What do you think?
Rate this book
Eisenhower
The first new, in-depth life of Eisenhower in decades, by the acclaimed biographer of MacArthur ("Old Soldiers Never Die").672 pp.
Audio Cassette
First published January 1, 1999
15 people are currently reading
261 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
December 14, 2022
Overall this was a very thorough and clear narrative about Dwight Eisenhower's entire life. It included his family history leading up to his birth as well. Geoffrey Perrett wrote clearly and presented the information without overloading the details. The narrative seemed to center around chronological information throughout his years at West Point, his military career, WW2, the Korean War, and then his presidency. For me at least the book seemed to loose momentum during his years as president and focused on conservative fiscal economic policies, political issues, and international issues including containment and dealing with the rest of the world. Overall this delivered the information without complexity and expressing opinions. Thanks!
August 8, 2021
Books on Dwight Eisenhower have tended to be either overly critical (intimating that he was a lazy President and not that great of a general) or overly revisionist (emphasizing how strong of a President he was and how he deftly managed a collection of massive egos during WWII). Geoffrey Perret manages to avoid either trap, yet his work is not particularly good nor revealing. Part of the reason for that is the writing quality, part of it is the uneven treatment of Eisenhower's presidency versus his military career, and part of it is the lax scholarship that was put into the book.
Perret's emphasis clearly is on Eisenhower's life as a soldier. While in one sense this is understandable - he was in the military for forty years, versus only eight years as President - Eisenhower is a major historical figure because of both aspects of his life, his military career and his two term presidency. While there obviously is a disparity in the number of years between the two, dispensing with his presidency in two hundred pages after spending four hundred pages to get to that point seems unbalanced. Perret seemed more interested, more engaged in the military aspect of Eisenhower's life, choosing to cover his presidency much more quickly and in a topical format. Important parts of his presidency, such as his Supreme Court selections, are dispatched with in a paragraph or two. The failed CIA coup attempt in Indonesia is barely mentioned. Eisenhower's 1957 confrontation with Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus is perfunctorily reviewed. What is missing from so much of the presidential coverage here is context. Eisenhower suffered a stroke in 1957. Perret fails to mention it until he gets to the part of Eisenhower's Farewell Address in 1961.
The writing quality here is breezy, at times unprofessional. While the general reader does not want an overly scholarly, relatively dry narrative (and does not get one here, to Perret's credit) neither does the reader want something that comes off as flippant or overly opinionated. A few examples (of many) that I have picked out: On page 109, Perret writes about Eisenhower starting a diary. "Diaries mean loneliness, isolation, unhappiness; keeping one is a form of self-help. For a busy middle-aged man to keep one was not a good sign." Really? Is Perret a psychologist? What is his opinion based on? Plenty of people keep diaries. I doubt all of them do so because they are lonely, isolated or unhappy. Maybe some folks express themselves better on paper, and like to gather their thoughts in one place. Maybe they make entries so they can look back on things or events years later and have a much better idea of what they thought at the time. Perhaps they do so as a historical record of their lives, maybe even to pass on to a future generation. Or maybe they like writing. I don't see where keeping one equates to something being wrong in one's life.
On page 221, Perret writes about the complex relationship between Eisenhower and Winston Churchill. Here he is writing about Churchill's hard push for Eisenhower to adapt an Italian campaign in 1943. "Churchill made his pitch at breakfast, lunch, and dinner, his volubility distracting attention from table manners of the insouciant variety best left to truckers and aristocrats." What? Hopefully no truckers nor an aristocrats read this book.
On page 492, writing about the horrible loyalty program instituted by Harry Truman and continued and expanded by Eisenhower, Perret lumps "homosexuals" in with "misfits" such as "alcoholics, people who didn't pay their bills... people with mental illness, and the like." It's enough to make me wonder if he was really trying to offend people, or is simply not a good writer. There are ways to say and write things, and there are ways not to.
