mas também a consolidação dos Estados Unidos como principal potência ocidental no período pós-guerra.
No conjunto, Jonathan W. Jordan oferece um retrato equilibrado da amizade entre Churchill e Eisenhower. Sem ignorar os conflitos, mostra como respeito mútuo, pragmatismo e objetivos compartilhados permitiram que dois líderes de personalidades tão distintas mantivessem uma das relações políticas mais importantes do século XX. O resultado é uma leitura acessível, bem organizada e recomendada para qualquer pessoa interessada em história militar, diplomacia e liderança.
May 17, 2026
Writing a biography is reclaiming a person and the world that he or she inhabited to public memory. The events of World War II created an unlimited source of material for biographers who even today are still examining documents hoping to gain and present new insights. The individual subjects and inspirational moments appear to be never-ending.
IKE AND WINSTON by Jonathan W. Jordan is a scholarly and sometimes gossipy account of two men whose influence on the battlefields and political debates of WWII can never be minimized. But beyond detailing their efforts to achieve victory over Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler, this entertaining work delves into the post-war lives of Dwight D. Eisenhower and Winston Churchill.
Following WWII, the United States became the leader of the free world, and Eisenhower would soon assume the presidency. Churchill, defeated at the polls at the end of the war, would come back into power as Prime Minister in 1951. Ike and Winston were now world leaders fighting a different war: the Cold War.
By 1940, when they began the task of securing military victory in Europe, they had led vastly different lives. Churchill, born into aristocracy, rose through politics. As an officeholder, writer and public speaker, his words were familiar to England and the world. Eisenhower was a West Point cadet during World War I and served mostly as a desk officer writing strategy for other officers. Fortunately, General George Marshall recognized his skills. He moved him to Washington and then eventually to England, where Eisenhower and Churchill met.
It was not an easy relationship for them, but they teamed up repeatedly to find ways to solve the major problems of waging war. They accomplished this with guile, charm and sometimes stubbornness. While Jordan focuses on Eisenhower and Churchill, the story is incomplete without numerous references to Stalin, de Gaulle, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the countless military officers of the United States and Great Britain.
Once WWII ended, Ike and Winston led separate but still connected lives. Eisenhower sought civilian life but was never content outside the military. Ultimately, he would accept the entreaties of those who believed military leadership skills could be applied to politics. When Eisenhower was elected to the White House, both he and Churchill were leading their respective nations.
Throughout the 1950s, the two men and their governments would shape world events in Europe, Korea and the Middle East. Some of their decisions remain a part of international policy even today. While they often disagreed, their friendship remained vibrant. Jordan does a superb job of conveying the delicate shift in their dynamic as they faced political stress. Eisenhower, the WWII subordinate, had now become the leader of the free world. Both were aware of the change but would not allow their relationship to be harmed.
IKE AND WINSTON is a glorious and sweeping narrative that reminds readers how history can often turn on individual personalities and the personal bonds forged during crisis. Eisenhower and Churchill saved and changed the world and were allies to the end.
Reviewed by Stuart Shiffman
IKE AND WINSTON by Jonathan W. Jordan is a scholarly and sometimes gossipy account of two men whose influence on the battlefields and political debates of WWII can never be minimized. But beyond detailing their efforts to achieve victory over Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler, this entertaining work delves into the post-war lives of Dwight D. Eisenhower and Winston Churchill.
Following WWII, the United States became the leader of the free world, and Eisenhower would soon assume the presidency. Churchill, defeated at the polls at the end of the war, would come back into power as Prime Minister in 1951. Ike and Winston were now world leaders fighting a different war: the Cold War.
By 1940, when they began the task of securing military victory in Europe, they had led vastly different lives. Churchill, born into aristocracy, rose through politics. As an officeholder, writer and public speaker, his words were familiar to England and the world. Eisenhower was a West Point cadet during World War I and served mostly as a desk officer writing strategy for other officers. Fortunately, General George Marshall recognized his skills. He moved him to Washington and then eventually to England, where Eisenhower and Churchill met.
It was not an easy relationship for them, but they teamed up repeatedly to find ways to solve the major problems of waging war. They accomplished this with guile, charm and sometimes stubbornness. While Jordan focuses on Eisenhower and Churchill, the story is incomplete without numerous references to Stalin, de Gaulle, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the countless military officers of the United States and Great Britain.
Once WWII ended, Ike and Winston led separate but still connected lives. Eisenhower sought civilian life but was never content outside the military. Ultimately, he would accept the entreaties of those who believed military leadership skills could be applied to politics. When Eisenhower was elected to the White House, both he and Churchill were leading their respective nations.
Throughout the 1950s, the two men and their governments would shape world events in Europe, Korea and the Middle East. Some of their decisions remain a part of international policy even today. While they often disagreed, their friendship remained vibrant. Jordan does a superb job of conveying the delicate shift in their dynamic as they faced political stress. Eisenhower, the WWII subordinate, had now become the leader of the free world. Both were aware of the change but would not allow their relationship to be harmed.
IKE AND WINSTON is a glorious and sweeping narrative that reminds readers how history can often turn on individual personalities and the personal bonds forged during crisis. Eisenhower and Churchill saved and changed the world and were allies to the end.
Reviewed by Stuart Shiffman
Review of advance copy received from Netgalley
This is a well researched and written book about the relationship between Eisenhower and Churchill that began in 1942 and ended with the death of Churchill. It covers the ups and downs in the relationship due to the differing personalities and beliefs on what was most important. I recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in the relationship between two key leaders during World War II and the Cold War.
I received a free Kindle copy of this book courtesy of Net Galley and the publisher with the understanding that I would post a review on Net Galley, Goodreads, Amazon and my nonfiction book review blog..
I received a free Kindle copy of this book courtesy of Net Galley and the publisher with the understanding that I would post a review on Net Galley, Goodreads, Amazon and my nonfiction book review blog..
Review of advance copy received from Goodreads Giveaways
I can't say much about this book that probably hasn't been said already. This is a very well-researched book that needed to be written. Usually we hear about Eisenhower as President and Churchill as a Prime Minister. That is all. This incredible book has given me a new perspective on World War II and the solid commitment to win at all costs.
Since my dad was stationed in North Africa during the war, I was captivated by the section that had to do with Churchill wanting to take the fight there. Mr. Jordan has left no stone unturned in telling the good and the bad.
I absolutely recommend this book to any student of history or to anyone who wants to learn.
Since my dad was stationed in North Africa during the war, I was captivated by the section that had to do with Churchill wanting to take the fight there. Mr. Jordan has left no stone unturned in telling the good and the bad.
I absolutely recommend this book to any student of history or to anyone who wants to learn.
Review of advance copy received from Netgalley
“Ike and Winston” is unique and thoroughly researched book on Dwight D Eisenhower, Winston Churchill, and the bond they both shared. This book is rich with history and is an excellent resource. The information is well presented and engaging throughout the entire book.
Highly recommended for any one interested in learning more about this fascinating time in history.
Thank you to NetGalley for the ARC
Highly recommended for any one interested in learning more about this fascinating time in history.
Thank you to NetGalley for the ARC
July 4, 2026
As someone who loves presidential biographies, I very much enjoyed Ike and Winston. The book begins right in the heart of the action of WWII and continues on through the point when both were heads of their respective countries, the dawn of the Co,d war and Nuclear age, and into their post-political relationship. While much had been written about Churhill’s relationship with FDR, but comparatively little if anything detailed his relationship with Eisenhower. Jonathan Jordan does a wonderful job drawing out a warm, respectful alliance between two historical giants in this very detailed and interesting book. I highly recommend Ike and Winston to fellow presidential biography fans.
July 7, 2026
Outstanding. I like non-fiction but generally in small doses. This book although rather long, kept me interested throughout its reading. Definitely an insightful book about the relationship between Winston Churchill and Dwight Eisenhower due to placing them into the historical context of World War I, the post war years and Eisenhower's Presidency. If you enjoy reading history you should enjoy this book.
July 8, 2026
A must read. True leadership at its best!
I thoroughly enjoy this book. It would have been wonderful to have discussed its contents with my World War Two veteran dad. I found extremely interesting the post World War Two section describing the Cold War challenges, specifically the nuclear threat. We needed leaders such as Ike and Winston to help navigate the world through not only World War Two, but the challenging decade of the 50’s.
I thoroughly enjoy this book. It would have been wonderful to have discussed its contents with my World War Two veteran dad. I found extremely interesting the post World War Two section describing the Cold War challenges, specifically the nuclear threat. We needed leaders such as Ike and Winston to help navigate the world through not only World War Two, but the challenging decade of the 50’s.
Review of advance copy
My review of this book will appear next week at Bookreporter.com. I will provide a link once it appears.
Here. https://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/...
Here. https://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/...
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews