What do you think?
Rate this book
The Supreme Commander: The War Years of Dwight D. Eisenhower
In North Africa, on the beaches at Normandy, and in the Battle of the Bulge, Dwight David Eisenhower proved himself as one of the world's greatest military leaders. Faced with conciliating or disagreeing with such stormy figures as Churchill, Roosevelt, and DeGaulle, and generals like Montgomery and Patton, General Eisenhower showed himself to be as skillful a diplomat as he was a strategist. Stephen E. Ambrose, associate editor of the General's official papers, analyzes his subject's decisions in The Supreme Commander, which Doubleday first published in 1970. Throughout the book Ambrose traces the steady development of Eisenhower's generalcy--from its dramatic beginnings through his time at the top post of Allied command. The New York Times Book Review said of The Supreme Commander, "It is Mr. Ambrose's special triumph that he has been able to fight through the memoranda, the directives, plans, reports, and official self-serving pieties of the World War II establishment to uncover the idiosyncratic people at its center. ... General Dwight Eisenhower comes remarkably alive. ...[Ambrose's] angle of sight is so fresh and lively that one reads as if one did not know what was coming next. It is better than One does know what's coming next--not only the winning of a war but the making of a general--but the interest is in seeing how." This study of Eisenhower's role in the world's biggest war is absorbing as reading and invaluable as a reference. Stephen E. Ambrose was Director Emeritus of the Eisenhower Center, Boyd Professor of History at the University of New Orleans, and president of the National D- Day Museum. He was the author of many books, most recently The Mississippi and the Making of a From the Louisana Purchase to Today . His compilation of 1,400 oral histories from American veterans and authorship of over 20 books established him as one of the foremost historians of the Second World War in Europe. He died October 13, 2002, in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi.
732 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1970
623 people are currently reading
1594 people want to read
About the author
Stephen E. Ambrose
136 books2,396 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 - 30 of 87 reviews
August 8, 2023
[Note: I will address the charges of plagiarism that have been made against Stephen Ambrose at the end of this review.]
― “He never sought publicity for himself. On May 13, the last of the Axis forces in Tunisia surrendered and the continent of Africa was in Allied hands. Eisenhower’s forces had captured 275,000 enemy troops, a bag of prisoners even larger than the Russians had gotten at Stalingrad. Eisenhower saw to it that the men responsible got their full share of credit, but failed in a final press conference to mention his own role.” Page 189
― Stephen E. Ambrose, The Supreme Commander: The War Years of Dwight D. Eisenhower
Over the past eleven months, I have read two biographies of men who played crucial roles in the Allied victory during World War II. The first of these was General of the Army: George C. Marshall, Soldier and Statesman by Ed Cray. The second was The Supreme Commander: The War Years of Dwight D. Eisenhower by Stephen Ambrose. Neither of these books were action-packed military histories. Nevertheless, these books proved immensely valuable for several reasons. It has been said that soldiers win battles, but logistics wins wars. It has also been said that battles are won and lost not so much on the front lines, but rather on the supply lines. There is so much of critical importance that goes on behind the front lines, including strategy, transportation, supplies, coordination of units, and even politics. Military commanders use what is known as Commander’s Intent in their planning. It includes: expanded purpose (essentially a mission statement), key tasks, and the desired end state. As Supreme Commander, Eisenhower had enormous responsibilities and was under tremendous pressure to plan, coordinate, and lead the Allied forces in the European theater.
Eisenhower’s rise was remarkable for a number of reasons, not the least of which was his lack of combat experience. But reading this book clearly demonstrates what led George Marshall to choose Ike for the all-important role of Supreme Commander. Ike was a patient leader who had to deal with some difficult individuals (to put it mildly), from generals to politicians with huge egos and ulterior motives to perceived injustices. These included the French (Charles De Gaulle, Jean Darlan, and Henri Giraud), the British (Winston Churchill, Bernard Montgomery, and Alan Brooke), and Americans (George Patton). Monty, in particular, was annoying in the extreme. I wanted to jump through the pages of the book and punch him in the nose. Ambrose describes him as “always lecturing, always condescending.” Brooke is described as “forever critical.” A British officer on Eisenhower’s staff even criticized his fellow Englishmen for “the constant interference and criticism they had provided from Normandy to the Elbe.”
― “Eisenhower summarized the frustration and irritation to which he had been subjected in dealings with the French for nearly two and a half years. ‘The French continue to be difficult,’ he declared. ‘I must say that next to the weather I think they have caused me more trouble than any other single factor.’” Page 615
― Stephen E. Ambrose, The Supreme Commander: The War Years of Dwight D. Eisenhower
After serving in the War Plans Division in Washington, D.C., Marshall chose Eisenhower to lead the Allied invasion of North Africa in May 1943. Eisenhower then led the opening phases of the Italian campaign before being assigned to lead the Allied invasion of Western Europe. He served as the supreme commander of Operation Overlord, the Allied invasion of Normandy, and subsequent operations in western Europe.
The Supreme Commander deals with key aspects of the war often glazed over in other war histories. The reader not only witnesses America’s emergence as the leader of the Free World, you learn about the endless supply concerns, the competing and narrow-minded interests of the allies, and the political complexities that often threatened the success of operations in North Africa and Europe.
In Operation OVERLORD, Eisenhower managed the greatest military operation in history. Ambrose does a masterful job in revealing Eisenhower’s skill as both a mediator and a military strategist, skills that contributed significantly to Allied successes in North Africa and in Europe, establishing him as one of the greatest military leaders in the world.
[On the charge of plagiarism: Two of our finest historians, Doris Kearns Goodwin and Stephen Ambrose, have been accused of plagiarism. I have neither the time nor the requisite knowledge to thoroughly investigate these accusations, so I searched online to see what I could find. I found two articles that tackle this thorny issue. The first was written by Emily Eakin of the The New York Times, who has herself been accused of plagiarism. In her article (https://hnn.us/articles/658.html), she writes that “plagiarism is the most serious charge that can be made against an author; the accusation alone is so lethal that it can do irreparable damage to a writer's career.” Given the seriousness of the charge, we should be especially careful to avoid passing along these charges in our reviews without proof.
The second article was written by Richard Jensen (http://hnn.us/articles/738.html), emeritus professor of history at the University of Illinois, Chicago. In his article, Jensen takes up the defense of Ambrose. He writes that “the scholarly meaning of plagiarism involves taking the ideas or creative achievements of someone else and presenting them as your own, with a deception of the reader.” The intent of deception is key to this definition. Jensen writes that “some non-historians in the mass media are on the loose with a new definition, one that drops the deception requirement and instead searches for strings of identical alphanumeric characters.” They are using computer programs to conduct these searches. In his research, Jensen found “no case” where “Ambrose ever tried to deceive the audience or left out the citations. In every instance that has been cited, Ambrose paraphrased sources and footnoted them correctly.”
In her article, Eakin addresses charges of plagiarism brought against Stephen Oates in writing his biography of Lincoln, With Malice Toward None. He was accused of plagiarism by two scientists at the National Institutes of Health who used a so-called “plagiarism machine,” twin computers rigged up in their NIH office, to scan texts in search of their idea of plagiarism despite their lack of expertise in historical writing. They announced that they found “hundreds of examples of plagiarism” in his book. Oates was later absolved of the charge of plagiarism after his work was carefully reviewed by 23 nationally prominent historians, including five Pulitzer Prize winners. The historians declared that the allegations of plagiarism were “totally unfounded.” Subsequently, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Oates’ employer, announced that “distinguished scholars of two departments” had examined the charges and found them “groundless.” The American Historical Association (AHA) also later absolved him of the charge of plagiarism. But the AHA appears to be part of the problem. Eakin asserts that AHA officials have made no attempt to restrain these accusers, who aren’t even historians. Eakin has carefully read several of Ambrose’s books and finds “his research and writing outstanding.”
Given this information, it seems doubtful that Stephen Ambrose has been guilty of plagiarism. I think it important for readers to be careful and fully informed before they pass along, or even mention, charges of plagiarism against any author, unless these charges have been properly substantiated.]
― “He never sought publicity for himself. On May 13, the last of the Axis forces in Tunisia surrendered and the continent of Africa was in Allied hands. Eisenhower’s forces had captured 275,000 enemy troops, a bag of prisoners even larger than the Russians had gotten at Stalingrad. Eisenhower saw to it that the men responsible got their full share of credit, but failed in a final press conference to mention his own role.” Page 189
― Stephen E. Ambrose, The Supreme Commander: The War Years of Dwight D. Eisenhower
Over the past eleven months, I have read two biographies of men who played crucial roles in the Allied victory during World War II. The first of these was General of the Army: George C. Marshall, Soldier and Statesman by Ed Cray. The second was The Supreme Commander: The War Years of Dwight D. Eisenhower by Stephen Ambrose. Neither of these books were action-packed military histories. Nevertheless, these books proved immensely valuable for several reasons. It has been said that soldiers win battles, but logistics wins wars. It has also been said that battles are won and lost not so much on the front lines, but rather on the supply lines. There is so much of critical importance that goes on behind the front lines, including strategy, transportation, supplies, coordination of units, and even politics. Military commanders use what is known as Commander’s Intent in their planning. It includes: expanded purpose (essentially a mission statement), key tasks, and the desired end state. As Supreme Commander, Eisenhower had enormous responsibilities and was under tremendous pressure to plan, coordinate, and lead the Allied forces in the European theater.
Eisenhower’s rise was remarkable for a number of reasons, not the least of which was his lack of combat experience. But reading this book clearly demonstrates what led George Marshall to choose Ike for the all-important role of Supreme Commander. Ike was a patient leader who had to deal with some difficult individuals (to put it mildly), from generals to politicians with huge egos and ulterior motives to perceived injustices. These included the French (Charles De Gaulle, Jean Darlan, and Henri Giraud), the British (Winston Churchill, Bernard Montgomery, and Alan Brooke), and Americans (George Patton). Monty, in particular, was annoying in the extreme. I wanted to jump through the pages of the book and punch him in the nose. Ambrose describes him as “always lecturing, always condescending.” Brooke is described as “forever critical.” A British officer on Eisenhower’s staff even criticized his fellow Englishmen for “the constant interference and criticism they had provided from Normandy to the Elbe.”
― “Eisenhower summarized the frustration and irritation to which he had been subjected in dealings with the French for nearly two and a half years. ‘The French continue to be difficult,’ he declared. ‘I must say that next to the weather I think they have caused me more trouble than any other single factor.’” Page 615
― Stephen E. Ambrose, The Supreme Commander: The War Years of Dwight D. Eisenhower
After serving in the War Plans Division in Washington, D.C., Marshall chose Eisenhower to lead the Allied invasion of North Africa in May 1943. Eisenhower then led the opening phases of the Italian campaign before being assigned to lead the Allied invasion of Western Europe. He served as the supreme commander of Operation Overlord, the Allied invasion of Normandy, and subsequent operations in western Europe.
The Supreme Commander deals with key aspects of the war often glazed over in other war histories. The reader not only witnesses America’s emergence as the leader of the Free World, you learn about the endless supply concerns, the competing and narrow-minded interests of the allies, and the political complexities that often threatened the success of operations in North Africa and Europe.
In Operation OVERLORD, Eisenhower managed the greatest military operation in history. Ambrose does a masterful job in revealing Eisenhower’s skill as both a mediator and a military strategist, skills that contributed significantly to Allied successes in North Africa and in Europe, establishing him as one of the greatest military leaders in the world.
[On the charge of plagiarism: Two of our finest historians, Doris Kearns Goodwin and Stephen Ambrose, have been accused of plagiarism. I have neither the time nor the requisite knowledge to thoroughly investigate these accusations, so I searched online to see what I could find. I found two articles that tackle this thorny issue. The first was written by Emily Eakin of the The New York Times, who has herself been accused of plagiarism. In her article (https://hnn.us/articles/658.html), she writes that “plagiarism is the most serious charge that can be made against an author; the accusation alone is so lethal that it can do irreparable damage to a writer's career.” Given the seriousness of the charge, we should be especially careful to avoid passing along these charges in our reviews without proof.
The second article was written by Richard Jensen (http://hnn.us/articles/738.html), emeritus professor of history at the University of Illinois, Chicago. In his article, Jensen takes up the defense of Ambrose. He writes that “the scholarly meaning of plagiarism involves taking the ideas or creative achievements of someone else and presenting them as your own, with a deception of the reader.” The intent of deception is key to this definition. Jensen writes that “some non-historians in the mass media are on the loose with a new definition, one that drops the deception requirement and instead searches for strings of identical alphanumeric characters.” They are using computer programs to conduct these searches. In his research, Jensen found “no case” where “Ambrose ever tried to deceive the audience or left out the citations. In every instance that has been cited, Ambrose paraphrased sources and footnoted them correctly.”
In her article, Eakin addresses charges of plagiarism brought against Stephen Oates in writing his biography of Lincoln, With Malice Toward None. He was accused of plagiarism by two scientists at the National Institutes of Health who used a so-called “plagiarism machine,” twin computers rigged up in their NIH office, to scan texts in search of their idea of plagiarism despite their lack of expertise in historical writing. They announced that they found “hundreds of examples of plagiarism” in his book. Oates was later absolved of the charge of plagiarism after his work was carefully reviewed by 23 nationally prominent historians, including five Pulitzer Prize winners. The historians declared that the allegations of plagiarism were “totally unfounded.” Subsequently, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Oates’ employer, announced that “distinguished scholars of two departments” had examined the charges and found them “groundless.” The American Historical Association (AHA) also later absolved him of the charge of plagiarism. But the AHA appears to be part of the problem. Eakin asserts that AHA officials have made no attempt to restrain these accusers, who aren’t even historians. Eakin has carefully read several of Ambrose’s books and finds “his research and writing outstanding.”
Given this information, it seems doubtful that Stephen Ambrose has been guilty of plagiarism. I think it important for readers to be careful and fully informed before they pass along, or even mention, charges of plagiarism against any author, unless these charges have been properly substantiated.]
September 25, 2025
Took a month long hiatus for a road trip but I'm back now and thank goodness Ike waited for me.
UPDATE:
Stephen Ambrose - how do you do it? I can't imagine doing the research let alone the writing of Supreme Commander. There are many spokes of the wheel that need to connect to the hub of Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ambrose does an excellent job.
Going into this book, I thought much of the story would be about D-Day and then tie up a few loose ends and we'd be done. War over. Hah! That shows how little I knew. I also thought this would be the story of Eisenhower fighting the Germans. In reality, he fought Roosevelt, Churchill, and De Gaulle with the bonus of Monty buzzing around like an annoying gnat. I had no idea that so much of the strategy of fighting a war was about logistics and managing personalities. Well, I know now. I also learned how important the Chief of Staff position is. It brought back memories of my BIL (a West Point grad) telling me how powerful a job that is. At the time, I couldn't understand what he was talking about. Again, now I know. Eisenhower couldn't have accomplished what he did without Beetle.
Marshall was wise to choose Eisenhower initially. It was not only his knowledge but his temperament that enabled him to accomplish all that he did as Supreme Commander. He had so many egos to manage and still get the job done and remain clear sighted on the end game. (Yes, Antwerp is a more important objective than Berlin! I'm looking at you Monty... As Churchill said about him, "In defeat, unbeatable; in victory, unbearable." But to be fair, Montgomery was probably brilliant at developing military strategy but he didn't have the temperament that Eisenhower had ).
I LOVED this book and am so glad that I read it. Actually, I listened to it and the reader(Richard Ferrone) was just right. It probably would have been better for me to listen and also have a hard copy of the book to refer to. This isn't a fault of the writing but of me listening on my evening walk and being presented with an Alphabet Soup of abbreviations for various organizations. Also, I had trouble keeping straight the code names for various missions (Okay, what did Anvil or Torch want to accomplish? And who was involved? Don't forget Bolero...🎶!)
The book is about 33 hours of listening time so it is a long book but it is not drawn out. There is so much information to cover and I am glad for every minute of it. I thought Ambrose was even -handed in his presentation of Eisenhower's story. Eisenhower was not always right and he didn't always make the right decisions but in the end he got the job done.
Again, I loved this book and am so glad that I read it. If you choose to listen to it, I recommend having a hard copy or ebook available for reference. I highly recommend this book.
EDIT: This activity update was posted for the wrong book but I think it's worth adding here. Eisenhower found the 'visits' from higher ups distracting from the work he was supposed to be doing in directing the Allies in their war effort. (do we have usable ports, we need landing craft, deal with Patton, oh; and Congressman So&So wants to stop by for tea...). Eisenhower's solution:
Ha ha! How to avoid having to entertain visiting dignitaries? Move your head quarters closer to the front lines. 👍🏻💥
— May 26, 2025 06:41PM
UPDATE:
Stephen Ambrose - how do you do it? I can't imagine doing the research let alone the writing of Supreme Commander. There are many spokes of the wheel that need to connect to the hub of Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ambrose does an excellent job.
Going into this book, I thought much of the story would be about D-Day and then tie up a few loose ends and we'd be done. War over. Hah! That shows how little I knew. I also thought this would be the story of Eisenhower fighting the Germans. In reality, he fought Roosevelt, Churchill, and De Gaulle with the bonus of Monty buzzing around like an annoying gnat. I had no idea that so much of the strategy of fighting a war was about logistics and managing personalities. Well, I know now. I also learned how important the Chief of Staff position is. It brought back memories of my BIL (a West Point grad) telling me how powerful a job that is. At the time, I couldn't understand what he was talking about. Again, now I know. Eisenhower couldn't have accomplished what he did without Beetle.
Marshall was wise to choose Eisenhower initially. It was not only his knowledge but his temperament that enabled him to accomplish all that he did as Supreme Commander. He had so many egos to manage and still get the job done and remain clear sighted on the end game. (Yes, Antwerp is a more important objective than Berlin! I'm looking at you Monty... As Churchill said about him, "In defeat, unbeatable; in victory, unbearable." But to be fair, Montgomery was probably brilliant at developing military strategy but he didn't have the temperament that Eisenhower had ).
I LOVED this book and am so glad that I read it. Actually, I listened to it and the reader(Richard Ferrone) was just right. It probably would have been better for me to listen and also have a hard copy of the book to refer to. This isn't a fault of the writing but of me listening on my evening walk and being presented with an Alphabet Soup of abbreviations for various organizations. Also, I had trouble keeping straight the code names for various missions (Okay, what did Anvil or Torch want to accomplish? And who was involved? Don't forget Bolero...🎶!)
The book is about 33 hours of listening time so it is a long book but it is not drawn out. There is so much information to cover and I am glad for every minute of it. I thought Ambrose was even -handed in his presentation of Eisenhower's story. Eisenhower was not always right and he didn't always make the right decisions but in the end he got the job done.
Again, I loved this book and am so glad that I read it. If you choose to listen to it, I recommend having a hard copy or ebook available for reference. I highly recommend this book.
EDIT: This activity update was posted for the wrong book but I think it's worth adding here. Eisenhower found the 'visits' from higher ups distracting from the work he was supposed to be doing in directing the Allies in their war effort. (do we have usable ports, we need landing craft, deal with Patton, oh; and Congressman So&So wants to stop by for tea...). Eisenhower's solution:
Ha ha! How to avoid having to entertain visiting dignitaries? Move your head quarters closer to the front lines. 👍🏻💥
— May 26, 2025 06:41PM
September 10, 2012
While rife with adulation for Eisenhower, The Supreme Commander is essential reading for those who yearn for a deeper understanding of the Allied victory in Europe. Ambrose does a very credible job of explaining the challenges facing any commander of a force as large as the one assembled to retake Europe. But due to his unique relationship and intimate knowledge of Eisenhower the person, he brings great insight into this work.
Why was an American placed in charge of this huge multi-national force based mostly in England to wrest the continent away from the Germans? After all, the British had been fighting the Germans for more than 2 years before America entered the war. The simple answer was that Churchill acquiesced because America would supply the bulk of the men and material to process the war but did so against the wishes of his own senior military commanders who considered the Americans to be brash and overreaching. The key to making this work was for the Americans to appoint a unifier; a leader and a diplomat-warrior to effectively head up the coalition and keep it together. Eisenhower was judged correctly to be such a leader.
While not the cleverest tactician or most daring commander (Eisenhower never personally led men in battle), he was best suited for the job of Supreme Commander by virtue of his grasp of the big picture. He not only had to review and approve all of the battle plans, he had to spend enormous amounts of time conferring with Prime Minister Churchill, ameliorating the sensibilities of his British staff (almost all of his "second in commands" were British) and the bruised egos of his American subordinates.
He performed this delicate balancing act with grace and humility. D-Day was such a pivotal event that he prepared a letter assuming personal responsibility should the endeavor fail. The fact that it succeeded was due in no small part to his considerable efforts as The Supreme Commander.
Why was an American placed in charge of this huge multi-national force based mostly in England to wrest the continent away from the Germans? After all, the British had been fighting the Germans for more than 2 years before America entered the war. The simple answer was that Churchill acquiesced because America would supply the bulk of the men and material to process the war but did so against the wishes of his own senior military commanders who considered the Americans to be brash and overreaching. The key to making this work was for the Americans to appoint a unifier; a leader and a diplomat-warrior to effectively head up the coalition and keep it together. Eisenhower was judged correctly to be such a leader.
While not the cleverest tactician or most daring commander (Eisenhower never personally led men in battle), he was best suited for the job of Supreme Commander by virtue of his grasp of the big picture. He not only had to review and approve all of the battle plans, he had to spend enormous amounts of time conferring with Prime Minister Churchill, ameliorating the sensibilities of his British staff (almost all of his "second in commands" were British) and the bruised egos of his American subordinates.
He performed this delicate balancing act with grace and humility. D-Day was such a pivotal event that he prepared a letter assuming personal responsibility should the endeavor fail. The fact that it succeeded was due in no small part to his considerable efforts as The Supreme Commander.
October 8, 2016
Wow. This book is many things. Tough to stay with. Hard to put down. Long, but how did Ambrose confine this subject to so few pages, and tell the entire story so well? A text book for leadership and team building. A study of a common man, a nice guy and a political wizard. The history of events that shaped all our lives and will continue to do so until, God forbid, the next world war comes along.
Everyone should read this.
Everyone should read this.
May 28, 2023
I began the book being well aware of the controversies and discredit that Ambrose has attracted over the years. Hence I spent a considerable time sieving through the footnotes, taking all information that is attributed to Ambrose's personal interviews with Eisenhower with a large grain of salt.
Having kept that in mind, I've got to admit that Ambrose does write a first rate narrative. The book is expectedly rife with adulation for Eisenhower and his conduct of the war at SHAEF. Marshall's shadow is forever looming over the scenes, as if a guardian angel for Ike. Ambrose's almost childlike admiration for the General gleams through the pages.
The book relies heavily on primary sources, official memoranda and communications between Eisenhower and the other players. It draws much from Harry Butcher's 'My Three Years with Eisenhower ', memoirs from Tedder and Bradley.
A valuable read for any serious student of leadership and the Second World War.
Having kept that in mind, I've got to admit that Ambrose does write a first rate narrative. The book is expectedly rife with adulation for Eisenhower and his conduct of the war at SHAEF. Marshall's shadow is forever looming over the scenes, as if a guardian angel for Ike. Ambrose's almost childlike admiration for the General gleams through the pages.
The book relies heavily on primary sources, official memoranda and communications between Eisenhower and the other players. It draws much from Harry Butcher's 'My Three Years with Eisenhower ', memoirs from Tedder and Bradley.
A valuable read for any serious student of leadership and the Second World War.
May 18, 2023
“The mission of this allied force was fulfilled at 0241 May 7th, 1945.” 🇺🇸🇬🇧🇫🇷🇷🇺🇨🇦🇦🇺
A biography of Eisenhower during WWII is more than just a story of the man, for he was deeply involved in practically every important strategic decision of the European war. This book is thus a grand military drama with characters such as Marshall, Bradley, Patton, Montgomery, De Gaul, Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, etc. interacting with our protagonist Dwight Eisenhower.
Ike was the king of a massive allied bureaucracy. More than anything, his role was to organize and manage the people who made up that bureaucracy. He did not command armies, he commanded the generals who commanded the armies. At this, he was an organizational genius. For, after all, it is the organization itself that responds to events, and thus it’s design is paramount.
It does make me think that these structures that developed under Eisenhower (e.g. world leaders meeting about key global issues) set the precedent for how the diplomatic/political world operates today. Reading this book has certainly made it more clear to me how the highest level policy decisions are debated and designed—even today—and how those decisions are proliferated down the chain of bureaucracy.
In the simplest way, it’s like this:
1) The majority of an organization is focused on actually implementing and executing goals (e.g., field generals and their soldiers attempt to take a specific village, a team of Apple engineers works to build the next gen iPhone)
2) At the top of the bureaucracy, there is a rarified group of individuals who debate key strategic objectives and decisions. (e.g., do we invade France or North Africa first? Should Apple develop a smart watch?)
3) Then there are middle layers that proliferate these decisions down the stack, becoming more and more tactical at every step. (e.g., Eisenhower tells Bradley to push towards a certain port; Bradley tells Patton to attack a road; Patton directs his troops to execute that attack, etc.)
What Eisenhower teaches us is that:
A) It is of the utmost importance that the sub-commanders are properly assigned, as they will have much agency in the execution of strategies
B) A well structured organization is only well structured if it is able to quickly adapt to changing high level strategies
C) Thus, the supreme commander, in addition to setting strategic goals, must also be extremely involved in the selection of sub-commanders, and must aggressively protect the intra-organization integrity and trust.
…among many other things, not the least of which is to maintain a kind, trustworthy, self-effacing, cheerful, and humble character.
A biography of Eisenhower during WWII is more than just a story of the man, for he was deeply involved in practically every important strategic decision of the European war. This book is thus a grand military drama with characters such as Marshall, Bradley, Patton, Montgomery, De Gaul, Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, etc. interacting with our protagonist Dwight Eisenhower.
Ike was the king of a massive allied bureaucracy. More than anything, his role was to organize and manage the people who made up that bureaucracy. He did not command armies, he commanded the generals who commanded the armies. At this, he was an organizational genius. For, after all, it is the organization itself that responds to events, and thus it’s design is paramount.
It does make me think that these structures that developed under Eisenhower (e.g. world leaders meeting about key global issues) set the precedent for how the diplomatic/political world operates today. Reading this book has certainly made it more clear to me how the highest level policy decisions are debated and designed—even today—and how those decisions are proliferated down the chain of bureaucracy.
In the simplest way, it’s like this:
1) The majority of an organization is focused on actually implementing and executing goals (e.g., field generals and their soldiers attempt to take a specific village, a team of Apple engineers works to build the next gen iPhone)
2) At the top of the bureaucracy, there is a rarified group of individuals who debate key strategic objectives and decisions. (e.g., do we invade France or North Africa first? Should Apple develop a smart watch?)
3) Then there are middle layers that proliferate these decisions down the stack, becoming more and more tactical at every step. (e.g., Eisenhower tells Bradley to push towards a certain port; Bradley tells Patton to attack a road; Patton directs his troops to execute that attack, etc.)
What Eisenhower teaches us is that:
A) It is of the utmost importance that the sub-commanders are properly assigned, as they will have much agency in the execution of strategies
B) A well structured organization is only well structured if it is able to quickly adapt to changing high level strategies
C) Thus, the supreme commander, in addition to setting strategic goals, must also be extremely involved in the selection of sub-commanders, and must aggressively protect the intra-organization integrity and trust.
…among many other things, not the least of which is to maintain a kind, trustworthy, self-effacing, cheerful, and humble character.
April 13, 2020
Reading Supreme Commander was another step on the way to understanding my father’s war. He never talked about World War II, where he was, what he saw, or what he did. Heat, he was deeply scarred by it both physically and emotionally. I have spent a part of my life trying to understand it and Stephen Ambrose’s book gave me an account of how decisions, not all of them good, were made.
Several mechanisms guided Eisenhower’s decision making. First and foremost, he was accountable to the Combined Chiefs of Staff (CCS), a council made up of American and British representatives. Inevitably, he was also responsible to George C. Marshall at the War Department. He had worked for Marshall as a senior member of War Planning during the early years of the War, and they remained close throughout the War.
Churchill and Eisenhower also had a close relationship. Eisenhower often spent weekends at Chequers, the Prime Minister’s retreat, when he was in London. When the chips were down and conflict among allies reared it’s head, Churchill traveled to Eisenhower or vice versa to iron things out. Churchill’s influence then was considerable.
Though allies, Churchill and Eisenhower’s interests did not always coincide. Eisenhower’s mandate from George C. Marshall was to break the German army and achieve victory in Europe. Churchill shared this objective but was also concerned about the role of Britain in postwar Europe, particularly with respect to the Soviet Union. This set the stage for clashes that Eisenhower usually won. His role as Supreme Commander with responsibility for military action in behalf of both Britain and the US gave him a certain amount of independence from the dictates of either side.
Eisenhower saw himself primarily as a military leader and he purported to eschew politics. Yet the role of Supreme Commander forced him into diplomacy. Charles deGaulle in particular made his life miserable from time to time with his demands for recognition, autonomy, and control. General Montgomery was a very difficult subordinate with his own ideas about the conduct of the War.
Eisenhower was fortunately blessed with a persuasive and rather amiable persona, critical given the politics of World War II. He also understood his role well and pushed back when the powerful tried to manipulate the conduct of the war.
Ambrose’s account begins when the US entered the war and ends at the surrender of Germany. I wish I had had this book in hard copy with maps close at hand because at times it was difficult to work out how strategy played out.
Several mechanisms guided Eisenhower’s decision making. First and foremost, he was accountable to the Combined Chiefs of Staff (CCS), a council made up of American and British representatives. Inevitably, he was also responsible to George C. Marshall at the War Department. He had worked for Marshall as a senior member of War Planning during the early years of the War, and they remained close throughout the War.
Churchill and Eisenhower also had a close relationship. Eisenhower often spent weekends at Chequers, the Prime Minister’s retreat, when he was in London. When the chips were down and conflict among allies reared it’s head, Churchill traveled to Eisenhower or vice versa to iron things out. Churchill’s influence then was considerable.
Though allies, Churchill and Eisenhower’s interests did not always coincide. Eisenhower’s mandate from George C. Marshall was to break the German army and achieve victory in Europe. Churchill shared this objective but was also concerned about the role of Britain in postwar Europe, particularly with respect to the Soviet Union. This set the stage for clashes that Eisenhower usually won. His role as Supreme Commander with responsibility for military action in behalf of both Britain and the US gave him a certain amount of independence from the dictates of either side.
Eisenhower saw himself primarily as a military leader and he purported to eschew politics. Yet the role of Supreme Commander forced him into diplomacy. Charles deGaulle in particular made his life miserable from time to time with his demands for recognition, autonomy, and control. General Montgomery was a very difficult subordinate with his own ideas about the conduct of the War.
Eisenhower was fortunately blessed with a persuasive and rather amiable persona, critical given the politics of World War II. He also understood his role well and pushed back when the powerful tried to manipulate the conduct of the war.
Ambrose’s account begins when the US entered the war and ends at the surrender of Germany. I wish I had had this book in hard copy with maps close at hand because at times it was difficult to work out how strategy played out.
March 21, 2019
I've read about WWII but not a lot about Eisenhower. I'd always kind of considered him a little boring but this book changed my mind. It was a very detailed account of his wartime successes and failures. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in WWII.
April 4, 2021
My 12th book on Ike
Have read a great deal about Eisenhower’s actions, but not about his decisions and their rationale. This was the books that explained Eisenhower.
Have read a great deal about Eisenhower’s actions, but not about his decisions and their rationale. This was the books that explained Eisenhower.
January 2, 2020
“Supreme Commander” is a classic and must-read for military aficionados and historians. It is nothing short of a masterful journey into the life, decision-making, and character of Eisenhower through the WWII years. It took forever to finish, but it was worth the journey.
January 20, 2025
Excellent. Steven Ambrose is very thorough. With interviews and original source material one feels as though you’re there with Eisenhower from the last days of peace for the US until Germany’s surrender. Eisenhower rose from a colonel with no combat experience in December of 1941 to one of a handful of five star generals ever by 1944.
Great portraits of Churchill, Tedder, Bedell Smith, Degaule, Montgomery, Bradley, Rommel, Hodges, Arnold, Patton, CIGS, CCS, AFHQ, and SHAEF. A reminder start to finish of the forces Ike overcame to successfully weld Britain and the US into a single functional allied war machine.
Great portraits of Churchill, Tedder, Bedell Smith, Degaule, Montgomery, Bradley, Rommel, Hodges, Arnold, Patton, CIGS, CCS, AFHQ, and SHAEF. A reminder start to finish of the forces Ike overcame to successfully weld Britain and the US into a single functional allied war machine.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 30, 2022
Listened via Audible.
A detailed and thorough analysis of Eisenhower's contribution as Supreme Commander - beginning right after Pearl Harbor in 1941 through the end of the War in Europe - night of May 7-8th, 1945.
Right man, right place, right time.
General Marshall deserves great credit for recognizing what the needs of an Allied organization needed to be; what the traits of an excellent Allied Commander needed to be and the selection of Eisenhower as a 'rising star' within this environment. General Marshall had another job as well - managing the Pacific theatre with all its 'n' complications and prima donnas. Although not stated in this book - I've read separately that Marshall 'reached down 'n' places' so as to select Eisenhower over many many more senior officers - for this position.
Ambrose paints more than the usual pictures of the personalities of the major 'actors' during the war - Churchill, Montgomery, DeGaulle, The British Chiefs of Staff (BCOS), Bradley, Patton, Walter B Smith (Eisenhower's Chief of Staff) and a few others.
Ambrose is excellent in detailing the arduous and exasperating cross demands on Eisenhower's time and effort including:
#1. Weather - usually went 'against' him - with weather a challenge.
#2. The French and DeGaulle - wanted most everything (and got it) played his cards very well - was extremely frustrating to deal with.
#3. Landing Craft - don't know why with America's productive might these were missing.
#4. British - Churchill had a post war view - fighting the Cold War - before the Second World War was complete. BCOS criticized most everything Eisenhower did.
#5. The Germans a well trained sometimes fanatical army - some of the best soldiers in the world - usually could be counted upon to inflict more casualties than they took.
#6. Logistics - much conversation about port capacity - and the tonnage necessary to keep just one division 'fed and supplied' for one day X 35 Allied Divisions - used up port capacity and why this factor drove some strategic decisions that others criticized.
Throughout it all Eisenhower - won and kept the Allied cause together - a masterful accomplishment.
I don't know if any other person could have done it as well. For one example Patton - spoken of with high praise as a brilliant tactical general (best ass kicker in the U.S. Army) - would have had the Allies fighting amongst each others - then Patton would have taken the U.S. to war with the Russians (?) had he been in charge.
Don't know if (and equivalent job holding an alliance together with a reduced amount of nationalism) has been done since; don't know if it could be done in 2022 - with nationalism so rampant.
Excellent read - lots of detail - should be of interest to those who read about WW2
Carl Gallozzi
Cgallozzi@comcast.net
A detailed and thorough analysis of Eisenhower's contribution as Supreme Commander - beginning right after Pearl Harbor in 1941 through the end of the War in Europe - night of May 7-8th, 1945.
Right man, right place, right time.
General Marshall deserves great credit for recognizing what the needs of an Allied organization needed to be; what the traits of an excellent Allied Commander needed to be and the selection of Eisenhower as a 'rising star' within this environment. General Marshall had another job as well - managing the Pacific theatre with all its 'n' complications and prima donnas. Although not stated in this book - I've read separately that Marshall 'reached down 'n' places' so as to select Eisenhower over many many more senior officers - for this position.
Ambrose paints more than the usual pictures of the personalities of the major 'actors' during the war - Churchill, Montgomery, DeGaulle, The British Chiefs of Staff (BCOS), Bradley, Patton, Walter B Smith (Eisenhower's Chief of Staff) and a few others.
Ambrose is excellent in detailing the arduous and exasperating cross demands on Eisenhower's time and effort including:
#1. Weather - usually went 'against' him - with weather a challenge.
#2. The French and DeGaulle - wanted most everything (and got it) played his cards very well - was extremely frustrating to deal with.
#3. Landing Craft - don't know why with America's productive might these were missing.
#4. British - Churchill had a post war view - fighting the Cold War - before the Second World War was complete. BCOS criticized most everything Eisenhower did.
#5. The Germans a well trained sometimes fanatical army - some of the best soldiers in the world - usually could be counted upon to inflict more casualties than they took.
#6. Logistics - much conversation about port capacity - and the tonnage necessary to keep just one division 'fed and supplied' for one day X 35 Allied Divisions - used up port capacity and why this factor drove some strategic decisions that others criticized.
Throughout it all Eisenhower - won and kept the Allied cause together - a masterful accomplishment.
I don't know if any other person could have done it as well. For one example Patton - spoken of with high praise as a brilliant tactical general (best ass kicker in the U.S. Army) - would have had the Allies fighting amongst each others - then Patton would have taken the U.S. to war with the Russians (?) had he been in charge.
Don't know if (and equivalent job holding an alliance together with a reduced amount of nationalism) has been done since; don't know if it could be done in 2022 - with nationalism so rampant.
Excellent read - lots of detail - should be of interest to those who read about WW2
Carl Gallozzi
Cgallozzi@comcast.net
July 5, 2024
A review of the war from the strategic perspective of one of its greatest leaders. It’s so easy to look back at history with the eyes of today and not realize the strategic decisions which had to be made when victory was anything but assured. This book provides great context to the pre-decision situations with all the factors and considerations that the leaders had to take. Even considering the alternative campaign plans which were not chosen (eg invading the Mediterranean instead of North Africa) without playing “what if” with history. This includes his struggles to lead a combined command as the unified commander and his emphasis on teamwork and intolerance for any allied leaders thinking/saying they were superior to the other.
The book reviews several strategic level decisions which were directly led by Ike.
- It justifies the “Europe First” decision and sheds light on how important Russia’s involvement was in the overall strategy. In the early planning stages of the war, it was clear to Ike Russia was needed to defeat remote Japan (pre-atomic bomb planning) and the best way to do so was to engage Japan through forward staging areas in the pacific while aiding Russia by opening a second front against Germany.
- I did not realize that Ike was the one who was sent to England to make the initial assessment on how the combined command of US British forces should be structured, making recommendations of who should be that commander only to find out that Marshall had been grooming him for command the entire time. That he had effectively written his own orders.
- How Ike earned the trust of the chiefs of staff in Washington which enabled them to provide him broad tasks instead of micromanaging the campaign. For example, “take Italy” and letting Ike come up with the details (Reminiscent of Grant and Sherman, provide clear intent and let leaders make decisions).
- He emphasized that training would never cease throughout the campaigns so soldiers were always prepared for what missions may come next and the importance of leaders role in preventing such complacency.
- His understanding on the importance of coordinating logistics for such a vast force and thus, the critical importance of ports, transportation, and secure routes, not only in its impacts on tactical maneuvers, but in its direction of those maneuvers and key elements of campaigns.
- It draws a clear comparison to Grant’s overland campaign in his focus on the German army itself as the enemy center of gravity. Strategic decisions were aimed more at destroying it than seizing key ground (war of attrition to achieve overall victory).
- His ability, especially in the final months of the war, to keep the main strategic focus as the military defeat of the German army, not any political agenda. He kept an accurate perspective that he was a military agent, not a policy maker.
He had a sharp, orderly mind. No one described him as an intellectual giant nor with the ability to come up with brilliant insights. His strength was the ability to look at a situation/problem and analyze it, visualize alternatives, and choose from among them without overlooking major points. While remaining a strict disciplinarian, he was also a Soldier’s soldier, looking out for them with genuine care and a “common touch,” refusing any additional comforts for himself or his officers which were not available to the fighting men, and issuing orders that all officers should place the care and capability of Soldiers over their own. He frequently visited the front lines, listened directly to complaints, and did what was in his power to resolve them. He believed discipline and training were foundational to success, but morale was equally important and it was inspired by ensuring troops understood the deep cause for which they were fighting and making sacrifices, insisting “every leader had a responsibility to make the issues clear to the troops.”
He described the role of supreme commander better than anyone else by saying “He had to be self facing, quick to give credit to others, ready to seek and take advice, and willing to decentralize… He must be quick to take the blame for anything that goes wrong whether or not it results from his mistake or the error on the part of a subordinate… [An allied commander] is, in a very definite sense, the chairman of a board, a chairman that has very definite executive responsibilities. He must execute those duties firmly, wisely, and without any question to his own authority and his own responsibility.” Also, establishing unity in an allied command, “involves the human equation and must be met day by day. Patience, tolerance, frankness, absolute honesty in all dealings, and firmness are absolutely essential.” That the role of supreme commander meant leading leaders and doing so through regular meetings, individual conversations, moderating/refereeing disputes, and by force of personality. He even told his son, “the one quality that is developed by studious reflections and practice is the leadership of men. The idea is to get people to working together not only because you tell them to do so and enforce your orders, but because they instinctively want to do it for you,” aka inspired leadership.
The book reviews several strategic level decisions which were directly led by Ike.
- It justifies the “Europe First” decision and sheds light on how important Russia’s involvement was in the overall strategy. In the early planning stages of the war, it was clear to Ike Russia was needed to defeat remote Japan (pre-atomic bomb planning) and the best way to do so was to engage Japan through forward staging areas in the pacific while aiding Russia by opening a second front against Germany.
- I did not realize that Ike was the one who was sent to England to make the initial assessment on how the combined command of US British forces should be structured, making recommendations of who should be that commander only to find out that Marshall had been grooming him for command the entire time. That he had effectively written his own orders.
- How Ike earned the trust of the chiefs of staff in Washington which enabled them to provide him broad tasks instead of micromanaging the campaign. For example, “take Italy” and letting Ike come up with the details (Reminiscent of Grant and Sherman, provide clear intent and let leaders make decisions).
- He emphasized that training would never cease throughout the campaigns so soldiers were always prepared for what missions may come next and the importance of leaders role in preventing such complacency.
- His understanding on the importance of coordinating logistics for such a vast force and thus, the critical importance of ports, transportation, and secure routes, not only in its impacts on tactical maneuvers, but in its direction of those maneuvers and key elements of campaigns.
- It draws a clear comparison to Grant’s overland campaign in his focus on the German army itself as the enemy center of gravity. Strategic decisions were aimed more at destroying it than seizing key ground (war of attrition to achieve overall victory).
- His ability, especially in the final months of the war, to keep the main strategic focus as the military defeat of the German army, not any political agenda. He kept an accurate perspective that he was a military agent, not a policy maker.
He had a sharp, orderly mind. No one described him as an intellectual giant nor with the ability to come up with brilliant insights. His strength was the ability to look at a situation/problem and analyze it, visualize alternatives, and choose from among them without overlooking major points. While remaining a strict disciplinarian, he was also a Soldier’s soldier, looking out for them with genuine care and a “common touch,” refusing any additional comforts for himself or his officers which were not available to the fighting men, and issuing orders that all officers should place the care and capability of Soldiers over their own. He frequently visited the front lines, listened directly to complaints, and did what was in his power to resolve them. He believed discipline and training were foundational to success, but morale was equally important and it was inspired by ensuring troops understood the deep cause for which they were fighting and making sacrifices, insisting “every leader had a responsibility to make the issues clear to the troops.”
He described the role of supreme commander better than anyone else by saying “He had to be self facing, quick to give credit to others, ready to seek and take advice, and willing to decentralize… He must be quick to take the blame for anything that goes wrong whether or not it results from his mistake or the error on the part of a subordinate… [An allied commander] is, in a very definite sense, the chairman of a board, a chairman that has very definite executive responsibilities. He must execute those duties firmly, wisely, and without any question to his own authority and his own responsibility.” Also, establishing unity in an allied command, “involves the human equation and must be met day by day. Patience, tolerance, frankness, absolute honesty in all dealings, and firmness are absolutely essential.” That the role of supreme commander meant leading leaders and doing so through regular meetings, individual conversations, moderating/refereeing disputes, and by force of personality. He even told his son, “the one quality that is developed by studious reflections and practice is the leadership of men. The idea is to get people to working together not only because you tell them to do so and enforce your orders, but because they instinctively want to do it for you,” aka inspired leadership.
January 4, 2021
This book wouldn't have been my first pick by any means, but my dad got it on Audible, so I listened. It suffered, as I suspected, from the same affliction that I've found in several history books covering the high command of WW2. The commanders were so detached tactical decisions or actual combat, that their war was almost like a very complicated war game. They managed relationships, logistics, grand strategy but their role would have been almost unrecognizable as that of a general from ages gone by. This is evident in Eisenhower, who was a career staff officer, and had never commanded men in battle.
Nonetheless, I actually got a lot of out of this book. What I learned a lot were lessons in leadership from Eisenhower. What he accomplished (with the help of many others) was truly remarkable, by commanding an Allied force with a united command that worked incredibly well together (compared to other historical examples.) He did it by permitting no anti British or anti American sentimates to be expressed by his subordinates, and would even fire very powerful people who broke this rule.
Another big lesson is how he saw it as his duty to accept complete responsibility for mistakes made by his subordinates. He wrote out messages to that effect to be released in case any of his attacks were a disaster. This was before knowing how things would turn out, or if one subordinate did make some fatal errors that Eisenhower had nothing to do with. While I think Eisenhower may have gone a bit to far. I think a commander could accept responsibility while still saying that it was a subordinates fault if he acted to discipline or remove them as necessary). But it was certainly a very honorable thing to do, and a big contrast with many, many leaders in history.
A third thing Eisenhower did that I really appreciated is the care he took that he and those under him took no special privileges. He insisted that the high command not live in captured palaces, but that they use smaller and less grand facilities. He ordered that recreational facilities not be reserved for officers but be shared with enlisted men on leave from the front. He even ordered that his generals travel the roads in unmarked Jeeps, to check undercover what actually was going on in their forces. All this helped ensure that the support troops didn't live in luxury while the men risking their lives got none of it.
One final not is something that George Marshall told Eisenhower. He told him that that he needed to take breaks from his hard to avoid a complete breakdown, and if he couldn't turn his command over to his deputy for a week's vacation between battles, then he had not organized his staff well enough.
Nonetheless, I actually got a lot of out of this book. What I learned a lot were lessons in leadership from Eisenhower. What he accomplished (with the help of many others) was truly remarkable, by commanding an Allied force with a united command that worked incredibly well together (compared to other historical examples.) He did it by permitting no anti British or anti American sentimates to be expressed by his subordinates, and would even fire very powerful people who broke this rule.
Another big lesson is how he saw it as his duty to accept complete responsibility for mistakes made by his subordinates. He wrote out messages to that effect to be released in case any of his attacks were a disaster. This was before knowing how things would turn out, or if one subordinate did make some fatal errors that Eisenhower had nothing to do with. While I think Eisenhower may have gone a bit to far. I think a commander could accept responsibility while still saying that it was a subordinates fault if he acted to discipline or remove them as necessary). But it was certainly a very honorable thing to do, and a big contrast with many, many leaders in history.
A third thing Eisenhower did that I really appreciated is the care he took that he and those under him took no special privileges. He insisted that the high command not live in captured palaces, but that they use smaller and less grand facilities. He ordered that recreational facilities not be reserved for officers but be shared with enlisted men on leave from the front. He even ordered that his generals travel the roads in unmarked Jeeps, to check undercover what actually was going on in their forces. All this helped ensure that the support troops didn't live in luxury while the men risking their lives got none of it.
One final not is something that George Marshall told Eisenhower. He told him that that he needed to take breaks from his hard to avoid a complete breakdown, and if he couldn't turn his command over to his deputy for a week's vacation between battles, then he had not organized his staff well enough.
May 18, 2022
This book was recommended to me by one of my leaders at work, and he recommended it specifically because of the political savviness of Eisenhower and how he navigated diplomatic dilemmas repeatedly throughout his time as supreme commander. I must admit, I have never read any history book like this, and Ambrose did an incredible job weaving the narrative of Eisenhower's leadership of the allied forces against Nazi Germany. This is not a book on war, in the tactical/granular sense, but rather, a book on strategy and the politics that went into uniting nations against a common enemy and the work Eisenhower did to make it successful. I think this is an important point, because not everyone will enjoy this book; it's mostly debating, negotiating and weighing pros/cons of decision making (which I personally found fascinating).
What I learned from Eisenhower, who by the way is absolutely one of the most admirable leaders I've ever learned from, is this:
1. Stay prioritized: Eisenhower, in a way I've never seen before at this scale, stayed relentlessly prioritized on defeating the germans and focusing on military matters over political ones. He was continuously hit with distractions that most people would have veered off on, but not him. So, lesson, get your priorities established and then don't waver.
2. Don't be afraid to make decisions and speak up: Eisenhower actually rose to his status because he wasn't afraid to challenge Marshall, where everyone else at his level was a "yes man."
3. Accept ownership of problems: Eisenhower was one of those people who never wanted credit for anything, except for when problems or bad things happened. Again, not something we see commonly today, and it was beautiful to read.
4. Listen to your opponents: Eisenhower repeatedly would dip into a level of patience not common in man... People would do the most ridiculous things, and he would listen to 100% of their reasoning prior to rebuking or making a decision. This was super impressive to observe.
Book rating criteria; to help objectify my ratings.
1. Will I read it again?
No, likely not.
2. Would I recommend this to others?
Yes, but only to people who are passionate about history; especially WWII.
3. Am I smarter, better or wiser as a result of this book?
Yes, learned a ton from this book.
4. Was I entertained while reading this/it kept my attention?
Yes, quick/entertaining read.
5. This book was just the right length?
In general, yes, but it was quite long, but Ambrose managed fill it with some really fascinating content.
What I learned from Eisenhower, who by the way is absolutely one of the most admirable leaders I've ever learned from, is this:
1. Stay prioritized: Eisenhower, in a way I've never seen before at this scale, stayed relentlessly prioritized on defeating the germans and focusing on military matters over political ones. He was continuously hit with distractions that most people would have veered off on, but not him. So, lesson, get your priorities established and then don't waver.
2. Don't be afraid to make decisions and speak up: Eisenhower actually rose to his status because he wasn't afraid to challenge Marshall, where everyone else at his level was a "yes man."
3. Accept ownership of problems: Eisenhower was one of those people who never wanted credit for anything, except for when problems or bad things happened. Again, not something we see commonly today, and it was beautiful to read.
4. Listen to your opponents: Eisenhower repeatedly would dip into a level of patience not common in man... People would do the most ridiculous things, and he would listen to 100% of their reasoning prior to rebuking or making a decision. This was super impressive to observe.
Book rating criteria; to help objectify my ratings.
1. Will I read it again?
No, likely not.
2. Would I recommend this to others?
Yes, but only to people who are passionate about history; especially WWII.
3. Am I smarter, better or wiser as a result of this book?
Yes, learned a ton from this book.
4. Was I entertained while reading this/it kept my attention?
Yes, quick/entertaining read.
5. This book was just the right length?
In general, yes, but it was quite long, but Ambrose managed fill it with some really fascinating content.
February 3, 2020
Ambrose made his reputation on Eisenhower. This hagiography reveals the paradoxes of supreme command. While Eisenhower was vital to victory, he never commanded troops in battle. Nominally an apolitical soldier, his main task was maintaining the alliance against Nazi Germany, charting a middle course between domineering personalities like Montgomery, Patton, de Gaulle, and Churchill. The role of the supreme commander involved deciding when and where the battle should be fought, not when, and preparing the logistics, intelligence, and command structure necessary to win.
In one sense, Eisenhower's ultimate triumph is assured by history. He conquered. The road there was far from smooth. Eisenhower's first subcommander in North Africa, General Fredendall, proved incompetent. The Italian campaign turned into a grinding attritional slog that missed opportunities for comprehensive victory. Even in Western Europe, the final lines could have been drawn to better favor the Americans.
As a commander, Eisenhower's greatest virtues were his optimism and his universalism. The one thing he would not stand were subordinates who acted in national interest, rather than the interests of the alliance. Yet a good manager is self-effacing, and this book is best when it draws from British Chief of Staff General Alan Brooke' memoirs, which salaciously depicted Brooke's personal assessment of key figures.
50 years on, Ambrose's early work has become the core conventional wisdom of Eisenhower's historical legacy. You probably should read them.
In one sense, Eisenhower's ultimate triumph is assured by history. He conquered. The road there was far from smooth. Eisenhower's first subcommander in North Africa, General Fredendall, proved incompetent. The Italian campaign turned into a grinding attritional slog that missed opportunities for comprehensive victory. Even in Western Europe, the final lines could have been drawn to better favor the Americans.
As a commander, Eisenhower's greatest virtues were his optimism and his universalism. The one thing he would not stand were subordinates who acted in national interest, rather than the interests of the alliance. Yet a good manager is self-effacing, and this book is best when it draws from British Chief of Staff General Alan Brooke' memoirs, which salaciously depicted Brooke's personal assessment of key figures.
50 years on, Ambrose's early work has become the core conventional wisdom of Eisenhower's historical legacy. You probably should read them.
October 26, 2018
This was a fascinating read, covering the course of events on the Western front of WWII from a very high level, and teasing out the ways in which familiar battles and operations were shaped by factors of supply and logistics, intra-alliance disagreements, jockeying for post-war positions, weather, public sentiment, and more. It follows Eisenhower closely, which is both a strength in that he was the nexus of so many conflicting pressures from all sides, and a weakness in that as portrayed here he isn't a particularly dynamic figure, and his personality is told in a few interlude chapters rather than coming through naturally via interactions with others. It also felt a bit too obviously in his corner, with negative perspectives mentioned only to be rejected, and the biggest criticism it seems to level at him is a reticence to put his foot down with subordinates.
It remains very readable and informative throughout, and does a great job exploring the reasons for how things played out without bogging down in minutiae. As a casual reader, the frequent references to specific divisions, generals, and geographic features tended to blur together, but the main thrust of the historical analysis was easy to follow regardless.
It remains very readable and informative throughout, and does a great job exploring the reasons for how things played out without bogging down in minutiae. As a casual reader, the frequent references to specific divisions, generals, and geographic features tended to blur together, but the main thrust of the historical analysis was easy to follow regardless.
May 6, 2021
After reading this book I realized I had no real understanding of the scope of the job of a supreme commander. I have so much more respect for the accomplishments of the allied powers after reading this book. Eisenhower’s job was so much more than battle plans and operations. Much of his time was spent balancing national egos and the priorities of all the allied countries. It was a true feat to keep the powers moving in a united and coordinated way toward the ultimate goal of defeating Nazi Germany.
Interesting facts I learned...
Roosevelt was super leery of accepting Charles De Gaulle as the representative of France since he had not been elected as such.
The British unsurprisingly didn’t respect the knowledge of the Americans and always felt their way was best. It was a bitter pill for them to loss the power to force their ideas since the Americans had more resources to supply to the effort. Ambrose pushes forward the idea that this was the beginning of America taking the lead world politics.
Interesting facts I learned...
Roosevelt was super leery of accepting Charles De Gaulle as the representative of France since he had not been elected as such.
The British unsurprisingly didn’t respect the knowledge of the Americans and always felt their way was best. It was a bitter pill for them to loss the power to force their ideas since the Americans had more resources to supply to the effort. Ambrose pushes forward the idea that this was the beginning of America taking the lead world politics.
August 27, 2020
As always, I'm impressed by Mr. Ambrose's writing skills and his ability to condense a vast amount of information without losing any of the details. His impartiality is also impressive; I'm not a fan of Field Marshall Montgomery, but the treatment here gave me a new point of view and I may have to reconsider. I have always thought of GA Eisenhower as being something larger than life; Ambrose manages to point out both the qualities that made it possible for him to lead the largest army ever assembled, while that the same time pointing out areas where his skills were lacking.
Overall this book is very well written and one of the most impartial I have read regarding the allied command structure in the African, Mediterranean, and European theaters during WW II.
Overall this book is very well written and one of the most impartial I have read regarding the allied command structure in the African, Mediterranean, and European theaters during WW II.
November 10, 2022
An excellent book on Eisenhower during WW2. A must read
The work by Ambrose is marvelously detailed and takes the reader on the journey of Eisenhower during the war, rising from obscurity to one of the most powerful military leaders in history. While this is a very positive view of Eisenhower, there is a great deal of context in why decisions were made. The discussion of the logistical challenges is not well understood and glossed over by some authors but has enormous influence on strategy by the western allies. There is also a great deal of background on the political machinations of the allies that has to be maneuvered through, especially the influence exerted by Churchill and the BCOS. A must read for those who want to understand how victory was won.
The work by Ambrose is marvelously detailed and takes the reader on the journey of Eisenhower during the war, rising from obscurity to one of the most powerful military leaders in history. While this is a very positive view of Eisenhower, there is a great deal of context in why decisions were made. The discussion of the logistical challenges is not well understood and glossed over by some authors but has enormous influence on strategy by the western allies. There is also a great deal of background on the political machinations of the allies that has to be maneuvered through, especially the influence exerted by Churchill and the BCOS. A must read for those who want to understand how victory was won.
July 16, 2017
Suppose you were laeding the largest military force ever assmbled in the history of human conflict, against a well disciplined, formidable military and you succeed in if (D day +336days) how do you inform your superiors "The mission of this allied force was fullfilled at 0241 local time, may 7 1945".
This last line from the book speaks volumes about Gen. Dwight D Eisenhower. This man was no soldier and had no combat experience yet he led the allied nations to victory against the Nazis. Through hbraved through is story we learn that to derive the best out of any entrprise, the leader has to be self-effacing, patient, a good listener, trusting his subbordinates and little risk taker.
This last line from the book speaks volumes about Gen. Dwight D Eisenhower. This man was no soldier and had no combat experience yet he led the allied nations to victory against the Nazis. Through hbraved through is story we learn that to derive the best out of any entrprise, the leader has to be self-effacing, patient, a good listener, trusting his subbordinates and little risk taker.
February 1, 2019
I enjoyed this book very much, but mostly because I learned so much, not because it was so entertaining. This book helped me understand that Eisenhower was more politician than soldier. Not because he wanted to be a politician, but because that was really what he needed to do and what he was good at. Before listening to this book, I had no idea how much friction there was between the US, England (mostly Montgomery) and France. I had no idea that landing craft were so important. Apparently we under estimated how many landing craft to manufacture, and the number of landing craft that we did have determined a lot of how the invasions occurred.
January 17, 2020
Mr. Ambrose deftly brings General Eisenhower's experience of the Second World War to life. Identifying in evocative detail how his skill as both a diplomat and military strategist contributed to Allied successes in North Africa and in Europe throughout the war. The author provides a detailed analysis of Eisenhower's difficult military decisions and his difficult relationships with the other significant Allied personalities such as Churchill, De Gaulle, Roosevelt, and Patton just to name a few. This book is a highly definitive and in depth account of Eisenhower's leadership throughout his war years.
January 11, 2021
Love Ambrose and his approach to Eisenhower. Very interesting seeing how hard it was to be a political general. The book focuses on balancing the problems of French recognition, relationships with British subordinates and Monty’ paranoia, demands for material in the war in the Pacific and his ability to understand the political impacts of his decisions at home for Roosevelt and Marshall. Ambrose is very dismissive of charges about softness on Russia and communism. Eisenhower’s goal was to beat the Axis and his take is you can’t use the hindsight of the Cold War to analyze Eisenhower. Also doesn’t even acknowledge allegations of scandal with Kay Summersby which I found interesting.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 4, 2018
Great book of important history. For me, Ambrose shines new light on familiar situations. I found myself realizing anew the significance of things I'd always known -- that it took years of hard work before the U.S. could attempt a landing in France. That our military faced incredible challenges working with the strong leaders of the allied countries. That our country was blessed with a wealth of strong and principled men who gave all they had to save the world. Eisenhower's integrity and work ethic inspired many at the time. We need more of the same today.
September 3, 2024
It took me a while as this is a huge tome! I found this account of Eisenhower's war years very interesting. There was less about the specific operations, and more about the overall military strategy, planning, and politics. I have always found Eisenhower an impressive and likable human being. If only we had more Eisenhowers in politics today! Of course, Eisenhower was never really interested in politics, especially during the war. That is one of the reasons why I like him!
As usual, the research and writing by Ambrose is impressive!
As usual, the research and writing by Ambrose is impressive!
May 16, 2021
It may have taken me a while to get through this book, but it's mostly because I listened to the audiobook and my commute was just too short to get through a lot at a time. But that changed this month and it was so much better to get long periods of time listening to it because there's a lot of detail packed in.
I loved learning more about Eisenhower's leadership style and personality. I've got a lot of respect for him and what he accomplished when the stakes were so high.
I loved learning more about Eisenhower's leadership style and personality. I've got a lot of respect for him and what he accomplished when the stakes were so high.
May 24, 2021
At over 700 pages this is a long but mainly great read. He paints a picture of Eisenhower, complete with flaws. It was interesting that Eisenhower wasn’t the greatest military strategist and that his most important quality was his ability to get people with different agendas working together.
While some of the story sags every now and again, this is primarily due to the lack of action in the war at that point but it’s not long before the narrative moves on.
While some of the story sags every now and again, this is primarily due to the lack of action in the war at that point but it’s not long before the narrative moves on.
October 7, 2022
Stephen Ambrose passed away exactly 20 years ago in the upcoming week, but his work has lived on far beyond, to include this exceptional insider 660-page tome of how Eisenhower became the general the public knew. Published a few years before Ambrose’ death, Ambrose was Eisenhower’s primary biographer and associate editor of his official papers. And though we are well-versed on the general history of WWII, this work delves into Ike’s relationship with the political likes of Churchill, DeGaulle and Roosevelt, as well as his military relationships with Patton, Marshall and Montgomery. Beloved by the man under his charge, Ike was self-effacing almost to a fault, eschewing promotion and advancement. Despite its length, this book is a page turner all fans of WWII should read and digest!
October 3, 2023
An outstanding military biography of Eisenhower, closely bookended by his summons to DC in December 1941 and the German surrender in May 1945. Ambrose extensively analyzes each of the major and minor decisions Ike made and his process for making them. While Ambrose acknowledges Eisenhower's errors, he concludes that the Supreme Commander was built an unrivaled allied coalition and directed a strategy that led to the accomplishment of all of his assigned directives.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 87 reviews