One last one that stood out enough for me to mark it while I was reading: On page 563, Perret is writing about the arms race between the U.S. and the Soviets during Eisenhower's presidency. "He asked one of his most trusted science advisers, George Kistiakowsky, 'Why are our ICBMs so small?' like a man embarrassed by the size of his penis. 'Why didn't you build bigger ones?'." Good grief. I found this unnecessary at a minimum, and inappropriate. Why did he need to use that specific anatomical example to make his point? For a professional publication, I was surprised that 1) he would even think to write that to begin with; 2) that he did write that; and 3) that the editor allowed it. Perhaps I am not looking at it the right way, but that is not how I would have phrased that encounter.
Another aspect of the book that I found troubling is the amount of times that Perret says something that is simply not historically correct. On page 408, he is writing about the selection of Richard Nixon as Eisenhower's vice presidential running mate in the 1952 election. "Nixon's name was at the top, even though Eisenhower had never met him and knew almost nothing about him...". False. I knew I had read otherwise in the past, and thought for sure that they had met in 1951 while Eisenhower was running NATO. So I pulled Nixon's presidential Memoirs off the shelf, and sure enough, on pages 80-82 he describes in detail his first two meetings with Eisenhower: first in 1950 in California with Herbert Hoover, and then in 1951 in Paris. Also see Stephen Ambrose's first volume of his biography on Eisenhower, pages 231-232. How did Perret miss this? And more importantly, why? The two books I reference were both published and in print long before he wrote this. When I come across something that is incorrect like this is, it really makes me question just how accurate everything else in the book is.
Once Eisenhower leaves office in January 1961, Perret quickly wraps things up, spending almost no time on the final eight years of his life. I really do not like this when presidential biographers treat the post-presidential period as an afterthought. There was also no discussion of Eisenhower's legacy or his impact on American society in general or even the world as a whole. For someone who was such a consequential figure in history, I find this lack of review disappointing. About the only thing that I thought Perret did well was his analysis of Eisenhower's difficult relationship with his second son John, and the impact that the tragic death of his first son had on him for the rest of his life. But you can get that in other books as well. Sadly, this was a disappointment from start to finish. Only if you were writing your own book on Eisenhower would I recommend possibly skimming this one. Maybe.
Grade: F
Perret's emphasis clearly is on Eisenhower's life as a soldier. While in one sense this is understandable - he was in the military for forty years, versus only eight years as President - Eisenhower is a major historical figure because of both aspects of his life, his military career and his two term presidency. While there obviously is a disparity in the number of years between the two, dispensing with his presidency in two hundred pages after spending four hundred pages to get to that point seems unbalanced. Perret seemed more interested, more engaged in the military aspect of Eisenhower's life, choosing to cover his presidency much more quickly and in a topical format. Important parts of his presidency, such as his Supreme Court selections, are dispatched with in a paragraph or two. The failed CIA coup attempt in Indonesia is barely mentioned. Eisenhower's 1957 confrontation with Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus is perfunctorily reviewed. What is missing from so much of the presidential coverage here is context. Eisenhower suffered a stroke in 1957. Perret fails to mention it until he gets to the part of Eisenhower's Farewell Address in 1961.
The writing quality here is breezy, at times unprofessional. While the general reader does not want an overly scholarly, relatively dry narrative (and does not get one here, to Perret's credit) neither does the reader want something that comes off as flippant or overly opinionated. A few examples (of many) that I have picked out: On page 109, Perret writes about Eisenhower starting a diary. "Diaries mean loneliness, isolation, unhappiness; keeping one is a form of self-help. For a busy middle-aged man to keep one was not a good sign." Really? Is Perret a psychologist? What is his opinion based on? Plenty of people keep diaries. I doubt all of them do so because they are lonely, isolated or unhappy. Maybe some folks express themselves better on paper, and like to gather their thoughts in one place. Maybe they make entries so they can look back on things or events years later and have a much better idea of what they thought at the time. Perhaps they do so as a historical record of their lives, maybe even to pass on to a future generation. Or maybe they like writing. I don't see where keeping one equates to something being wrong in one's life.
On page 221, Perret writes about the complex relationship between Eisenhower and Winston Churchill. Here he is writing about Churchill's hard push for Eisenhower to adapt an Italian campaign in 1943. "Churchill made his pitch at breakfast, lunch, and dinner, his volubility distracting attention from table manners of the insouciant variety best left to truckers and aristocrats." What? Hopefully no truckers nor an aristocrats read this book.
On page 492, writing about the horrible loyalty program instituted by Harry Truman and continued and expanded by Eisenhower, Perret lumps "homosexuals" in with "misfits" such as "alcoholics, people who didn't pay their bills... people with mental illness, and the like." It's enough to make me wonder if he was really trying to offend people, or is simply not a good writer. There are ways to say and write things, and there are ways not to.
One last one that stood out enough for me to mark it while I was reading: On page 563, Perret is writing about the arms race between the U.S. and the Soviets during Eisenhower's presidency. "He asked one of his most trusted science advisers, George Kistiakowsky, 'Why are our ICBMs so small?' like a man embarrassed by the size of his penis. 'Why didn't you build bigger ones?'." Good grief. I found this unnecessary at a minimum, and inappropriate. Why did he need to use that specific anatomical example to make his point? For a professional publication, I was surprised that 1) he would even think to write that to begin with; 2) that he did write that; and 3) that the editor allowed it. Perhaps I am not looking at it the right way, but that is not how I would have phrased that encounter.
Another aspect of the book that I found troubling is the amount of times that Perret says something that is simply not historically correct. On page 408, he is writing about the selection of Richard Nixon as Eisenhower's vice presidential running mate in the 1952 election. "Nixon's name was at the top, even though Eisenhower had never met him and knew almost nothing about him...". False. I knew I had read otherwise in the past, and thought for sure that they had met in 1951 while Eisenhower was running NATO. So I pulled Nixon's presidential Memoirs off the shelf, and sure enough, on pages 80-82 he describes in detail his first two meetings with Eisenhower: first in 1950 in California with Herbert Hoover, and then in 1951 in Paris. Also see Stephen Ambrose's first volume of his biography on Eisenhower, pages 231-232. How did Perret miss this? And more importantly, why? The two books I reference were both published and in print long before he wrote this. When I come across something that is incorrect like this is, it really makes me question just how accurate everything else in the book is.
Once Eisenhower leaves office in January 1961, Perret quickly wraps things up, spending almost no time on the final eight years of his life. I really do not like this when presidential biographers treat the post-presidential period as an afterthought. There was also no discussion of Eisenhower's legacy or his impact on American society in general or even the world as a whole. For someone who was such a consequential figure in history, I find this lack of review disappointing. About the only thing that I thought Perret did well was his analysis of Eisenhower's difficult relationship with his second son John, and the impact that the tragic death of his first son had on him for the rest of his life. But you can get that in other books as well. Sadly, this was a disappointment from start to finish. Only if you were writing your own book on Eisenhower would I recommend possibly skimming this one. Maybe.
Grade: F
January 8, 2017
https://bestpresidentialbios.com/2017...
“Eisenhower” by Geoffrey Perret was published in 1999, two years after the publication of his biography of Ulysses S. Grant. Perret is an author and historian and served for three years in the U.S. Army. Among his dozen published books are biographies of JFK, Lincoln and Douglas MacArthur.
Perret’s biography was the first comprehensive review of Eisenhower following the publication of Stephen Ambrose’s two-volume series in the early 1980s. With 608 pages of text it provides substantial, but not exhaustive, coverage of the thirty-fourth president.
“Eisenhower” proves an easy, fluid read that lacks the weighty feel of more academically-oriented biographies. As a result, readers new to Eisenhower will find this an efficient and often engaging introduction to a man whose public career does not naturally lend itself to a lively, buoyant narrative.
The author’s military background (and predilection) is frequently evident and underpins some of the book’s most interesting features. Among these is Perret’s analysis of the difference in British versus American styles of military command and fascinating discussions relating to the logistics of war and the use of advanced technology by the Allies.
Although Perret’s review of Eisenhower’s cabinet appointments seems perfunctory, his discussions of the earliest days of Ike’s presidency and leadership style and the dynamics of his cabinet are quite compelling. In addition, Perret’s introduction to Secretary of State Dulles, his assessment of Earl Warren (and the Supreme Court’s legacy during that era) and his review of the Cold War prove interesting and robust.
But for all its strengths, Perret’s biography of Dwight Eisenhower possesses several notable shortcomings. Most significant among these is the fact the book promises an original, provocative portrait of Eisenhower…yet it is entirely unclear this promise is ever fulfilled. If fresh perspectives of Eisenhower are revealed in these pages they are well-camouflaged.
In addition, Perret’s review of Eisenhower’s youth and early military career is competent but far too brisk; Ike is nearly fifty years old after just one-fourth of the book has elapsed. The pace slows substantially when Eisenhower is selected to lead the Allied invasion of North Africa in 1942, but by then numerous opportunities to more fully flesh-out his character and personality have been missed.
If one of the book’s notable strengths is the ease with which readers can absorb Eisenhower’s life, one of its key weaknesses is that it often lacks the feeling of serious, probative history. While this biography is filled with soft observations on Eisenhower’s explosive temper and daily routine there is ultimately a dearth of penetrating, insightful facts and observations to explain his successes and failures as Supreme Commander – and president.
The reader sees much of the chain-smoking, carefully guarded and loyal Eisenhower in the book’s forty-five chapters…but never really gets inside his head or understands what truly makes him tick. His personal life is never seriously examined and his family often seems an after-thought (which, in fairness, it may have seemed to Eisenhower as well). And while his post-presidency is relatively well-covered in the mere eight pages it receives, there is very little concluding discussion of his legacy or lasting impact.
Overall, Geoffrey Perret’s “Eisenhower” is good in numerous ways, but excellent in virtually none. While providing comprehensive coverage of this soldier-president in an easy-to-digest and often interesting manner, it lacks the rigorous examination and analysis that is embedded within the best presidential biographies.
Overall rating: 3½ stars
“Eisenhower” by Geoffrey Perret was published in 1999, two years after the publication of his biography of Ulysses S. Grant. Perret is an author and historian and served for three years in the U.S. Army. Among his dozen published books are biographies of JFK, Lincoln and Douglas MacArthur.
Perret’s biography was the first comprehensive review of Eisenhower following the publication of Stephen Ambrose’s two-volume series in the early 1980s. With 608 pages of text it provides substantial, but not exhaustive, coverage of the thirty-fourth president.
“Eisenhower” proves an easy, fluid read that lacks the weighty feel of more academically-oriented biographies. As a result, readers new to Eisenhower will find this an efficient and often engaging introduction to a man whose public career does not naturally lend itself to a lively, buoyant narrative.
The author’s military background (and predilection) is frequently evident and underpins some of the book’s most interesting features. Among these is Perret’s analysis of the difference in British versus American styles of military command and fascinating discussions relating to the logistics of war and the use of advanced technology by the Allies.
Although Perret’s review of Eisenhower’s cabinet appointments seems perfunctory, his discussions of the earliest days of Ike’s presidency and leadership style and the dynamics of his cabinet are quite compelling. In addition, Perret’s introduction to Secretary of State Dulles, his assessment of Earl Warren (and the Supreme Court’s legacy during that era) and his review of the Cold War prove interesting and robust.
But for all its strengths, Perret’s biography of Dwight Eisenhower possesses several notable shortcomings. Most significant among these is the fact the book promises an original, provocative portrait of Eisenhower…yet it is entirely unclear this promise is ever fulfilled. If fresh perspectives of Eisenhower are revealed in these pages they are well-camouflaged.
In addition, Perret’s review of Eisenhower’s youth and early military career is competent but far too brisk; Ike is nearly fifty years old after just one-fourth of the book has elapsed. The pace slows substantially when Eisenhower is selected to lead the Allied invasion of North Africa in 1942, but by then numerous opportunities to more fully flesh-out his character and personality have been missed.
If one of the book’s notable strengths is the ease with which readers can absorb Eisenhower’s life, one of its key weaknesses is that it often lacks the feeling of serious, probative history. While this biography is filled with soft observations on Eisenhower’s explosive temper and daily routine there is ultimately a dearth of penetrating, insightful facts and observations to explain his successes and failures as Supreme Commander – and president.
The reader sees much of the chain-smoking, carefully guarded and loyal Eisenhower in the book’s forty-five chapters…but never really gets inside his head or understands what truly makes him tick. His personal life is never seriously examined and his family often seems an after-thought (which, in fairness, it may have seemed to Eisenhower as well). And while his post-presidency is relatively well-covered in the mere eight pages it receives, there is very little concluding discussion of his legacy or lasting impact.
Overall, Geoffrey Perret’s “Eisenhower” is good in numerous ways, but excellent in virtually none. While providing comprehensive coverage of this soldier-president in an easy-to-digest and often interesting manner, it lacks the rigorous examination and analysis that is embedded within the best presidential biographies.
Overall rating: 3½ stars
August 6, 2017
This is an excellent book! The author doesn't get bogged down with unnecessary details. He reports on General Eisenhower's life and experience in the Army but he doesn't present a history of WWI or WWII or the interim years but he provides enough information to understand how and why General Eisenhower developed and succeeded. He continues the same process for the Presidency. Geoffrey Parret points out President Eisenhower's successes and failures in legislation as President. The author explains why President Eisenhower both developed American nuclear yet tried to stimulate nuclear disarmament with the Soviet Union. President Eisenhower remained very popular throughout his two terms and afterwards. He was a far more active and involved President than he appeared. His style was relaxed and confident but to some very lazy yet the President was a curious individual who worked hard to understand issues. He was far more liberal socially than many of today's Republicans. This is a great read!
August 25, 2018
A fantastic biography that stands up well among the extensive literature on Eisenhower. The author attempts to keep the narrative a personal one, capturing the essence of what made Eisenhower who he was. Ike’s ambition and the insecurities that, in part, drove that ambition are at the forefront of this enthralling tale of a simple boy from Abeline, Kansas who became the leader of the free world.
January 1, 2023
Offers a clear and balanced overview of Eisenhower and an easy read. Sympathetic to Eisenhower's less obvious approach but not uncritical, it has been a helpful introduction. Elements of the author's somewhat dated world view make their way through, however, making it seem like the text was written much earlier than 1999 and leaving one feel a little uncomfortable at points.
January 8, 2019
Fascinating tale!
March 21, 2025
Dwight D Eisenhower did A LOT for this country, and this is a very detailed account of his life from his time in the military to his time as Mr. President
February 4, 2012
It is very difficult to write a one volume biography of Eisenhower but this comes as close as one can get to being a thorough and accurate account of his life. The biography is a fair treatment of Eisenhower and looks at many of the myths that have come up about his life and dispels them. Starting with his early years and time growing up in Abeline to the days in the white house the reader can clearly see the evolution of Eisenhower. It covers not only his personal evolution but really looks at the situations he was in and addresses how he changed the situation of the army and the structures of command in Europe. Perret is a specialist in the military biography and his treatment of Eisenhowers war years is among the most thorough ever written on the man. The book is plainly written and easy to read making it a fast 600 pages that leave the reader well informed and with the right amount of information on their subject. If you are really looking for the complete history of Eisenhower though you should consider some of the multivolume works that have been done but for a thorough one volume account this cannot be beat and will leave you saying "I Like Ike"
August 9, 2013
I had always thought of President Eisenhower as very easy going, not having any ambition and things just falling into his lap. This biography relieved me of that misconception.
He worked hard in school, very much wanted to get ahead. When he graduated from West Point he made it known he wanted to marry a rich woman and he did. And so on...
Another misconception of mine is that Mamie went to school here in Denver. Her dad was a very successful business man in Iowa, retired when he was 45 and moved the family to Denver, but it was too cold here in the winter so they moved to San Antonio, where she eventually met Ike when he was stationed there, and they spent summers in Denver.
I really enjoyed the book.
He worked hard in school, very much wanted to get ahead. When he graduated from West Point he made it known he wanted to marry a rich woman and he did. And so on...
Another misconception of mine is that Mamie went to school here in Denver. Her dad was a very successful business man in Iowa, retired when he was 45 and moved the family to Denver, but it was too cold here in the winter so they moved to San Antonio, where she eventually met Ike when he was stationed there, and they spent summers in Denver.
I really enjoyed the book.
March 17, 2013
This is a good narrative about Dwight D. Eisenhower's life. Considering the subject matter (WWII and Ike's presidency), it's fairly short at 608 pages. I liked the way the author touched on things and gave his point of view on Ike's notes. Many of these points were insightful, because the author was sure to list both the mistakes and accomplishments that he saw.
On page 412, I found the note about the Republican party of the 1950s quite interesting, given the points made about the UN, Social Security, and income tax.
Overall, this was a good read, and I found the coverage of his presidency interesting as well.
On page 412, I found the note about the Republican party of the 1950s quite interesting, given the points made about the UN, Social Security, and income tax.
Overall, this was a good read, and I found the coverage of his presidency interesting as well.
December 26, 2016
Coming to Eisenhower relatively neutral I carry no can for either supporters or detractors.
The only lesson I take from this book is that the author ran out if interest in his subject well before the final curtain.
Based on what I have just read Eisenhower was neither principled nor ethical.Pure laissez - faire to get through any problem no matter what it is. Admirable in a soldier & an enterprise manager, absolutely deplorable in a politician.
The only lesson I take from this book is that the author ran out if interest in his subject well before the final curtain.
Based on what I have just read Eisenhower was neither principled nor ethical.Pure laissez - faire to get through any problem no matter what it is. Admirable in a soldier & an enterprise manager, absolutely deplorable in a politician.
January 2, 2014
The best overall biography of Eienhower I have read.
Terrific descriptions of his dealings with large ego
generals and politicians, modestly and wisely managing
these men.I didn't expect to like this as well as I did,
as I didn't care so much for Perret's biography of U.S. Grant
so maybe I will have to reread that.
Terrific descriptions of his dealings with large ego
generals and politicians, modestly and wisely managing
these men.I didn't expect to like this as well as I did,
as I didn't care so much for Perret's biography of U.S. Grant
so maybe I will have to reread that.
September 29, 2011
A decent bio, I was really enjoying it till I got the presidency. The authors started to shift the book from a strict timeline to each chapter being about a different event in the Eisenhower presidency.
July 10, 2015
Eisenhower was a great military leader but as the author illustrates a competent though not great president. From his humble midwest beginnings to the seat of power in Washington Eisenhower's fascinating life is thoroughly explored by the author. Well worth reading.
September 15, 2009
Terrific biography. As full and varied as Ike's life was, though, even a 700+ page biography seemed like a survey at times and left me wanting more.
May 20, 2010
a decdent bio
January 22, 2015
This book was informative, well researched and well balanced dealing with the military and political aspects of Eisenhower's life.
November 30, 2014
Good start to finish discussion on Ike the man.
October 27, 2015
An amazing life, General to President. A great book that brings to Eisenhower to life. I did not know a lot about him. I do now. Enjoy!
July 21, 2013
An excellent look at how a person become great...
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews