Eisenhower in War and Peace

I may be a bit biased as Jean Ed was a high school classmate -- president and most likely to succeed. I agree with George Will that Jean Ed Smith is currently the very best historical novelest. I have military background and was attending Penn State when Dwight was President and his brother, Milton, was President of Penn State. The book is extremely well researched.

Ever read a book and, even as you're reading it, you feel like you need to know more? That's the frustrating part of Ms. Smith's book. There's a lot here, but not enough. She indicates that she reviewed a lot - maybe even all - of the documents in the Eisenhower Library. But she doesn't seem to include much of that info in the book. Without saying it directly, I feel as though she's tellling me, "If you want to know more, go look it up."

That said, the book is a very good look at those early influences in Eisenhower's life that appear to have impacted the subsequent choices, policies and passions over the course of his very interesting life.

After the reading this book I thought is was very good until I read Robert Caro The Years of Lyndon Johnson Master of the Senate. Smith over inflates Eisenhower's accomplishments as president especially with civil rights. Eisenhower actually did very little for this cause and he was very much an old time Southerner basically against any civil rights legislation. He only went along with the Supreme court decision on Brown because he felt he had to follow the law although he was personally against it. Smith really sugar coats this while Caro tells the truth. This is just one example of were he paints a better picture of Eisenhower as President then the real truth although you could argue Civil Rights was the most important issue of this time.

This was a facinatiing eye opening detailed review of the careef Ike who was unbelievabley had not commanded troops until he was the allies go to guy in the ETA.

Too bad we do not have someone like him as our leader right now!!!

This lengthy biography was entertaining reading about a very
special man.
Ike, like many other prominent men and women, had fortune smile upon
him at various times during his life, but it was always his personal integrity
that allowed him to make the best of his various high level positions.
I have a much higher opinion of him as President after reading this
book.
Unlike a recent President, Ike really was the decider.

This book provided what I wanted and much more. I am a liberal, almost socialist, politically. Many of Eisenhower's beliefs as presented in this book are close to my own. I was quite excited to be reading a book that held my interest so well every time I read it. Thank you, Mr Jean Edward Smith.

I have truly enjoyed this biography of former General and President Eisenhower. He was a most interesting man with a much more colorful past than expected. Not only was he a very ambitious individual but also a sensuous man.

very thorough in it's research, but the author seems to have a bias against the subject (Eisenhower). He repeatedly suggests that Eisenhower's great success was due more to "good fortune" or luck than his own abilities and hard work.

A well researched and written book,that is a easy read.i could not stop reading.Abook that discribes both the good and not so good sides of being a leader in war and political battles in the White House years and taking on his own party.This book does not pull any punches.A must read for those who enjoy military history and political history

I had to force myself through the "war" years of this book, which I expected to be the most interesting part. Unfortunately it was not very interesting or engaging. This portion of the book felt like it was just restating facts rather than telling a story. The author makes numerous references to President Grant throughout the book, especially the "war" portion of the book, which I found a constant irritant. It made me wonder if this book didn't have a start a dual bio of the 2 presidents but then the Grant book was left unwritten.

After making it through the end of the WWII, the book picks up and the Eisenhower presidential years, the "peace" years, were engaging. Eisenhower's ability to create peace was amazing, in fact. If you get stuck in this book, you can skip the war years and get to the good stuff. If it had ended at the conclusion of WWII though, it wouldn't be worth the read in my opinion.

This is a 900 page paperback book and coming unbound as I try to read it. I suppose the glue in the backbone of the book is not strong enough to support the pages. It is coming apart in large sections of 30 to 50 pages at a time.

This is my only complaint. It was delivered as promised was in great condition when received and the content of the book is good , it's just falling apart.

Regards,
Joel Johnson
Allen,Tx 75013
retired_grandad@ yahoo.com

If you're looking for the best book on Eisenhower you could get your hands on you'd be hard pressed to do better than this one. It takes a look at Eisenhower's early life, his military career, and presidency. The bulk focus is on his military career and then presidency. What makes this book especially good is that it's far enough removed out from history that it's not tainted by the "need" to protect the subject from harsh truths and it's able to rely on both primary sources and follow up investigations. The author does not attempt to beat around the bush on things like screw ups or short comings or Eisenhower's probable mistress. However, it is a middle of the road approach which makes it a good read.

The author tends to go over implications of some of Eisenhower's political moves that maybe a bit of editorializing but it's not terrible. The ending to the book is very abrupt as well. There was a lot of information that I learned from this book that I didn't know before and the author provides good context around events that Eisenhower was involved in. Things like the allies fighting French troops in Africa during WWII at first or that Eisenhower was the first to use CIA resources to start the overthrow of governments in the Middle East and South America were some of the things I learned.

If you're looking for a well rounded and fair book on Eisenhower, I cannot recommend a better one. Final Grade - A

Once again, Presidential historian Jean Edward Smith does a masterful job of telling the life of one of our Presidents. Through amazing research and detail, Smith tells the story of the General who became president. In several instances he rebuts previously promulgated stores and mistruths about Ike. There is a great amount of detail when Smith comes to the section on D-Day regarding battle tactics and military operations. For the non military person, you can skip those sections. Smith gives an interesting perspective on Ike's relationship with Kay Summersby. While Eisenhower biographer Jeffery Perot seemed to down play the relationship, Smith gives it a great deal of credibility to the existence of the relationship. What I found rather sad was the when Ike returned to the US he abruptly ended a the relationship, essentially for the good of his career.

Some years ago I listened to Perot's bio of Ike on tape and found it well done. This is a slightly different image of a president who did much to create the America that we live in today particularly through the creation of the interstate highway system. Had Taft been elected president over Ike in 1952 our international relations would be much different. Smith also shows how the roots of the Vietnam war came into existence with Ike. But it also shows how he stood up to the French and refused to come to their aid after Dien Bien Phu.

There is a very meaningful quote from Ike on Page 642. He says that someday there will be a president who "was not raised in the military services and who will have little understanding of where slashed in the Pentagon's estimate cane be made with little or no damage. If that happens, I shudder to think what will happen to the country." Ike's prediction has come true

The day that JFK was inaugurated Ike and Mamie left the White House, got into their car and drove to Gettysburg. They had a Secret Service escort, but when they got to the farm the Secret Service waved good bye and Ike became a private citizen. At his request he was restored to his military rank, which allowed him to keep his valet and driver. He went home to write his memoirs and play golf. He had served his country and it was time to rest.

Will change your view of Eisenhower. One advantage to writing this 50 years after Ike left office - is all the emotion is gone. Also.. a lot has been declassified. I've talked to many people of my parent's generation who thought Ike was a nice guy, not particularly bright or flashy, and didn't have to work too hard for a period of peace. When Eisenhower left office - a celebrated accomplishment was after Korea ended (under his tutelage) we had 7.5 years of no overseas wars, conflicts, people dying... At the time, no one thought much of this. Now look back... is there any other president you can say that about? And he had many, many provocations. He let Vietnam fall rather than get us embroiled. LBJ could have learned a lot there. He was under constant "scare" from the Soviets on nuclear concerns. Looking back it is amazing the TV commercials on fallout shelters, and diving for cover... The Suez crisis was particularly challenging - but probably didn't seem so in real time. And... his party was heavily divided - yet he threaded the needle.

In fact, we learn that (behind the scenes), Eisenhower worked exceedingly well across party lines. He was a true statesman that wanted what was in the best interests of the country. He didn't come up through the ranks in either party. It seemed effortless, yet we learn Ike was a master of anticipating reactions, doing compromises, finding ways to get the most important things he wanted. Our recent presidents have been more likely to moan that the opposing party won't work with them. Ike didn't moan. He worked tirelessly to get things done - and at the time - it wasn't known how good he was at this and how challenging it was.

Ike wasn't perfect - we hear about his flaws. We hear how he learned and the hard knocks he had. Yet... he always learned from his mistakes, and he found great mentors to teach him. He was a master of relationships. I learned a ton.

I must say that I really liked Smith's bio on John Marshall as well as on Roosevelt, though I thought this bio had problems. First of all, the section on Eisenhower during his military years dragged on too long. Too long. Additionally, large sections seemed like a recap of Rick Atkinson's excellent book An Army at Dawn regarding the US Army and its peculiar leaders in North Africa. Anyway, after slogging through the war years, the section on Eisenhower transition years from 1945 to his election in 1952 were well done and intereseting, but the sections on his presidency were tiny summaries of what happened without much analysis. Should have been much longer and more probing.

Maybe it just me, having read all four Robert Caro books on Lyndon Johnson, including a huge tome Master of the Senate, I wanted to learn more about Eisenhower's role in legislation while Johnson did his thing. Caro's books would have you believe, perhaps correctly, that Johnson ran the show behind the scenes and Eisenhower went along. But this book seems to barely mention Johnson.

If you ask people about Ike, they tend to say lukewarm to things about him. And while it is true that Ike may be getting his due more recently, during his day, even though he was liked, people did have reservations about him....yet nothing negative is ever mentioned about him in the entire book, or the re-evaluation that happened regarding Eisenhower's presidency. Additionally, nothing is mentioned about Eisenhower's grandson marrying Nixon's daughter. Perhaps, the one theme that Smith did a good job elucidating was Eisenhower's fierce determination to avoid conflict and war, having been Supreme Allied Commander during WWII. Additionally, it was interesting reading about the relationship between Ike and Nixon. Very much reminded me of the Kennedy-Johnson relationship...and both VP's went on to become Presidents.

So, while I think I got an overview of Eisenhower, I feel I could have gotten a better experience. If you're a WWII junkie, I highly recommend Rick Atkinson's books, though WWII isn't my area of interest.

Another great bio from Jean Edward Smith's pen. Eisenhower with his strengths and weaknesses. Enjoying a well navigated military career, with friends and mentors in the right places, Ike had a meteoric rise. Those friends and posts prepared him for the Supreme Commander's job, more of a political work than a tactical or strategic one.

In turn, his field experience in WW2 left him the ONE person in the Western world, Churchill growing old and Britain weak, to oppose sucessfully Stalin and Communism without resorting to nuclear weapons, as some close advisers urged him to use at the first perceived wrong, danger or agression.

Smart enough to learn, patient enough to think it over, strong enough to impose his will. In more ways than one, in many circumstances, Ike was the right man at the right time.

After having read Jean Edward Smith's biographies of Lucuis Clay, Frankland Roosevelt, and U. S, Grant I was excited about this biography. After reading it I was disappointed. Mr. Smith spent too much paper and ink discussing the affair or non-affair between Eisenhower and Kay Summersby, and failed to mention the Falaises Gap controversy. He fails to discuss the problems with supply and J. C. H. Lee, and ignores the problems with Montgomery concerning a land commander or Eisenhower's strategy of the broad front. He writes very little about the Battle of the Bulge and the manpower shortage that resulted in the Ardennes being lightly held. He fails to discuss the failed Market-Garden operations and does not mention Antwerp. In short, there is much missing from this biography. Much that goes to explain the allied effort in Northern Europe. There are much better biographies of Eisenhower. Biographies that have been well researched and do not leave me with the feeling, as this one did, that it was thrown together with very little effort.

I'm not certain if I should be writing this review, based as it is on my "gut" attitude to Eisenhower. True, he was President before I was born(but so was FDR and his successor Harry S.Truman!), but there is something about "Ike" that has never sat well with me. Firstly he was a Republican and I tend to favour Democratic Presidents as opposed to their GOP counterparts, secondly his ambiguous attitude to firstly McCarthyism and then civil rights in the wake of the US Supreme Court ruling of "Brown" that declared segregation to be unconstitutional in 1954. True, Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock Arkansas in 1957(a cynic might note that as he was a "lame duck" President he could afford to do so) enforce a SCOTUS order for the local schools to be integrated, but with the exception of his celebrated farewell address to Congress wanting of the dangers of "the military industrial complex",trying to figure out his politics is like trying to bite a balloon.
His predecessor Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt once defined the US Presidency as a "bully pulpit" for moral leadership. It's a shame to my mind that "Ike" no matter how brave he may have been on the battlefield(did he even personally kill anyone?) failed to show moral leadership on the pre-eminent evils of his day such as McCarthyism and racial segregation. To use the title of a book published in 1957 by his future successor, then Congressman John F.Kennedy, "Ike" was no "profile in courage" on these issues!

I was mightily impressed by Smith's biography of John Marshall and have been looking forward to this biography's publication for quite some time. Conversely, I have always found the Ambrose biographies to be massively deficient in more ways than I can possibly count, so it was good to see a full-length biography which is not reliant on Ambrose's scholarship, so called. Is it definitive? I wouldn't go that far, but it represents a considerable improvement in the field and is definitely worth reading.

Smith takes something of a revisionist view in both the areas of Eisenhower's presidency and his role in World War II. Concerning the latter, Smith says as much in a footnote in Chapter 15, where he takes a shot at the Pogue school of thought (which "treated Eisenhower & Marshall as demigods"). Smith skillfully portrays a coalition which somehow, in spite of itself, managed to stumble towards victory with Eisenhower at the helm. Smith is unsparing in his portrayal of Eisenhower as a less than competent ground commander; the chapters dealing with North Africa & the month following the Normandy invasion are not exactly flattering. Eisenhower mismanaged the North African invasion almost from the very start, and prevailed over the Germans only by sheer force of numbers and materiel, rather than superior strategy. Similarly, Eisenhower's failure to press the advantage in France after D-Day resulted in the war in Europe being extended by nearly half a year, and his tactics allowed Germany enough time to regroup and launch its counteroffensive in the Ardennes (although once this was underway, Smith observes, Ike was one of the few command level officers to not to panic). Clearly, Eisenhower's strengths lay in the management of an unbelievably complex political and administrative situation. Even Eisenhower's critics admitted that nobody else could have done this job. However, Smith does not believe that this merits concealing Eisenhower's wartime warts.

After devoting a little less than 300 pages to Ike's 40 months during World War II, Smith devotes barely 200 pages to two full terms of the Eisenhower presidency. Really? Was this an editorial decision, or did Smith look at the work as it was unfolding and realize that if he wrote a truly detailed treatment of the Eisenhower presidency, it would require a second volume? Whatever the reasons, the chapters dealing with the presidency are far from comprehensive and instead focus on some of high points of the presidency. Smith seems to be saying, "I will provide a nice summary, and also point you in the direction of some other more comprehensive studies of Eisenhower as president," which is OK. It does, however, mean that you will need to look elsewhere for a truly thorough treatment. So don't be calling this a definitive biography, because it isn't.

This was a very enjoyable and very readable book. Even at almost 800 pages, it did not prove to be that daunting. So why only 4 stars? A small quibble would be Smith's failure to acknowledge that Churchill's insistence on a wartime strategy that would help preserve the Empire was a major reason that the Allied invasion of Europe was delayed as long as it was; Churchill and the high command consistently advocated a peripheral approach, whereas Marshall & FDR wanted to plunge into the heart of Europe at the earliest opportunity. Smith does argue that there was no way an invasion could have taken place in 1942, but I don't think anyone these days would disagree with that. 1943 is a whole different matter; there is plenty of debate on how prepared the Allies were for a 1943 invasion, but one would never know this from reading Smith.

Of greater concern is how Smith portrays Eisenhower's foreign and civil rights policies. Smith argues that because Eisenhower had better knowledge of Asia (due to his time in The Philippines), his foreign policy concerning mainland China & French Indochina was more prescient than when he was dealing with Central America or the Middle East, where he relied on the flawed advice of John Foster Dulles and company. Seriously? Everyone who knew Dulles understood that he would , if possible, cast any situation in the world into a struggle against Communism. It was his go-to move. Eisenhower blew off the advice of Dulles in Southeast Asia, but for some reason accepted his advice on Guatemala & Iran. So it isn't really Ike's fault, it's Dulles'? Come on already. For a variety of reasons, Smith is more persuasive when dealing with how Eisenhower handled Egypt & the Suez Crisis, but I felt like he was almost making excuses for Eisenhower otherwise.

Smith also goes a bit overboard in portraying Eisenhower as a fearless advocate for civil rights, highlighting Little Rock. Well yes --- if you focus on Little Rock, Ike looks pretty heroic, but there was a whole lot of tepid support for Brown which came before that. Anyone who has read David A. Nichols' A Matter of Justice: Eisenhower and the Beginning of the Civil Rights Revolution knows that the Eisenhower legacy on civil rights is a good deal more complex. While Ike wasn't an obstructionist, he was hardly enlightened in the area of race relations, and definitely wasn't leading any charges in the war for racial equality.

Having said that, the footnote where Smith absolutely DESTROYS Ambrose for basically making up stuff about Eisenhower's views on segregation, and then goes on to lay waste to Ambrose's "pernicious" distortions was one of the most enjoyable things I have read in a long time. I should give the book an extra star just for that.

All in all, a very worthwhile book, which definitely should be on the reading list of anyone seeking a better understanding of Eisenhower.

I recently finished this great narrative, and would like to share my thoughts. First, the review by: By Metallurgist TOP 500 REVIEWER on December 24, 2011 is accurate and well written - I can hardly improve on it.

But the elements I might add are: I was 9 when Ike was re-elected in 1956 and I remember the night. I was 13 when Kennedy replaced him. So, my recollections were dim and reflected mostly the perceptions of the time. He played golf, recreated and seemed to float through the Presidency.

But there were incongruities: He, a lifelong military man, warned us of the Military -Industrial power we have felt ever since. He moved when the economy slowed to assure the finest road system in any country ever. And then I saw a documentary where he worked behind the scenes to shore up our defenses and spying capacities in the Cold War.

What I got from Smith was a real guy, and he pieced all the loose elements I had felt and heard into a vision of a real President.

Eisenhower was not the war general many of us believed him to be. He was, as the reviewer said, the quintessential politician who winnowed us through the war with great skill. He picked generals far better than himself to carry on the war. He used excellent judgment with a conscience about the lives of the men. Guys like my bomber pilot dad rightfully revered him as their leader.

And as President, what little Bush Jr and Obama might learn if they would merely read this book! Would Eisenhower have launched the Iraq war? I don't think so. Would he have expanded our efforts into Afghanistan over these past 5 years? I don't think so.

As Smith points out, Eisenhower, probably more than any other President, made the transition into the nuclear age with the supreme discretion that kept us from crazy war. Judging from GWB's comments about the consensus for war at the outset of the Iraq war, would he have resisted ALL of the senior military and cabinet advisers in using nuclear options as Ike did? God help us, thanks that Ike was there and not GWB.

So, I came away with a far greater appreciation for the man, for his unique and perhaps divinely guided place in this World during the awful war and as he gently and deftly glided through the Presidency. Ike made the presidency look effortless, but only because he had the managerial skill to keep himself largely out of lots of frays, great and small. In this time when we elect men, Democrat and Republican, so obviously unqualified for the office, I miss Ike. Read this well-written and non-judgmental story and you might agree........ And Ike earns a far better place in history for me than he did before. This is a great read and a giant piece about the greatness of America.

As we gear up for another Presidential election season and as the Republican party struggles to find a candidate that can best represent them after nearly eight years out of power, a reflection on some their party's past presidents will be inevitable. Ronald Reagan will be held up as the Republican gold standard, but I think Dwight Eisenhower would be a better role model for them instead. And if any Republicans, or those interested in presidential biographies in general, want to learn more about Ike, then this is one fine volume to look at. Mr. Smith wrote a great biography of FDR and I have his biography of Grant on my bookshelf, so I had some high expectations for this book. Rarely was I disappointed. Mr. Smith does a great job of pacing the story without moving too fast as well as conveying how multi-faceted Ike could be. In a sense, Ike is a simpler subject than FDR, but Smith is still able to show every aspect of Ike's life and character that contributed to him being such a great Allied Commander and then a great president. There were times when I thought Smith would not touch certain subjects only to find him tackling them head on in the next chapter. His writings on Ike's relationship with Kay Summersby during the War is meticulous without being gossipy or overwhelming the rest of Ike's story. And you should definitely take a minute to look at the footnotes he has throughout the chapters as they provide interesting details not just about Ike, but about the biographers and historians who have written about Ike as well. Nearly every issue is covered: Ike's decision to join the Army, his ability to ingratiate himself with powerful Army men and later politicians, his tutelage under MacArthur and Gen. Marshall, the series of decisions that led him to the command of all Allied armies in Western Europe, his time as President of Columbia University, and the major issues of his presidency. Many of these are well written and informative. Smith's full chapter on Little Rock was particularly eye-opening to me. Still, unlike his biography of FDR, Smith does occasionally fall into the trap of all single-volume biographies: sacrificing depth for brevity. Ike's time as Supreme Commander of NATO gets consumed by his behind-the-scenes maneuvers to secure the Republican nomination in 1952 and his second term in office is condensed into two chapters, one of which covered only a single incident. Even his eight post-presidency years only got about 6 pages! Still, this is a fine single-volume biography of the great general and president that is even-handed and fair both to the man and to those who have written about him (again, see Smith's footnotes about this). I would recommend this to anyone else who likes Ike.

"Eisenhower in War and Peace" is a comprehensive biography of our 34th President. It is exhaustively researched, with some 126 pages of end notes and 766 pages of text. The story follows the former Chief Executive from his Kansas childhood, through his long military career to his retirement at his farm in Gettysburg, PA. Besides the exhaustive research and documentation, the text is buttressed by some very sharp and clear photos of Ike's life. The editors did a good job here, considering the age of some of those pictures. The charts and maps herein are also of high quality, though there could have been more of them.

Early in the text, readers will quickly realize that Ike was a genius at working the Army system. He was very good at avoiding unpleasant or dead end postings, even at getting his orders changed after they had been cut. He always had a mentor somewhere above him-folks such as Gen. Fox Conner, Gen, George Marshall or even a 6 star General- John J. Pershing himself. The author writes that Ike "moved by subtlety and indirection. His amiable personality concealed a calculating political instinct that been honed to perfection". That "calculating political instinct" was on full display while he dumped his long time girl friend/mistress at the end of WW2.War. Chief of Staff Marshall made it perfectly plain that Kay Summersby was not coming home as the new Mrs. Eisenhower. He was to stay with wife Mamie. When this reviewer was a child during the Eisenhower White House years-but paying attention to the news- those attributes were not at all obvious. To much of the American public, he was a nice old guy who played a lot of golf.

As a General, Ike was an executive, not a fighting man. But as the Supreme European Commander, executive strength, far more so than fighting skills were required. General Omar Bradley was succinct: "Eisenhower couldn't manage a battlefield, but was uniquely gifted as theatre commander". He dealt deftly with the strong personalities of Churchill, Stalin, FDR, and Charles De Gaulle plus hardened fighting Generals Bernrad Law Montgomery and George Patton. He somehow kept everyone on the same page. The author notes that Ike was like "a giant umbrella, absorbing what came down from above, shielding his commanders from higher authority and allowing them to fight without excessive second guessing". Mistakes were made but author Smith makes it quite plain that Ike was the right man for the job as European Commander.

Author Smith illuminates Ike's Presidency. There were actually a few crises during the supposedly quiet 50s. There was the Suez Crisis, when Egypt seized the Canal; the U2 incident when Russia shot down our spy plane; the Formosa/"Offshore Islands" dispute with Mainland China and the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu in North Vietnam. Ike kept those tamped down and the U.S. free from major conflict. "The nice old man who played golf" was on the job the whole time! This part of the narrative was the strongest part of "Eisenhower" and a revelation to this reviewer.

Long after Ike had passed on, his grandson, David asked his grandmother, Mamie if she had really known her husband. Her response was "I'm not sure anyone did". That was at the close of "Eisenhower" and left a strong impression with the reader. Who was the former President? It is no fault of the author that we really don't receive an answer. Beneath that calm and amiable Kansas exterior, this very able executive of vast military and political experience appears to be a cipher. It is no fault of the author that he could not be more personally illuminated.

This is an outstanding biography of President Eisenhower that I think anyone with an interest in the man will enjoy. Smith gives us a mountain of detail, possibly so much it sometimes bogs the storyline down, but usually he has very insightful comments.

I have to say I have rarely been as distracted by footnotes as I was when reading this book. They are frequent, sometimes take over half the page and often seem to have little point other to direct the reader to Smith's previous biographies.

Smith is often critical of Eisenhower, in the manor that an admirer can be and also makes the case for his "indirect" leadership style.

OK, he gave us Nixon....but prices were paid for that. And, yes, his buddies and Churchill took advantage of his lack of Middle Eastern knowledge to let the CIA do its dirty work in Iran, and then (sans Winston) in Guatemala. Oil and bananas were saved from the non-existent commies. But he stood up to McCarthyism at Columbia, and didn't make careless military moves to save the French in Vietnam.

As I read this wonderful book and think about this complex, deeply logical and, yes, careerist man, I kept wondering two things: would we be in such a mess in so many parts of the world where military intervention has been ill-considered if not downright dishonest and budget busting, and how long would it take the Tea Party to drive him to worse than drink????? Depressing thoughts.

And yes, this is a fine book. Smith maintains a clear narrative without miring us or his footnotes in the details of scholarship, and I was pleased to see his respect for Rick Atkinson, whose trilogy has been an absolute eye opener to me.

Though I haven't thought of him for 40 or 50 years I think Smith's Grant bio is next.

Jean Edward Smith expertly strikes the balance between concise and exhaustive in this comprehensive analysis of one of the United States's finest and most consequential human beings. This biography is filled with footnotes and pictures that provide enlightening context. Mr. Smith's telling of General Eisenhower's life is honest, and for the most part the book doesn't sugar coat anything. It did seem like the biographer glided over the United Fruit Company and Iranian impropriety as if Ike was just trying to do the right thing (almost a "no-harm, no-foul" attitude), but other than that it gave what seemed to be a pretty straight forward account of the period.

Dwight David Eisenhower (1890 -- 1969) served as the 34th President of the United States (1953 -- 1961) following his career as the Supreme Commander of the Allied forces during WW II. His presidency and his generalship have been the subject of varied assessments over the years. I was a child in the 1950s and my first memories of a president are of Eisenhower. To many younger Americans, he may remain an obscure historical figure. Jean Edward Smith's new large biography, "Eisenhower in War and Peace" (2012) is an extraordinarily detailed study of Ike's public and private life. Smith is senior scholar in the history department at Columbia University, where Eisenhower served briefly as president. He has written extensively on American history, including biographies of FDR, Ulysses Grant, and John Marshall.

Although the book consists of over 760 pages of text and an additional 150 pages of notes and bibliography, the
narrative flow of the story is absorbing. Smith recounts complex military and political history in a way that is both understandable and entertaining. His writing style, unbiased presentation, and detailed documentation made me inclined to trust his judgment. Throughout the study, Smith draws useful parallels between Eisenhower and other American military and political leaders. In particular, Smith often compares and contrasts Eisenhower with Ulysses Grant in terms of decisiveness, relationship to subordinates, and military accomplishments. The most telling parallel lies in writing and in ability to communicate. Although not having the gift for words that Grant displayed in his Memoirs, Eisenhower was an excellent, clear writer, especially of his own war memoirs, and, when he wished to be, a skilled eloquent speaker.

Smith presents Eisenhower's strengths as a leader and as a person as well as his flaws. The overall impression of Eisenhower that emerges is of a strong, capable, politically masterful individual, as both general and president, who was "a man of principle, decency, and common sense, whom the country could count on to do what was right. In both war and peace he gave the world confidence in American leadership." Eisenhower's accomplishments are inspiring in an America which frequently seems to be floundering for a sense of purpose and balance. Smith aptly describes Eisenhower as a "progressive conservative" who believed that "traditional American values encompassed change and progress." Eisenhower's moderation, high sense of responsibility, and heroism will appeal to many readers.

The book begins with a perceptive treatment of Eisenhower's early life with its humble beginnings in Texas and Kansas. A military career and attendance at West Point were something of a surprise choice for Eisenhower as they had been for Grant. The first third of Smith's book describes Eisenhower's early life and the many seemingly interminable assignments Eisenhower held as a major in the peacetime army. Eisenhower showed a talent for hard work and for impressing his superiors. He developed an ability to advance himself subtly and to use his contacts with those who would help him. When the United States entered WW II, Eisenhower's rise was meteoric; but it had been prepared over a long course of time.

Smith shows Eisenhower as a political leader in WW II who had the daunting task of coordinating the allied effort against Germany and working with highly driven and egotistical leaders in the United States, France, and Britain. Eisenhower's tact and self-confidence were rare and essential qualities indeed. As a military strategist, Eisenhower had mixed results, but he made critical decisions regarding the Normandy invasion and the Battle of the Bulge. Smith shows that Eisenhower richly deserved the accolades he received at the end of the war.

Following WW II, Eisenhower served as president of Columbia and as the commander of NATO before, with a show of reluctance, accepting the Republican presidential nomination in 1952. With the end of Eisenhower's presidency in 1961, many historians were critical; but Eisenhower's stature as president has grown with time. Smith finds Eisenhower the most successful 20th century president with the exception of FDR. Eisenhower kept the United States out of war, balanced the budget, and displayed firm, subtle leadership that was not always apparent to the public. He acted with care and prudence in Vietnam against the hawkish advice of his staff and he dealt effectively with crises in Berlin, China and elsewhere. (Some of his foreign policy ventures in Iran and Central America were ill-advised and unsuccessful.) In a non-divisive, non-confrontational way Eisenhower helped lead to the discrediting of the red-baiting Senator Joseph McCarthy. He built the national highway system and the St. Laurence Seaway. In 1956, following a heart attack and in the middle of a reelection campaign, Eisenhower showed courage in resolving the most controversial foreign policy issue in his presidency -- the Suez Canal crisis which pitted the United States against its allies, Britain, France, and Israel. In an understated, politic way, Eisenhower also did more to advance civil rights than is commonly acknowledged. His Justice Department argued before the Supreme Court in favor of school desegregation in the Brown cases. In 1958, Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce a desegration decree against the recalcitrant state governor.

Eisenhower's personal life and feelings remained enigmatical even to those close to him. Smith's book concentrates on Eisenhower's long marriage to Mamie Doud and the difficulties the couple endured over the years. Smith also describes the long relationship Eisenhower had during WW II with a young British woman, Kay Summersby. It appears that at the end of WW II, Eisenhower wrote to George Marshall about his intention to divorce Mamie and marry Kay. Marshall disuaded him from this course in no uncertain terms, and Eisenhower ended the relationship in a callous, peremptory way.

This study of Eisenhower and of what was valuable and decent in him can bring hope and wisdom to a difficult time. Smith's study deserves and surely will receive a wide readership and will stimulate much discussion. I am pleased that it was offered to interested readers for an advance review through the the store Vine program.

Robin Friedman

This an outstanding work of scholarship recording the history of most of the 20th century. Two areas that every American should review is Ike’s handling of Joseph McCarthy and the response to racial integration in Little Rock, AR. Especially given today’s demagoguery by the far left and right as well as the movement away from desegregation. We could use a man like Ike to smooth out our angry and hateful attitudes.

Since Eisenhower is mentioned in almost every other book about WWII, his achievements (and also criticism) during WWII, especially on D-Day are fairly well known. However, his other achievements, such as ending the Korean War, the building of the Interstate Highway System, etc., are less known. In this biography, aside from the interesting facts and important events of Eisenhower's life, Smith really succeeds in passing along who Eisenhower was and what he stood for. Smith's writing is unbiased and he doesn't shy away from criticizing Eisenhower's mistakes, such as the CIA-backed coup d'état in Iran and Guatemala (both regimes were democratically chosen by their people). The narrative is very lucid and precise. Smith managed to set a perfect balance between making this book easy and absorbing to read and scholarly and detailed enough to interest fellow historians. "Eisenhower in War and Peace" is a great book for anyone who wishes to learn more about who Eisenhower really was and not only about what he did.

SUMMARY: Great book about an even greater person. Eisenhower's life from birth to death and everything in between to include warts and halos. Ike was smart, a good writer, and well spoken which explains his rise from Lieutenant Colonel to Five Star General in a little over five years. All of this from a man who lacked combat experience in World War I. The other factor in his life was his mentors including Fox, Pershing, MacArthur, and Marshall, big hitters in their own right. The book covers high points such Ike's conduct during the Battle of the Bulge and low points such as Ike's lost of this first born child at age 3. "First in war, first in peace..." could also be said of Eisenhower as well as George Washington.

BEST ABOUT THE BOOK: At first I thought the purpose of Jean Edward Smith's book was endless praise for Eisenhower, but I soon learned the book was filled with criticism and praise in well deserved portions. One of many examples was Eisenhower's love relationship with his English driver, Summersby, during WWII and how Ike did a poor job of ending the relationship. "Patton would have said a warmer good-bye to his horse," Smith wrote. On the other hand as President, Eisenhower could stare down high ranking generals and admirals which probably prevented nuclear war. Ike feared the day when the President lacked military experience and HAD TO RELY on his military advisers. Lastly, the footnotes in the book were well done. When a 1940 dollar amount was listed, Smith included the amount in 2012 dollars in his footnotes which was helpful.

WORSE ABOUT THE BOOK: Smith said Eisenhower wanted a broad frontal assault against Nazi forces whereas British General Montgomery wanted a single point of concentration. When Montgomery finally got a chance for such an attack, with Eisenhower's approval, the operation ended in failure. The battle of Arnhem (MARKET GARDEN) was not explained in Smith's book, but was dismissed in one sentence. Just try to find this important battle in the book index! Also, the Bay of Pigs was on Kennedy's watch, but I understand Eisenhower started the ball rolling. This too was absent from the book. The photos and maps in the book were minimal.

OVERALL: Anyone interested in military and politics of the early 20th century will find this book filled with interest stories, analysis, and viewpoints. The flow of the words and stories in the book is outstanding and enjoyable to read. Why was Camp David so named and why did Khrushchev fear Camp David when invited there by Ike? How did Ike's personal diary differ from his later writings in regards to the Bonus Marchers? Why did General Eisenhower order an airborne attack on Rome and why was it aborted at the last moment which probably saved his career? In the official victory photo at the end of the war who, standing next to Eisenhower, was air brushed out of the photo? This five star general deserves a five star book review and a sixth star if the store would allow me.

I picked up the book with the impression that Eisenhower was a proto Forrest Gump; a simple man who ascended to the presidency through luck and the benefit of pure American image. It turns out, Eisenhower was closer to Machiavelli's Prince; his rise can be attributed to his astute political skill. That pure American image? It was carefully selected.

Jean Edward Smith paints the picture of a flawed battle field commander, but skilled military statesman. The list of powerful men whose patronage he carefully cultivated is as impressive as any military or presidential accomplishment - Patton, MacArthur, General Marshall, FDR, Churchill, Truman.

The book helped me see Ike's deft hand in shaping events to his likely, but I still have a hard time ranking Eisenhower as high as Smith.

This is a fascinating biography, and hard to put down. I think the strongest sections of the biography are those that cover his relationships with other military figures, such as MacArthur, Patton, and Montgomery. Although the author clearly admires Eisenhower,the pulls no punches in acknowledging his weaknesses, particularly as a military strategist and husband. Ironically, after reading this book I have more respect for Montgomery and Patton, and less respect for Eisenhower, than I did before. I was left with the impression that Montgomery deserves far more credit than he usually gets for Allied success in World War II. Of course, I may have had that impression because I am an American, and we tend to emphasize the importance of our own leaders. It really seemed to me that, more than any other general, Montgomery made the D-Day invasion work, and if Eisenhower had listened to him and Patton after the invasion, the war would have ended much sooner. However, it took a man with Eisenhower's political skills to keep the team working together.

I also gained an appreciation of how important Eisenhower was in ensuring that the U. S. never used another nuclear weapon, and in building a lasting peace in Europe after World War II.

I felt the book was weaker in its exploration of his personal relationships, but any biographer may have had trouble there, since Eisenhower was a remote and guarded person, and even is immediate family found him to be a mystery.

History books and biographies are not just stories. Most authors intend to make poignant and valuable historical comparisons. Jean Edward Smith's power of comparison increases with each well-researched biography. As an aside, many reviewers have noted a disproportionate love or hate affair with Smith's subject at hand. While Smith references more of President Grant, as a post-war successful, popular president, in comparison to President Eisenhower, it is hard to miss the political parallels and potential perils looking forward in 2018.

Eisenhower as general and later (GOP) president negotiated a ceasefire in Korea, was embroiled in the Middle East peace process, entangled in Iran, played balance to extremists in his own party and addressed adroitly some of the most challenging race relations issues of the century. In 2018 a US (GOP) president tests the passions of war in Korea, challenges the status quo in the Middle East peace process, redirects a negotiation in Iran, is accused of instrumentalizing political extremists to his own advantage and overtly adds fuel to a renewed race relations challenge not only in America but the world-over.

In Ike's day, it was the Communist threat that could yield knee-jerk, short-sighted foreign policies. In 2018, it is the Islamist threat that divides policy makers on all sides and in every country; Muslim and non-Muslim. Where Communism was the excuse to both proxy wars and sincere partner engagements, the Islamist threat produces similar positive and negative foreign policy developments.

While there are many differences in historical context, religious movements, national social events and international threats it is still an interesting exercise to compare the similarities. Eisenhower's cabinet, as is President Trump's, was criticized for favoring members with business and management backgrounds. In many ways, the largest difference between the two eras and the two presidencies is the president himself.

Author Jean Smith sets up the early pages of "Eisenhower in War and Peace" to answer the later question: what prepared Eisenhower to do X? Ike's long tours in staff positions under the Army's leading generals (Conner, Pershing, Moseley, MacArthur) provided management and tough analysis experience. Tours in the Philippines, Panama and inter-war France honed Ike's diplomatic skills as well as provided a framework to address future cultural and political sensitivities. Eisenhower was party to the US Army's first, and very difficult, cross-country convoy exercise which, along with his impression of Germany's Autobahn, informed his resolve in founding the US highway system (which after fifty years of wear-and-tear Trump rightly promises to improve).

The experiences in peacetime framed Eisenhower's arguments in wartime. In turn Eisenhower's experience in wartime directly influenced his dedication to peacemaking as president. During Eisenhower's eight years as president, 1953-1961, there was not a single US military member causality in any foreign war. Under the Eisenhower Doctrine, when US troops or threat of US weaponry was employed, it was with such an overwhelming force that no potential enemy dared attempt resistance, according to the author's analysis.

President Eisenhower, despite his GOP credentials for smaller government, could have run on any party's ticket. As Jean Smith describes, Eisenhower was approached by both political parties at different points in time to consider running for each. His decision to run GOP did not dismantle his relationship with the Democratic Party. Ike's sincere friendship with multiple Democratic Party members, to Include LBJ, was often the only non-partisan power that could push decisions through Congress. Politics in 2018 eats its own. Donald Trump had credentials that could lean either liberal or conservative but it was political strategy that chose the latter. And instead of keeping a hand stretched across the aisle, politics has become zero-sum; political discourse with zero dignity.

General Eisenhower had his weaknesses. His political skill masked his battle inexperience. As a top graduate in military education courses, his perfect, yet untested war theory, met with a few disasters on the WWII North African front. He recovered quickly in this trial by fire through rapid adaptability while owning up to personal mistakes. As Smith explains, Ike also had a gift for highlighting the silver lining in an otherwise gross personal error.

In the heat of the Cold War Eisenhower not only maintained contact with the Soviet Union foe but considered its leader a friend. In 2017, President Trump tried the same tactic despite allegations to illegal Russian tampering in the US election process. Both Ike and Trump eluded to pursuing a nuclear response against North Korea (Ike gambled in a similar diplomatically vague message against Mao's China). President Eisenhower's approach held water because of his experience and masterful diplomacy. President Trump's threat incites fear, but still holds water because of inexperience and coarse diplomacy. Might we all be surprised when two similar strategies from opposite approaches yield positive results? But in which does American prestige remain intact?

President Eisenhower, as is argued, engaged his White House duties as a General engages his staff. His cabinet and national security advisers were free to express their opinions and valued as such but Ike retained the final decision authority. Where Ike's personal experience was lacking, says historian Jean Smith, Ike allowed the CIA greater play, specifically in Iran and parts of Latin America.

In support for decolonization, Eisenhower often stood alone; against his own party, his own cabinet and against the French and British allies. In South East Asia, Eisenhower resisted military action to support the French believing that not only the era of colonization but the appearance of colonization must be eradicated. For this same reason Eisenhower was livid at the British, French and Israeli seizure of Suez in 1956. President Eisenhower believed not only that Nasser's Egypt was within its legal right to nationalize the canal but that financing the Aswan dam (which influenced Nasser's Suez decision) was a logical Egyptian national interest and a worthy American opportunity at partnership. Alas, due to Eisenhower's health, he could not ensure the deal.

Eisenhower had the least experience with Iran. As Smith points out, the imbalanced colonial oil agreements did not influence Ike to pressure the British for a more fair settlement, as President Truman had attempted previously. What Eisenhower condoned in Iran was the predecessor to today's extremist destabilizing Iranian theocracy. In 2018 from Niger to Indonesia there are still mining rights and oil deals to be renegotiated. Communism, and the Marxist theory that supports it, may be morally bankrupt, but so also is a corrupted capitalism hiding behind outdated, development-stunting trade agreements.

Eisenhower knew that it was not only the supply side of raw materials needed a fair economic balance but the demand side also required a long term solution against not only the excesses of the military industry but the appetites of a commercialized society. A negotiated settlement is not only a more safe but also less costly alternative to invasion. Which is also why negotiation and diplomacy requires an honest broker.

Honesty, as Smith argues, was General and President Eisenhower's strongest tool of diplomacy. It was only the shooting down of the U-2 reconnaissance plane in 1960, flying over the Soviet Union, a CIA managed operation, that chipped a chink in Ike's honest armor. If it was Ike's honesty that kept potential enemies at bay and friends in continued trust, despite moments of disagreement, what can be said of a president whose dishonesty is not only proven through quantitative study but is an intentional tool of Trump's own public and private affairs.

To be fair, neither General nor President Eisenhower served in the era of rabid social media and unabated self-serving intelligence leaks. In another parallel to 2018 and in reference to Time's Women of the year 2017, is there a comparison between the sexual harassment of the 1950s and today? General Eisenhower was far from a perfect family man. His "unofficial family" included a well-documented relationship with his British driver, Kay Summersby. The intimate details are left to hearsay but there appears little support for charges of sexual harassment in the mutual relationship.

There are still more parallels to examine in terms of religion, race relations and free speech on university campuses. Despite the fact that it was under Eisenhower that trust in God first appeared on US currency and in the pledge of allegiance, Smith dismisses (too quickly according to some) any personal religious or political motive in the process. In terms of race relations, President Ike personally appealed to Billy Graham to encourage desegregation from the pulpit. Observers from all sides of Christianity in America today are still baffled at what exactly President Trump expects the pulpit to do. The moral confusion stems from the president himself.

In one of President Eisenhower's most controversial decisions of his career, he first forced the integration of government military schools and then, in the now-famous 101st Airborne intervention, spoke clearly in word and acted in deed to bring racial equality to the rest of the schools in the deep South.

Just as President Trump ran his own university, so also Eisenhower served as President of Columbia University prior to his election as American President. Along with a fierce defense of his own military colleagues and university faculty in response to Senator McCarthy's Communist hunts, Eisenhower took a stand for free speech on the university campus. It was because, not despite, the destructive Communist ideology that Eisenhower believed students needed to learn about and debate its demerits. The question is always a matter of how.

President Eisenhower not only stood for what he believed but he spoke with confidence, argued with wisdom and listened with intent. Not all military careerists are bred for political service but there are still many in the US military ranks that know the perils of war, have interacted as diplomats and who can argue as scholars. Here's hoping Trump's team contains a similar quality.

Military personnel aside, a president and their staff must be more than successful. Eisenhower, in many ways, was a success that left an example to follow. I sincerely hope President Trump leaves behind many successes, not just for America but for the world. The question I have is whether or not he will be an example to follow.

This is the only comprehensive biography of Ike that I've read, so I cannot compare it to other biographies. I'd give it 3.5 to 4.0 stars. It was a fairly easy read, and covered Ike's life sequentially from birth to death. I thought there were a few things missing from what I know of Ike from other books I've read. One major thing that was missing was Ike's reaction to the Holocaust -- his reaction when he came upon various Nazi camps (Ohrdruf). Ike made it a mission to have as many people as possible march through the camps so they could see what had happened, and this is not covered in the book. In fact, the war sort of ended abruptly in the book. It would have also been interesting to spend a little more time on the presidency -- what were Ike's opinions on the major Supreme Court rulings, and his feelings towards Earl Warren. However, overall, it was a decent read, and provided some good insights into Ike's life and Presidency.

I always thought of the 1950's as a peaceful time where the president really just had to baby sit the White House. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ike was a master of politics who kept us at peace - the consummate Army man who hated war (and refused suggestions to use the atom bomb when we were the only country with that technology). The threat from the Soviets was quite grave and history does not correctly depict just how dire this situation was - Ike handled it without military intervention or the loss of life. His accomplishments were not just in the international arena: the highway act triggered economic expansion and provided us a system of connecting all major cities that we still enjoy to this day (and it paid for itself through a gas tax) - how we could use this financial acumen today! While JFK has been credited as the hero of the civil rights movement - that designation really belong with republican Eisenhower. This book was a great read - one of the best biographies I have read in a long time.

I have read many presidential biographies over the years and we are lucky to get a new one or two published per year. This is one of the better biographies published in the last few years. I think the book could be summarized in the final words of the book from Eisenhower's wife..Basically no one really knew Eisenhower that well. This book does a wonderful job of of going through the important time frames in his life but you still never got a sense of what makes Eisenhower tick. I specifically enjoyed the author's view of presidential years of Eisenhower. I believe that any student of history would have a known about Eisenhower's impact on WW II so having the additional information about his presidential years was great. In summary, as you can tell from all of the positive reviews that this is a book you should invest your time to read.

I'm always a little leery of the comprehensive biography. I often have little interest in the minutiae of a person's childhood or college years. But Jean Edward Smith has proven himself a master biographer and author with this book on Dwight Eisenhower. One of our most often over-looked presidents, despite his well-earned fame in WWII, Eisenhower is a complex man. Smith does a fantastic job highlighting the almost schizophrenic nature of the soldier-president.

While the years leading up to WWII were perhaps the least interesting of the book, they built up fantastic momentum for the climax of his career as a general, then as president. Smith does well in underscoring where Eisenhower failed; his reputation in WWII, while not un-deserved, was perhaps exaggerated. Alternately, his reputation as president was often under-appreciated.

There are a few other good biographies of Eisenhower out there, but none as comprehensive or as well-written to the general audience as this one.

Reading this book made me realize how great a man Eisenhower was. Detractors will find much about the man to criticize, e.g. battlefield errors (every general has made many), the Kay Summersby thing, etc: However, this book reveals a man that in the totality of his life, character and contributions to our country stands far above the rest. Smith's book helped solidify my opinion that General Eisenhower is America's greatest President.

This is a classic narrative biography that is extremely well written. A biography that covers an entire life of someone who has the many experiences as Ike necessarily is superficial. A lot of the detail one would find in a more extensive multi-volume biography is missing. But, for an overview of Eisenhower this book is excellent. In recent years there have been several books about Eisenhower the president and over many years a lot of books about Eisenhower the Supreme Commander. Smith's overview should give the go ahead to read the more specialized treatments.

Jean Edward Smith's latest biography, "Eisenhower in War and Peace" is probably the best overall biography of the understudied Ike. As usual, Smith does a marvelous job in reexamining his subjects and myths that have grown up around them and translating all of it into an immensely readable book. Where he misses slightly is that his coverage of the Eisenhower presidency is oddly not as thorough as the rest of his life. Still, Eisenhower gets the same revealing treatment as FDR and Grant, and this is definitely worth a read. 4 stars.

Smith's work on previous important figures in American history has combined some of the best primary source scholarship on the subjects along with making the narrative extremely readable, and this is no exception. Eisenhower presents a problem to most writers as he is worthy of two biographies - as Supreme Allied Commander and as President - and Smith does a nice job of smoothly explaining how Eisenhower became both.

As usual, one of the highlights of any Smith biography is his reconsideration of previous long-held beliefs about his subject. Smith has previously made the case for Grant's supporting civil rights and FDR's term as Undersecretary of the Navy helping him 25 years later as Commander in Chief far more than other scholars, and Eisenhower gets the same treatment. Among other interesting bits of analysis are his criticism of Eisenhower during his disastrous turns as a field commander in North Africa, Italy, and Europe (not unique among recent scholars, but certainly well deserved and researched) and his affair with Kay Summersby (again, not unique, but akin to his dismantling of many of the myths around FDR).

Most interesting, though, is a very revealing look at just how wildly ambitious the young junior officer Eisenhower was under the surface. Much as he did 35 years later in being 'recruited' for the presidential race despite appearing above the fray, Eisenhower behind the scenes was near-ruthless in his self-promotion. His negotiation of the treacherous Pershing and MacArthur factions in the post World War I Army could do is a worthy study for any junior military officer, and his near methodical use of his mentors and relentless networking to meteorically advance his career would be familiar to most business school students today. Underneath the placid and friendly surface Ike was a very shrewd and, at times, pretty callous person.

Where the biography misses a bit is on Eisenhower's presidency. This is slightly problematic given how much Smith admires Eisenhower's administration, but Robert Caro's Master Of The Senate really outshines Smith's work here in delving into the dynamics of the era. Smith does a fairly nice job debunking many of the myths about Eisenhower and race, but doesn't do nearly as well as he defends Eisenhower's foreign policy. A good summary would be that when Eisenhower directly dealt with things they turned out fine, but when he delegated as he did in Iran they were disasters. Smith, however, doesn't do a particularly good job of reconciling the image of the great delegator-in-chief with some of his poor choices in staff. The biggest hole, however, is in domestic policy; with the exception of a brief blurb on the highway bill and social programs, one could read the book and come away with the impression that Ike did very little for 8 years domestically besides grumble behind the scenes at isolationists and red baiters.

Still, a good read, and this will be the best one volume of Eisenhower for years to come. 4 stars.

Eisenhower in War and Peace will be the best one volume biography of Ike for years to come. Smith gently and convincingly slays a number of clichés about Ike as a man, a general and President. Whereas Ike's qualities as a general are often overstated, Smith is persuasive that Ike was too often in over his head as Supreme Commander. Whereas Ike's record as President is often derided, Smith makes a solid case that Ike handled the Cold War, Civil Rights, and other issues much better than did many of his successors.

To Smith, what explains the paradoxes and anomalies in Ike's public career is that Ike himself was often so complicit in fudging the appearance of things and masking the complex reality. Ike took pride in creating for himself a public image of candor and straightforward honesty; and went to circuitous and often deceptive lengths to keep murky what was really going on. Truman was quite wrong to think that, because Ike had been in the Army all his life, Ike would be miscast in the White House, just issuing orders that would get carried out blindly. Of the two, Truman was more apt to get in trouble for being blunt, direct, and candid. Compared to Harry, Ike was Machiavelli incarnate.

Should it surprise us that downhome simple Ike was such an astute public relations guy? After all, how could have he have served effectively for so long that exemplar of rampant ego, Douglas MacArthur, without learning a trick or two about dissembling?

Some will construe the prominence of Kay Summersby as gratuitous, salacious, or just plain trendy. On the contrary, Ike's relationship with Summersby exemplifies the thesis. During the war and by his peers, Ike was often suspected of being battlefield shy. A preference for the comforts of headquarters and the solace of Summersby might account for this, which is the only thing I could deplore about the Summersby business.

Everybody who has written about Ike in the war has noted he did not bear the stresses gracefully. He smoked too much, was often ill, defensive, cranky, and whined a lot in private. True, there was a lot of stress. But there was more stress on others; Churchill, Roosevelt, Bradley, Montgomery, Brooks all managed themselves conspicuously better than Ike.
So it comes down in the end to who Ike was, Ike the man. Smith closes the book with a startling quote from Mamie who, when asked by her grandson whether she ever really knew Ike, said, "I'm not sure anyone did." That puts Ike in the FDR class when it comes to enigmatic personality.

For political legacy what we should remember about Ike are the merits of experience married to pragmatism, common sense and respect for basic human dignity. I suspect Ike would have blown his stack at wars and politics brewed up for the sake of ideologies. He knew the limits of American capacity to wage war and sincerely never wanted to see the U.S. in another.

Jean Edward Smith is a very fluid writer who tells a compelling story about Eisenhower rising from humble circumstances to become our most celebrated modern general officer and a somewhat reluctant president. Eisenhower's climb up the Army chain of command is a very interesting story about luck, good timing, and not a little bit of help from superior officers.

My complaints with the book are two-fold:

1. Smith seems too eager to defend Eisenhower against charges of marital infidelity, as well as using his connections in the Army to get out of an unfavorable posting in the South. Both of these complicate the image of Eisenhower and while all men great or small have faults, not making a closer examination of those faults leaves this biography somewhat lacking.

2. Smith portrays Eisenhower as a very reluctant Republican and clearly projects his own political sympathies when explaining Eisenhower's actions when discussing Supreme Court appointments, civil rights, his vice president (Nixon), and taxes. This isn't overwhelming on the reader, but somewhat annoying, especially as the author seems to be viewing the Eisenhower presidency through the lens of today's politics, as opposed to the reality of 1954-1960.

I just read the chapter called "Little Rock" and I am amazed how Eisenhower handled the Constitutional crisis in Little Rock. The answer was simple. It was his constitutional duty to carry out the law of the land as directed by the Supreme Court in Brown vs the Board of Education. Jean Edward Smith paints a much better picture of Eisenhower's stance on desegregation than an earlier biography by Stephen Ambrose. In fact, he substantially repudiates Ambrose's version at the end of this chapter.

Dwight David Eisenhower (1890-1969) was one "helluva" man! Jean Edward Smith the distinguished author of such essential biographies as "U.S. Grant" and "FDR" has done himself proud once again! "Eisenhower: In War and Peace" is the best biography of Ike that this reviewer has perused. This giant book of 766 pages of text is the sine qua non of popular Ike biographies. The book is more interesting than those Eisenhower books by such fine works by Carlos D'Este; Geoffrey Perret and Michael Kordan.
Eisenhower was born in a shack by the side of a railroad in Dennison Texas. His family moved back to Abilene, Kansas from whence they hailed when Ike was a boy. Six sons of David and Ida Eisenhower lived to maturity. David was a stern father while Ida provided the love the boys craved. Ike excelled as a baseball and football player in high school. He would become a devoted golfer. While POTUS he spent a good deal of his time in a cottage at the Augusta National Course in Georgia.
The family were members of the strict River Brethren Sect. Only Ike became a soldier entering West Point in 1911. He graduated in the middle of the class in 1915. This was the class the "stars fell upon" since so many general officers emerged from the Academy. Ike trained troops during World War I lamenting his lack of battle action. He became a protegee of General John J. Pershing and became friends with George Patton. Both Ike and Patton advocated the use of tanks. Eisenhower served under Douglas MacArthur in Washington and Manila. Eisenhower was an outstanding staff officer. He participated in the Louisiana maneuvers shortly before World War II and was noted for his army cross country auto tour.
Ike remained a major for several years due to the downsizing of the army following World War I.
Ike became America's best known commander of World War II. He was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force. He supervised the invasion of North Africa and was the winning commander of the D-Day landings on June 6, 1944. Ike was a great political general who was able to control such prickly and difficult generals as Patton, Montgomery and Charles DeGaulle of France. Ike had a romantic affair with the lovely Kay Summersby during the war years. She was a divorced English woman who was his official driver. Ike dropped her as soon as the war in Europe was won in May,1945. Ike and Mamie whom he married in 1916 had a somewhat rocky marriage but remained wed until Ike died in 1969. Mamie came from a wealthy Denver family, loved cards and socializing in Washington
society. The couple's first son Iky died as a child but David their only son became a West Point graduate and a general in the U.S. Army.
Eisenhower served a short time as President of Columbia University in New York and as NATO commander before running for POTUS. He went on to defeat Adlai Stevenson the Democrat in landslide victories in both 1952 and 1956. Eisenhower and his VP Richard Nixon were not close. Eisenhower accomplished a great deal as our 34th chief executive. Among his many accomplishments in office:
1. Eisenhower kept America at peace during his eight years in office. He refused to go to war in Vietnam in 1954 following the fall of the Frence colonial effort in that troubled land. He was firm to British, French and Israel allies forcing them to back down in the Suez crisis. Ike worked at detente with the Soviets. He did favor the coups conducted by the CIA in Guatemala and in Iran. Eisehower sent soldiers in to stabalize the situation in Lebanon. He ended the war in Korea and made America the most powerful force for good in the world.
2. On the domestic front Ike balanced the federal budget; constructed the massive interstate higway system and fought against extremists such as Senator Joe McCarthy and his red baiting. Eisenhower fought hard for social security and demanded supreme court justices who would adhere to the US Constitution but would be progressive in civil rights.
He forced Governor Faubus to back down on the integration of Central High School in Little Rock and was praised for civil rights by such African-American leaders as Martin Luther King Jr. Eisenhower was a progressive Republican conservative beloved by the American people.
3. Eisenhower loved to paint, play golf and cards. He wrote "At Ease" and "Crusade in Europe" which became bestsellers and earned the general a comfortable living. He and Mamie lived on their farm in Gettysburg close to the battlefield of the Civil War. Ike was a history buff who was well read. Though not an intellectual, Eisenhower had a cool command of himself and was a calm grandfatherly presence for America during the difficult Cold War era. Eisenhower had a blazing temper and could curse with skill. He did not entertain fools gladly. Ike demanded excellence in both the military and political realm. He was honest and a good man. Ike was baptized in the National Presbyterian Church and lived a Christian life.
Eisenhower was a great president and a five star general who lead us to victory in World War iI. Our nation could use him today! Congratulations to Jean Edward Smith on his excellent book which is destined to become a classic of the biographer's art.

While his wartime leadership was not in question, not so long ago history has taken a rather dim view of Eisenhower the President. This book brings new scholarship that shows that far from being a hands-off, do-nothing president, Eisenhower was a thinking, common-sense leader.

The historical significance of a president can take years to develop. No president is anything more than the product of his times and how they react to circumstances, sometimes very serious unforeseen circumstances. That 'Ike' had what it took is evident in his military record. This book helps make the sound case that he had what it took in the White House too.

Eisenhower not only commanded the Allied forces that won WWII in Europe, he was "the only president in the twentieth century to preside over eight years of peace and prosperity." (pg 550) He got America out of the Korean conflict and mostly managed to steer a course that kept Cold War tensions with the USSR from exploding at a time when his advisors regularly advocated using atomic weapons against enemies. At home he balanced the budget and desegregated the nation's schools, and retained a very high public approval. He also seemed possessed of a great deal of luck; so much so that one of his friends said his initials stood for "Divine Destiny."

Ike came across as a very down-to-earth "just folks" kind of person, but as Jean Edward Smith shows it was more than just luck that made him such a trusted leader. He had the kind of personality that made people trust him and he had an uncanny knack for politics. This is an excellent and very detailed biography that shows Ike's level-headed approach that defused events that could easily have gone out of control. It details Ike's successes (such as walking a fine line with China, standing up to Britain, France, and Israel to win the respect of Egypt, and giving Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy just enough rope to hang himself) as well as his failings (Iran, Guatemala, and the Gary Powers U2 debacle with Russia). And the chapter on the desegregation showdown in Little Rock held me absolutely spellbound. The book is filled with photos that highlight the events and footnotes that provide additional detail.

But it's not without some issues. Smith ends the book with an anecdote of Eisenhower's wife being asked by a grandson "whether she felt she had really known" Ike. She answered "I'm not sure anyone did," and in spite of the tremendous volume of detail included here, Ike remains something of an enigma and I felt a certain lack of depth. Ike's terrible temper is mentioned many times, but we only get cursory examples. Even the war-time affair with Kay Summersby feels like it's kept at arm's-length. Smith says in the Preface that "Ike's generalship has often been disparaged" but Smith does the same thing, describing much of Ike's management as a series of errors of inexperience that were rescued by Montgomery and the British. In fact, Smith seems to give undue authority and attention to sniping potshots from generals with axes to grind. (I'm not saying it couldn't be true and accurate, but it doesn't have much feel of balance to it.) And the endless comparisons to Ulysses S. Grant were tiring.

Nevertheless, this is an excellent - if long - read. Smith highlights many instances where other biographers (especially Ambrose) have ignored or misrepresented stories and facts, and he convincingly corrects them with credible details. It may not have the life and color of David McCullough or the insightfulness of Joseph Ellis, but it's an admirable history of an elusive subject.

This is the second biography by Jean Edward Smith that I have read, the other being "Grant." "Eisenhower" was just as interesting, informative and well-written as "Grant." Smith did a great job of research and set forth Ike's life in a well organized manner. While laying out his life chronologically, Smith went from issue to issue, and major event to major event, in a concise, understandable way. He did this in detailing Ike's time as Supreme Commander of the European theater in WWII as well as his eight years as president. Smith also did a great job in bringing out Eisenhower's true character and personality, showing a man of uncommon common sense and an integrity that was second to none. I also appreciated the insight into others who were a part of his life. Particularly fascinating to me was the insight into men like Patton, Bradley, Montgomery, Truman, Dulles and Nixon. Smith also occasionally drew parallels between Ike and U.S. Grant (both generals who became presidents) that made for excellent reading. A great book! I recommend it!

This is a enthralling biography of Eisenhower. Basically, Eisenhower strength was his personality. He was a very likable person who others immediately wanted to help Strong individual worked hard to help Eisenhower develop. People came to his aid in crucial times and he moved forward. He was given command of Europe by FDR in part because FDR liked him and he could work and play well with others.

The book does an excellent job of showing the development of Ike's personality . He learned from his errors. At his core he was a strong man but it is hard to call him likable. He moved on and left folks behind him. The last line of the book which quotes Mamie as saying no one ever really knew him was insightful. Also Smith emphasizes that Eisenhower was aided by being lucky but as it is said luck is often the result of hard work.

As others have said the portion of the book dealing with the Presidency seems like as outline. While we see Eisenhower struggle in the Army, as President it read as an outline. We never see the the growth or struggles as in his earlier career.

The book is helped by Smith's comparison to Grant. He historical similarities made the book more interesting.

Just finished reading it. Great Biography of Eisenhower. It showed his good parts and bad parts of his personality and actions and sought to correct any misinformation that may have been in other, earlier, biographies.

I've read a few Eisenhower biographies, including Stephen Ambrose's, but Jean Edward Smith definitely tops them all. A few things that stuck out and might be useful when comparing this biography to others:

The first thing I appreciated is that the author doesn't rush to World War II, as so many other Eisenhower biographies do, but rather explores and explains Ike's career before then. In fact, Ike's pre-war life takes about the first third of the book. This allows the author to present some fascinating anecdotes I hadn't read before, such as Ike's reaction to spending some time commanding an all-black platoon.

Second, Smith is extremely evenhanded in his assessment of Ike as a man, a general, and as a president. Smith is direct in his condemnation of Ike's military tactical skills, especially during the North Africa campaign. Ike seemed wedded to the idea of broad, frontal assaults, rather than more concentrated thrusts. At the same time, Smith takes care to put some of Ike's more controversial decisions, such as his reactions to McCarthyism and civil rights, in the context of his approach to leadership and conflict resolution.

I was a bit disappointed that Ike's second term and last decade of his life scarcely covered 50 pages. In particular, Smith never even discusses the new programs the government launched in reaction to Sputnik or the effect Sputnik had on Ike's approval ratings. Smith just says Ike's calmness reassured the nation, but most other accounts tell of mass hysteria and a perception that Ike was out of touch (he probably wasn't, but that was a common perception). Maybe Smith felt these issues had been covered in other books (the literature on Sputnik itself could fill a small library), but the gap does mean that readers will probably have to supplement the book to really understand Ike's later years.

Finally, Smith spends a lot of time with the Kay Summersby affair. He seems intent on marshaling enough evidence to prove that an affair did happen. However, compared to the epic backdrop of World War II, I found myself caring relatively little about Ike's love letters. More interesting was the revelation that some Democrats had threatened to blackmail Ike with a letter during the 1952 election.

Overall, this book is highly recommended. Jean Edward Smith's biography will hopefully reintroduce America's most underrated president to readers at a time when we could use some of Ike's subtle leadership.

This is the first major biography about Eisenhower that I have read. Most of what I knew about him came from general histories of World War II or other histories of the US. I always had a favorable impression of him and it was fun to learn more about him.

Smith did an excellent job making this read very enjoyable and easy to follow. It is evident that this book is well researched, and he has also brought to light many details that show that Eisenhower was human after all.

I found it fascinating that his major strength was his political skills, and that his military skills were not at all impressive. It reinforces the profound importance of coalition building and being able to get people of diverse backgrounds to work together. I found many lessons worth learning in his life. He truly was a great president that had the strength of will to keep us out of war.

I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in Eisenhower or history in general.

Jean Edward Smith in Eisenhower in War and Piece has produced a biography that is thorough, deep, and readable--a hard trifecta indeed. Most biographies are either surface-level accounts or so chalked full of information that the readers head is spinning. It is a safe bet that most of us can identify Eisenhower as a United States president or one of the most famous military figures of last century, but many of us, me included couldn't offer much else on the subject of Eisenhower. The Smith book was a great introduction because it was chalked full of detailed and sourced information, but it also provided a fairly balanced account of the man, both in success and failure. Some biographers fall into this hero worship state that produces love tomes. Not Smith, who openly questions several of the decisions Eisenhower made throughout his military career throughout the world, while producing the portrait of a man of principle that brought those principles into actions.

If Americans think of Dwight Eisenhower at all, they wedge him into a standard narrative. He appeared out of nowhere to command the Allies in the European theater of World War II. He became president a few years later, presiding over a sleepy administration. The postwar growth of the nation was inevitable and Ike was too old and sick to be president anyway. That's the standard narrative and Jean Smith throws it over the side.

Eisenhower--'Ike' to everyone--was born into deep poverty in Kansas. He was appointed to West Point on the basis of a merit examination (a rarity. Most appointments are payback for political support). This combination of effort, talent and good fortune were to pursue him for the rest of his life. Smith describes Ike's passing through a series of apprenticeships, first Pershing, then MacArthur and Marshall. During the entire building of his early career, he had few occasions to exercise direct command. Instead he played more of a political role, smoothing relationships between government and military. His career accelerated and he was eventually placed in command of forces in Europe. Good fortune played a part, as did Ike's unpretentious country-boy manner. Beneath it was a calculating mind.

On assuming command of the European allies, Ike quickly proved himself no strategic or tactical genius. There's no substitute for the experience he didn't have, but Ike learned quickly. His real brilliance lay in his ability to recognize the strengths of his generals and to lessen the impact of their weaknesses. He knew (contrary to the 'standard narrative' ) that Montgomery was the best military mind he had, and he consistently put Monty in the most critical roles. The Normandy invasion was the largest military operation ever, requiring the co-ordination of government and military. It is easy to see the many ways it could have failed. Smith's description of this period is riveting.

The period after the war was not well known to me, so it came as a surprise to learn that Eisenhower was a key founder of NATO at the same time he was president of Columbia University. During this time, he was repeatedly approached about his interest in running for President. Smith leaves little doubt that Ike harbored the ambition. He was equally determined to leave no fingerprints on his manipulations of both major parties. Once again, an 'aw shucks' demeanor hid a shrewd man. Jean Smith shows the Eisenhower presidency as a dynamic period. Ike reached out to leaders of both parties when necessary. His ability to play the long game meant that his opponents never knew what hit them.

Jean Smith never shies away from showing Eisenhower as a whole man. His strengths are towering and his failings often surprising. Stories vary of his wartime affair with Kay Summersby. Smith speculates little on the level of physicality--there may have been little or none--but it was a love affair that stretched over the duration of the war. When she became a possible impediment, he summarily ditched her. Ike's behavior toward Truman was petulant and churlish, as was that of his wife toward Eleanor Roosevelt. But I developed a new respect for Ike's simple Americanism. He did much to pave the way for the downfall of Joe McCarthy (a stain of a man). He consistently opposed censorship of any form, believing that the only way to understand an opponent was to get to know them. The conduct of his presidency in the process of integration was surprising and heroic. This section of the biography sat me straight up in my chair.

For many biographers, it's important to penetrate the subject to such a depth that they know the mind of that target. The biography may then proceed with the sure knowledge of the subject's intentions. While very good work has often been done with that approach, Jean Smith shows admirable restraint in avoiding such a path. He never speaks for Eisenhower, even when so much is available from Eisenhower's diary. Smith DOES show that Ike, like any human, is perhaps not fully aware of his own intentions. Actions often belie thought. A brief example comes from the period when Eisenhower was offered the presidency of Columbia University. His diaries are full of his intentions to settle down in a small town, perhaps taking the presidency of some small college. But time after time, his ambitions move him toward the larger stage. Ike was always ambitious, but perhaps it was necessary to think of himself in a more simple way. To his great credit, Smith does not try to fill in the gaps. There are many things we can't ever know, and Smith has the confidence to leave it that way.

There are unfortunately a number of nagging small errors of fact. Smith insists on calling the Medal of Honor by its misnomer "Congressional Medal of Honor". His medical commentary is untrustworthy and he needs to confer with an actual doctor. Smith seems to think that Eisenhower's early episode of shingles was a skin disease and was mainly psychosomatic. Shingles is caused by a virus, and is primarily neurological (even though its external manifestation is on the skin). By the same token, Ileitis is most typically autoimmune in nature--it's not the result of bad eating habits. I couldn't help but wonder if the book--as good as it is--was permeated by similar small errors. I do hope for a second edition to tighten up these details.

Eisenhower served his country admirably for over half a century. Time and time again, he placed his faith in the ability of people to work together and to respectfully speak their minds without censure. He reached out to those who opposed them, attempting (and often succeeding) to find a way for everyone to win. Much is made of his farewell address to the nation, especially his warning about the military-industrial complex. His warning in that regard went unheeded: military contractors have a stranglehold on our national purse. Smith emphasizes another line in that same speech. Ike said that America "must avoid becoming a dreadful community of fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect". In that regard, I fear we have failed him.

While this book does indeed provide a personal history of Eisenhower, it's primary concentration is on Eisenhower as a leader "in War and Peace" and that makes it great reading for students of history, leadership, and the presidency. Beyond the content itself, it is a well told story, written with an eye for details that inform, rather than simply piling on dry fact after dry fact to show the reader the level of research conducted.

What emerges is the portrait of a often-underestimated man. As a member of "Generation X" , I've always thought that many Baby Boomers oversimplify the 1950s and Eisenhower's presidency and exaggerate the 1960s because to them, their Childhood was a "simple time". Of course, every decade is full of complexity, and Eisenhower faced unique challenges as the first president to have to deal with the very real possibility of full scale nuclear war.

Any reader of this book will come away both educated, and entertained. As any reader of history knows, that's a great achievement.

Jean Edward Smith (FDR; Grant; John Marshall; George Bush's War) is one of my favorite biographers. His current book, Eisenhower in War and Peace, is among the best. Anyone willing to spend the time will be entertained and informed about Eisenhower. Every chapter has insights which inform our current understanding of war, government, and leadership. For example, the chapter dealing with how Eisenhower formed his first Presidential Cabinet is amazing. His dealing with his military aide and driver reveals so much about the man. In many ways, the emergence of Eisenhower as a military leader was accidental. The section dealing with his marriage and how it cooled after the death of his son is heart rending. The book is 976 pages, but don't let that keep you from opening it and settling in to its rhythm. Negatively, if you get hooked on the writing of Smith you will end up reading all of his books.

This is an amazing and objectively written book. I am embarrassed that I knew very little about President Eisenhower and astonished that his name is not mentioned very often. His profound leadership in the military and presidency appealed to both Democrats and Republicans. He was immensely popular with the American people and tried to have peaceful relationships with world leaders. Highly recommend reading this great book.

This book has two parts that have two different styles. The first part is a detailed description of Eisenhower's life until he became President. It is thorough and balanced with both praise and criticism. This part is worth 5 stars. *****
As soon as he becomes President, the book undergoes a dramatic change. No more thoroughness, not more criticism. It skips from one highlight of the presidency to another with only unadulterated praise. Written in a style that would be worthy of Eisenhower's press secretary, this part barely earns 2 stars. **

The author was quite informed about Ike and, in my mind, admired him in the presidency. I was put off by the author's seeming obsession with the alleged affair between Eisenhower and his female driver in England, Kay Summersby. I did enjoy how the several crises were handled by Ike (the U-2 incident, Suez, Lebanon, Integration of Little Rock HS, etc, Eisenhower exhibited the calm and cool command presence he showed throughout his military career. You can the man out of the Army, but you can't take the Army out of the man.

For those familiar with this author's previous books on John Marshall, U.S. Grant and FDR, you know Smith's biographies are thorough detailed narratives, filled with anecdotes and first-hand accounts, analyses of the historical record, some personal opinion, a little wit and - yes - lengthy. The books are also very readable and engaging. Eisenhower In War And Peace is no exception and a very worthy addition to this author's legacy and - I won't be the only one to note this - timely - particularly for those of us who weren't around when Ike occupied the White House, let alone acting as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in World War II.

Smith excels at bringing his subjects to "life" and one of the many ways he does this is through "balance", both in chronology and judgment. In this book the author constructs a firm foundation of Eisenhower's early life before he assumed the international stage. This evolution of Ike's work habits - particularly while in uniform, Eisenhower was a workaholic - intellect, character and specifically his confidence, all critical in understanding the military commander and political leader Eisenhower became. He learned from his mentors, including Fox Conner, Douglas MacArthur and George Marshall, and also did not hesitate to use these connections to pull strings when he felt he needed their assistance.

And though the author is a big fan of his subject he also doesn't pull any punches when chronicling Ike's mistakes, shortcomings or missteps. For instance borrowing a page from Max Hastings' literary play-book, Smith has no problem making military judgments, i.e. Kasserine Pass in North Africa. Also Kay Somersby, Ike's "driver" during WWII, is also covered extensively here. And although not "salacious", Smith's narrative makes it very clear the two were very close, regardless if the relationship was "physical" or not.

(On a side note, Bernard Montgomery is handled objectively here. Smith able to separate Monty's difficult personality from his military talent/accomplishments - a distinction not many historians have been able to do.)

Although the myth that Eisenhower was simply Mr. Magoo has largely been dispelled, Smith does an excellent job reconfirming that Ike was much more than just a good-natured, bumbling administrator, focused on his next golf game, i.e. taking the "Peter Principle" to new heights. Eisenhower may not have been a military genius, but he was a supreme commander and leader of men. (It's difficult imagining anyone else assuming the role he did as Allied Commander in WWII, let alone succeeding.) An expert delegator, Eisenhower had no qualms about making the difficult big decisions and taking the responsibility for making them. This most famously evidenced when launching D-Day in June of 1944, but he did this time and time again throughout his career - Dien Bien Phu, the Suez Canal crisis and sending in the military to integrate Arkansas schools - just a few examples. (Ike's ambivalence about Richard Nixon a notable exception.)

Eisenhower assuming the presidency was not an opportunistic "accident" and the country is a better place for his eight years in the White House. The operative term prevalent throughout this book - and possibly the biggest "eye-opener" for readers - is "learning", for although Ike may have not been the definition of an intellectual, his brain was constantly working while he deliberated.

An excellent biography and highly recommended.

In a US election year for President, is inevitable that there will be new works on the records of previous people who have held that position. Adding new perspectives and insights to those former presidents with the passing of time allows readers and interested parties to be able to minimize emotions of the day and look at the record and the person with a reduced bias.

Eisenhower came to office in a time when America was tired. The effects of the Depression were still slightly felt and in people's memory, the agony of WWII was very real to returning soldiers and their families and the evolving world tensions were real.

Author Jean Edward Smith has written a balanced perspective of the person who evolved from the structure of the military where he excelled to deal with the conflicts of national and global politics.

This very detailed biography that shows Eisenhower's calm approaches that neutralized global events that might have erupted. The book highlights his presidential successes, including negotiations with China, discussion with Allies on the issues of Israel and Egypt, and his dealings with the debacle of Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy.

The book does address for balance some of his failings, including, Guatemala, the U2 fiasco with Russia and Iran. The chapter on French Indochina (Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos) shows the beginning of what became an American embarrassment in an undeclared war for reasons not always understood. As a general, he is described in detail for his qualities as an administrator, organizer and negotiator with other military generals including Montgomery, Patton and de Gaulle. It is candid about his shortcomings as a field commander, especially in North Africa and the later stages of the Normandy invasion.

* The strengths of the book are that it is comprehensive, detailed in narrative and it offers a side of the man, general and president that many of us had not fully seen. The book includes many photos that underscore events and the footnotes provide additional detail.

* The limitations are that it is at times meaninglessly far too long. While I enjoy certain long books both in novels and in historical narratives and not want them to end, this book has modest selectivity and minutiae is in too many places. At times, it is hard to find structure, which offsets some excellent writing overall.

Readers should be aware that half the book is on Eisenhower's military career, one chapter on his term as Columbia University and the balance on his presidency and this blending of information seems a bit out of balance to me

As time has passed and the emotions of the day have been tampered, we can see a number of accomplishments:
* Domestically, he balanced the budget
* His term included eight relative years of a growing economy. While Chapter Twenty leads off with the quote that "Eisenhower is the only president in the 20th Century to preside over 8 years of peace and prosperity", other historians might remind readers that Presidents Reagan and Clinton had their periods of the same.
* He generally followed Truman's actions in Korea and was able to develop a course of action that avoided an escalation
* Eisenhower generally kept Cold War tensions with the USSR from igniting to another potential world war, which was contrary to counsel from his advisors who advocated using atomic weapons against enemies. In doing so, he avoided the mistakes of following president Lyndon Johnson (who blindly followed his advisers' suggestions and ignored his own judgement, deferring to their "educated wisdom").
* He addressed to some degree the issues dealing with desegregating the nation's schools and the chapter on the desegregation showdown in Little Rock is well done

Eisenhower retained a high public approval through most of his terms and the author shows in some detail what made him a trusted leader.

I found this to be a generally non-partisan representation of a President who has generally been underrated. My awareness and respect for Eisenhower from reading this book has grown, as his records of accomplishments and limitations have been documented fairly. One can appreciate his competence as one willing to make logical decisions, to evaluate talent on merit more than favoritism and to embrace politics from insight and conviction.

Dr. John Hogan, CHE CMHS CHA
HospitalityEducators
HoganHospitality

I have very little to add to what others have said about this superb biography of Ike. Jean Edward Smith is certainly up to the task, having penned a first-rate volume on FDR. This biography does justice to all major phases of Eisenhower's life, including his childhood in Kansas during which his father and mother inculcated a solid sense of morality and resourcefulness in him, service in World War 1, the period between the wars and finally his time as Supreme Commander during WW2 when he entered his life's most important period.

Smith brings out Ike's unique blend of toughness and charisma, resolve and kindness and reveals a formidable leader who could cajole and charm his subordinates into accomplishing great things. Here was a leader who genuinely cared about his troops and on the eve of Operation Overlord, crafted two letters to release to the press, one of them assigning total responsibility to himself should things go wrong. Smith also sheds considerable light on Ike's relationship with Kay Summersby. His abrupt termination of the relationship, done as much for political reasons as anything else, was one of the few times during his life when he appeared cold-hearted and selfish.

Finally, Smith's account of Eisenhower's tenure as president is riveting. The greatest lesson today's politicians can learn from him is an ability to compromise without sacrificing what is thought to be right. Eisenhower was a tough politician, but one whose toughness was complemented by a nuanced understanding of politics not as ideology but as the art of the possible. It is sobering to realize how much more accommodating and empathetic he was compared to many of today's politicians. For instance, you can hardly imagine any Republican today saying, "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed". Today Eisenhower would probably be denounced as a socialist for saying these words. We have become too accustomed to categorizing politicians as hawks and doves, but what Eisenhower was was a tough dove. We are in dire need of more of those.

All told, in this work the reader will encounter one of the most slick and sinister revisions of history you will ever encounter.

On its face this biography seems to be well written, even majestic, considering the author’s sweeping command of the subject matter and elegant prose. Indeed the author hews to a logical, consistent trajectory of Eisenhower’s life, from birth to death. In fact, I think the author’s great talent is at the root of the problem – so easy is it for him to command vast amounts of material, and set it down on paper coherently and gracefully that he has abundant talent to spare in employing that material to a nefarious purpose.

What is that nefarious purpose? Below I intend to prove that the author’s chief intent in writing this biography was to reinterpret Eisenhower, or to pioneer the way toward reinterpreting Eisenhower, as a “progressive” who if alive today would have more in common with modern liberals than conservatives.

What would be the author’s motives for recasting Eisenhower thus? Of course, I can only guess at motives, but I submit that the motive lies in the fact Eisenhower’s popularity was such (he was one of the most popular President’s in history, throughout his entire presidency, even more so than FDR, and far more so than current liberal icon, Barack Obama); his popularity was such that the Left in America has been forced, ever since, to air-brush the 1950’s, and especially Republican Eisenhower, out of discussion (in the media, classroom, etc.) of modern American history, or recast the 1950’s for the public as a dark era of cold war hysteria, red-baiting and suppression of civil rights. The Left has always juxtaposed the Kennedy era as a new dawn of “hope and change” after the dark night of the 1950’s. I think the author of this work is boldly trying to lead the Left into a new paradigm of understanding the 1950’s; that is, rather than try to suppress the truth of a Republican’s overwhelming popularity, why not explain that particular Republican’s popularity by redefining him as someone the public didn’t really understand? To wit, in the closing sentences of this work, the author relates a verbal exchange that is supposed to have taken place between David Eisenhower (Eisenhower’s grandson) and David’s grandmother (Ike’s wife). The young David asked his grandmother, “Do you feel that you ever really knew Dwight David Eisenhower?” Grandma replied, “I’m not sure anyone did.” By closing the biography with this statement by Eisenhower’s wife, the author insulates himself from criticism for having reinterpreted Ike as the author, and the Left, would like Ike to be remembered. The author can always defend himself, by saying, “If his own wife of over 50 years didn’t really know Dwight David Eisenhower, who can insist that my portrayal of Ike as a progressive is fallacious?” I intend to show that not only is the author’s portrayal of Ike is fallacious, it is diabolical.

To begin with – the author softens up the audience for reinterpreting Ike’s worldview by characterizing Ike’s parents as crackpots. According to the author, Ike’s father was a crackpot because although he was born with enormous advantageous he squandered them by electing to remain a common laborer and embracing religious mysticism. His mother was crackpot because she embraced a religious sect that was the forerunner antecedent to the Jehovah's Witnesses.The author insinuates that only blockheaded conservative-types take religion seriously and Ike was wise enough to keep his parents example at arm’s length. However, the author fails to explain why Ike and all his many male siblings achieved notable success and distinction in their careers, if they were all raised by conservative crackpots. Nor does the author explain, if Ike was “progressive” as the author claims, why, later in life, Ike attributed his own deep religious sensibility to his father’s influence.

The second technique the author employs to bring the reader around to thinking of Ike as a modern progressive is by constantly, chapter after chapter, insinuating that Ike had an affair with one of his younger female staff members. The author has no concrete proof to offer, but his readers are supposed to be crafty enough to understand that where sexuality is concerned, where there is smoke, there is always fire. The author also tries to link Eisenhower, in the minds of the reader, to philanderer Bill Clinton - Ike wrote memoirs, as most presidents do, but of all the presidents since Eisenhower, the author compares Eisenhower’s memoirs only to Clinton’s memoirs.

Having laid this foundation, the author now begins to build his edifice, and with a flourish. The author relates (truthfully) how Churchill pressed hard to keep pressure on the Soviet Union in the immediate aftermath of surrender of Nazi Germany. Eisenhower, supposedly showing his progressive tendencies, resisted what the author characterizes as Churchill’s red-baiting. The author even suggests that Churchill’s views on the Soviet Union were informed by reading Goebbel’s (the notorious Nazi propaganda minister) diary. In other words, Churchill thought like a Nazi, whereas Eisenhower thought like a modern liberal - tolerant of communism. For the many chapters that follow, charting Eisenhower’s progress long into presidency, the author hammers this point. Eisenhower, was a supposedly a progressive, tolerant of opposing political systems, like communism, and Eisenhower was a bulwark against an “old guard” of “calcified”, “red-baiting” Republicans in the Congress (and his own cabinet) who would have ignited World War III if not for Eisenhower’s progressive, nay liberal, moderation. All through this work, conservatives in general, and Republicans in particular, are characterized as blockheaded, excepting Eisenhower. Why is Eisenhower not a blockhead (as liberals have always believed)? Because this author has discovered that Eisenhower was not a conservative at all, but instead was an enlightened progressive, just like the author obviously believes himself to be.

However, the author faced a problem – how to deal with the inescapable reality that the Democrats (that is, the progressives) of Eisenhower’s era were, by modern liberal standards, as reactionary as it is possible to be. Simple – by the technique of spending eighty-five percent of the book vilifying Republicans, and then towards the end of the book, when discussing massive Democrat failings, neglecting to mention the label “Democrat” at all (or hardly at all). Here is how the author did it – toward the close of the book the author introduces the subject of the African-American struggle for civil rights, as if it was only an issue late in the story of Eisenhower’s life, which is a lie. Nevertheless this is what the author does. Then the author explains that Eisenhower was a progressive champion for civil rights, and that he faced tremendous opposition from blockheaded, racist southerners. We are treated to the (truthful) details of villainous opposition to equal rights for blacks that Eisenhower encountered from the Governor of Arkansas, the Governor of Georgia, and almost the entire southern U.S. congressional delegation (not to mention the Southern populace), and only once in all this recounting does the author point out that these southern blockheads were DEMOCRATS. They are never characterized as “crackpots” or as the “old guard”, or as “calcified” as Republicans are throughout this work; they are simply described as opposed to civil rights for blacks. Of course, the informed reader will know that it was the Republican Party, including Eisenhower and the “calcified” Republican members of congress of Eisenhower’s era, which had been champions of civil rights for blacks dating back to Abraham Lincoln (FDR has kept the military segregated, Eisenhower de-segregated it). It wasn’t until after Eisenhower left office that the Democrats (like Hubert Humphrey) successfully schemed to wrestle the moniker of “civil rights champions for the blacks” away from the party of Lincoln.

So, if you’re prepared to believe this author, and read or approve of this biography then you must, on the one hand, believe that Republicans (excepting Eisenhower) of that era were hopeless blockheads for staunchly opposing communism, all the while they were champions for civil rights at home; and on the other hand, you must accept and believe that the Democrats of that era were enlightened and progressive for their toleration of communism, all the while they were ruthlessly, and even murderously, suppressing equality for African Americans throughout the South.

In sum, this author is communist (who, in truth, probably doesn’t give a hoot about blacks except to the extent that the voting support of the blacks undergirds the Democrat party) who wants to reshape the collective memory of the American people about Eisenhower, by reinterpreting Eisenhower (after all, not even his wife “knew” him) as a progressive, so that people will begin to get the idea that the REAL reason Eisenhower was so popular, is that he was misinterpreted, up until THIS work, as a conservative when in reality he was a progressive as we would define that term today. Since Eisenhower was actually a progressive, that is why he was popular, since as everyone knows, it is impossible to be conservative, and Republican, and be popular at the same time.

Avoid this work and find a biography that at least makes an attempt to get at the truth.

Jean Edward Smith has written an excellent biography on Eisenhower. The book will give you an excellent understanding of Eisenhower's upbringing and his rise through the military ranks (with the help of people in the right places). Eisenhower "missed out" on the First World War and his training and beliefs in war, as Smith writes about, are tested in WWII when his broad front stategy slowly wears down the German forces, but at the cost of many more Allied soldiers that were caught in the slow moving front towards Germany.

The book continues into Eisenhower being President of Columbia University, his rise into politics and the issues he faced as President. It's a great read and Smith clearly did his research. I do not think I found out anything that I did not already know about Eisenhower, but Smith's writing and research bring Eisenhower to life and show that his hard work, luck, opportunities, and his ability to deal with the great personalities around him in WWII and beyond paid off for him and for this nation. He was not a perfect person and Jean Edward Smith notes that in many parts of the book (Ike's military strategy, his alleged affair with Kay Summersby, etc...) but he does an excellent job of revealing Eisenhower as a great leader in a time when this nation needed someone with his abilities to be a leader in the war room and the Oval Office.

This is a very good book that is a must read if you want to better understand Eisenhower and the world he lived in.

One comes away with a much different feeling about our former Supreme Allied Commander; nothing too bad, somewhat disappointing when it comes to strategy and his pedestal might be seen as somewhat "less august" than before. He was a better president than military tactician and his relationship with Monty and his driver was certainly more cordial than one has been led to believe. A first rate biography of Dwight Eisenhower.

The book was very informative, excellently researched and a pleasure to read.
The Kindle version left much to be desired.
The endnotes at the end of each chapter, had no way to get around them. You were forced to read them, not able to skip to the next chapter.
At the beginning of each chapter there was a quote from the subject that was formatted for a specific font. If you had a larger font, it was completely unreadable.
Kindle format has been out for a long time now, it was very disappointing to see such amateurish problems with such a good book.

I've wanted to read a bio of Eisenhower for quite some time. I knew he was the Supreme Commander and that he was a President of the United States, but that was it. I knew there had to be more to this important man, and Jean Smith certainly showed me the man the Ike was.

Eisenhower's early career is one of performing and knowing the right people at the right time. His early military career was one of pulling favors when he knew that he was not going in the direction that his career could excel and improve. This led him to interacting with some very important men, men who we know in the history books as accomplished generals. Pershing, MacArthur and Marshall all acknowledged and respected Ike as he worked under them. Patton and Bradley were his peers. As he leaped over many senior officers from lieutenant colonel to major general he came in contact with the likes of Roosevelt and Churchill, who not only knew him but respected and liked him as well. Worked with Montgomery and Alexander. In a time of great men Eisenhower somehow seemed to shine brighter than them all, even when he was the inexperienced general who had never led men in combat. After WWII he was instrumental in creating NATO, diffusing Cold War aggression for a time, made England, France and Israel stand down against Egypt using economic sanctions. He desegregated government facilities before it was mandated by law and enforced the law to the letter. I have much respect for Eisenhower and firmly believe he is one of the better Presidents that the US has ever had.

Smith did an absolutely fantastic job in not only conveying the facts but supplying the narrative that tied everything together. I couldn't help but find myself so engrossed that I hadn't even noticed how much time had passed. Smith's grasp on not only history but of the politics of the time leave the reader with a much more rich and full experience as you delve in to Eisenhower's life. I particularly like how Smith didn't gloss over Ike's faults. He told us when Ike was great, and he told us when he fell short. Warts and all, which is how a biography should be written. I come away with a very good understanding of Eisenhower and much respect for perhaps one of the few men who could have led the US through the troubled times during WWII and the years after. Smith conveys this and shows the resolute man with the will power to stick to his guns on not only domestic issues but foreign as well. A definite recommend for not only the book but the author. I look forward to reading some of Smith's other books.

5 stars.

This is the third biography by Jean Edward Smith that I have read and each one has been outstanding. His biography of Ulysses S. Grant is the finest single-volume biography in print, while his FDR rivals any single-volume biography of him in print (with the proviso that the best biographies of FDR are multi-volume affairs, such as those by James MacGregor Burns and Kenneth Davis). While presidential biographies have been one of my reading passions, for some reason I have never before read more than a brief biography of Eisenhower. This is all the more surprising since the European theater of WW II has been another area I've been deeply interested in.

Smith's biography of Eisenhower shares the virtues of his earlier ones: a sense of both the strengths and weaknesses of a dominant personality; a willingness to examine both the high and lowpoints of a career; a refusal to either engage in hagiography or to pull a revered figure into the gutter. Smith always seems to get things just about right, acknowledging someone's genuine accomplishments without putting them on a pedestal or making unsupportable claims for them.

Eisenhower is frequently criticized for not being one of our more intelligent presidents, something backed up by his limitations as a strategist in WW II. But Smith reveals him as in fact both a highly intelligent and extremely competent leader, someone who throughout his military career distinguished himself with his ability to take on and master a wide range of responsibilities. Smith does not try to minimize the many serious errors or ill-advised decisions he made during his military and political careers.
But by the end of his book Eisenhower has emerged both as a better president and more interesting person than many of us would have imagined possible. Some of his mistakes were very serious indeed, but Smith emphasizes his capacity to learn from his mistakes. Sadly, the nation as a whole did not always learned the lessons that he did.

I really can't recommend this biography strongly enough. This is the perfect book for someone interested in the American presidency, in the Fifties, in WW II, or just great biographical writing. This will likely be remembered at the end of 2012 not only as one of the great biographies of the year, but as one of the best books . . . period. The kind of book that wins a Pulitzer Prize or National Book Award or Bancroft Prize.

Superb biography of Eisenhower. It gives you a new perspective on facts and events you may already know about. I particularly appreciate that the book talks about strengths and weaknesses as it tells Ike's story. No papering over his mistakes, while still leaving him the sympathetic role he deserves.

There is a rhythm that established biographers nurture: the methodology of selecting a new subject. I love the thought of an accomplished historian finishing a text and saying: " That person deserves a closer look." Jean Smith had biographied FDR and Lucius Clay. I think I was as anticipatory as was Mr. Smith when that fellow Eisenhower seemed to consume a lot of attention and energy.

I was as excited about Smith's new effort as was well, Smith. He writes with such velocity. Having read all of his previous bios ( "Lincoln" then ""FDR" are my favorites) I was excited to dive into another of his works. And while I found "Lincoln" bundled and plodding, this text surprised me. The narrative, although safely in chronological order, is written in a more casual way, minutiae off to the side, with a panoramic yet chiseled style that snaps Ike's life neatly together . A chain of events method .

Jean Smith produces a calculating, methodical Eisenhower life. How else to explain the crude manner in which Ike ended his relationship with Kay Somersby? The same relationship that compelled Ike to discuss divorcing his wife with General Marshall to marry Kay. By the way we discover this situation will arise again in Ike's life on the morning of his inauguration. (see below) Smith's analysis is not a Dr. Phil sitting on a bar stool one, but a subtle soothing and sifting of the facts that brings light onto a cocooning effect: the military world with its stars, starched uniforms, and a thousand years of stand-offish history; a sequestered world that circumnavigates the public world of public leaders.

An historian of Smith's caliber acknowledges that many people who achieve fame -like Eisenhower -were often the product of an insular and internal process that chafed elbows with external events. Such individuals do not explode into our consciousness but rather shuffle Charlie Chaplin- like onto the world stage. ( Grant comes to mind) In Ike's case you get a cauldron of ingredients. Tepid steps and then explosions of success even when totally unexpected (Although his wife Maime understood the importance of mentors for Ike's career.) Sometimes life's exposures doesn't guarantee one's responses to circumstances. But in Ike's case, according to Smith, you can sense the inevitability. Smith gives Ike a micro Zeitgeist.

When I am finished with a bio, I ask my self a few questions; did I "meet" the subject, have a cup of coffee with him/her? (I had met A. Schom's "Napoleon".) Any new revelations that I was not aware of. Or an expansion on a particular matter that I had encountered in my readings. This bio met my challenge.

Smith has given the reader some wonderful gems such as insight into the childish snubbing of Pres. Truman the morning of Ike's inauguration. (Here comes the Kay Somersby and General Marshall situation again.) Smith's analysis of Ike's behavior that morning in the context of what he had accomplished in life to that point is spot on. Smith shows no favoritism here.

Plus, Ike's 1919 Army -sanctioned cross country auto motorcade and the nascent notion of national highways .Ike's adept and charging ahead style of enforcing the Supreme Court's desegregation ruling in 1954. But Smith notes Ike's seemingly clinical management of the civil rights issues. I was looking for conviction from Ike, but sensed Ike dealt with this matter not unlike the manner within which his whole career was founded: a square peg into a square hole. Pretty basic approach. I especially liked Smith's management of Ike's time as President of Columbia University while his limousine seemed to be sitting idling, waiting for the "call." Good stuff.

Finally there is a unique situation in biographies when the author is able to draw pararells with the present subject and that of a previous studied subject. Here, Smith does a wonderful job juxtaposing Gen. Grant with Gen. Eisenhower, especially initial battlefield misjudgments and the process of maturing on the job.

Great read. Great Author. Great robust subject- especially a president rising to the top tier of ranked presidents.

I just completed "The Admirals" by Walter E. Borneman and can't wait to write a review. By the way, who doesn't love history!!??

[email protected]

Jean Edward Smith is one of America's greatest biographers of political and military leaders. In this remarkable book, Smith has brought together all of his experiences to produce a magisterial, memorable biography of Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Ike is paradoxical: he is at once one of the best known but least understood figures of modern American history. Smith aptly opens and closes the book with acknowledgments of Eisenhower as an enduring enigma.

If Ike the man is impermeably opaque, his life and work has been thrown open by the assiduous research of Smith. 'Eisenhower in War and Peace' is compelling in its reportage and interpretation of every aspect of Ike's journey. One sees him as a young, small-town boy eager for a wider stage. One sees him at West Point, where he was not a preeminent student in his formal education, but whose approach served him well in later roles.

Smith, himself a veteran of military service in Europe during the Eisenhower administration, has a good feel for the realities of the armed services. Combined with his scholarly skill, this results in convincing understanding of Eisenhower the military man.

So, too, Smith is persuasive in making his case that Ike, along with FDR, stands as 'the most successful president' of the last century. That judgment might well be challenged or qualified, but Smith is on firm ground nonetheless.

Ike's strengths as a president can be traced back to his development in the course of an extraordinary military career. So, too, there may be limitations that also stemmed from his moving his military management template into politics. For example, Ike seems somewhat tone-deaf to the power of vision and communication in public life. Given the accomplishments that Smith recounts, one can imagine that a more skilled communicator, such as FDR, would have weaved a narrative of corresponding power.

There are a number of good books on Ike, from writers as diverse and talented as Stephen Ambrose and Michael Korda. They all must make way for a new, indispensable addition to the Eisenhower literature.

Jean Edward Smith delivered an incredible story of a great man who, in my view, is one of our greatest American hero's. Given today's geopolitical environment this book gives us all hope that our country will ultimately prevail.

My acquaintance with Dwight Eisenhower is only from pictures. I'll always remember his Presidential portrait hanging above the door of my grandparents' den. My grandfather was a delegate for Eisenhower, and always admired him greatly. While he was a Navy veteran (Pacific theater), his views on war were definitely in line with Eisenhower's-- we do what we must, but we don't glory in it.

This is a very comprehensive biography. Some commenters noted there's almost too much detail, but I truly appreciate the level of exploration and analysis Smith is able to do through the document base. I especially appreciate his familiarity and explainations of the military structure and adminstration during Eisenhower's service. Eisenhower's career path through the Army and his evolving duties is especially intriguing.

The only aspect of this biography that brings this work down a bit, imo, is that we have no questions about where Smith stands politicially. Personally, I found this intrusive. It is fine for authors to have a viewpoint, but to insert themselves so much with their opinions based on the current political climate detracts from the overall quality of the book. Even if Smith had personal or professional encounters with some of his informants, it doesn't excuse the adjectives or observations inserted throughout this book.

A monumental work nevertheless.

As the dust jacket blurb asserts, Smith is "indubitably America's most distinguished biographer." "Eisenhower in War and Peace" is detailed and erudite, but also exceedingly well written. It is a masterpiece of the biographer's art. Highly recommended!

I remember Ike as a paradox: a successful military leader with the genial demeanor of a country grocer. I was unprepared for learning that Ike was a man of enormous calculation, essentially cold and ambitious enough to subdue every passion to the pursuit of his goals.

This is a work of deep scholarship and not for the casual reader. I read quickly, but even with nightly reading, this book took me over a month to read, contemplate and absorb. This will doubtless stand for years to come as one of the best Presidential biographies.

Outstanding - real inside insights due to his many letters or stories. Ike epitomized honesty and truth in spite of all military and political pressures. If you want the inside stories - from military to president - you will get it here. Most enjoyable.

I had no interest in this volume when it first appeared. After all, Ike is surely one of the blander presidents in our history, no? But after adding bios of Truman and LBJ, I realized this book would give me a consecutive string of Presidential bios from FDR to Nixon, which would be nifty.

Turns out Ike isn't as bland as I thought. Still, the book was only "pretty good." Smith's style is fine, but there's no flair here, no literary spark that grabbed my attention. He's no McCullough, certainly. In some ways, this bio felt superficial and rushed. For example, I was rather shocked to find that Smith didn't include the well-known message to troops that Ike issued at D-Day. How can you leave that out of a bio?

There was also one instance (I wish I would have marked it so I could find it and share it here) where Smith made a flat-out assertion that someone or something was the best/greatest/most of all time, and that was that. It seemed a bold claim to make without any support.

Excellent biography. This is the only one I have read about Eisenhower, but I found it very thorough and compelling, without adding unecessary details. Many biographies add too much details of what happened, and less introspective on who the person is. This biography addresses Eisenhower cor who he was, nkt just what he did.

It is almost unbelievable that one man could have been much a part of the ascendancy of the United States to world leadership during the twentieth century. Ike's honesty, innate goodness and dedication to duty comes through even in those situations in which he did not succeed to the extent he desired. Much like Machiavelli's Prince, he affected world affairs but with a firm hold upon basic human dignity. We were fortunate to have a leader such as him in the 1940's and 1950's and would benefit today by his leadership.

I was born in 1978, well after the era of Dwight David Eisenhower. So prior to this book he was only known to me from history books and a cursory knowledge of WWII. But I have always been interested in this man whose life and leadership impacted much of 20th century American life.

Jean Edward Smith delivers a fair, honest portrayal of perhaps the last genuine American hero, a man cut from the cloth of a different era. What is so interesting about Eisenhower's life and leadership is that perhaps his only exceptional skill was his ability to navigate tough politics. This proved invaluable as Supreme Allied Commander and as President. Eisenhower's reputation as a hero gave him the stature to make tough decisions, to bring diverse and unbending egos together for greater missions.

As a military man, he was the benefit of much "luck" (or I would say Divine Providence) in moving swiftly up the ranks of the military to assume top positions such as Supreme Allied Commander, Army Chief of Staff, NATO Commander. He was the architect of the D-Day Invasion.

Jean Smith weaves together a remarkably interesting story, including Eisenhower's hard-scrabble upbringing, the tensions in his marriage, his seeming (though unproven) affair with Kay Summersby, his military successes and failures, and his term as President. Readers will enjoy this fascinating biography and come away with many leadership lessons. Men of Eisenhower's stature come around once every generation. And today American could use a few more men with the leadership skills of Dwight David Eisenhower.

"[I]t was in Hungary and Romania and Yugoslavia and other parts of central Europe and the Balkans that the most heartless crime of modern history was perpetrated, under the authority of General Eisenhower, in command of American occupation troops. (Although it was later proved that General Eisenhower was exceeding his own authority in carrying out this program of 'repatriation' by force.) For Stalin demanded that all refugees from Soviet territory, civilians and military alike, who had fled from Soviet rule since 1939, now be forcibly returned to Russia. And Eisenhower made it a function of the armies of occupation to carry out that demand.

"In this compliance with Communist purposes, somewhere between two million and five million human beings, including tens of thousands who had fought valiantly on our side in the war against Germany, were forced into boxcars at bayonet point -- amid epidemics of suicides by the most pitiful means and beyond all calculations -- and were transported to Soviet territory, and to the torture and death which awaited them there. This whole massive procedure was so merciless that it was officially known in Pentagon records as 'Operation Keelhaul' -- referring to the most savage of all the punishments meted out by the sea captains of old.

"In the United States today there are still huge numbers of former GI's who remember with horror the part they were compelled to play in so cruel a campaign of betrayal and extirpation of Stalin's most dangerous enemies. But very few large-scale crimes have ever been kept so little known. When even these former soldiers, as American citizens now on American soil, have found it so futile or so unwise to speak up about the orders they had to carry out, you can readily imagine the effectiveness of this massive horror, in deterring and destroying resistance on the part of central Europeans to the ensuing enslavement of their countries by the Communists." ~ Robert Welch, "The Truth in Time," November 1, 1966

Well-written, comprehensive, and drawing on fresh research, this should replace Stephen Ambrose's EISENHOWER: SOLDIER AND PRESIDENT as the go-to biography Dwight Eisenhower for the foreseeable future. Jean Edward Smith covers the trajectory of Eisenhower's life, from his beginnings in Kansas to West Point and years spent under Douglas MacArthur, from Supreme Allied Commander in World War II to President of the United States.

Eisenhower has long been recognized as an able military commander for his leadership of Allied forces in Europe during World War II. Even though he was promoted quite rapidly -- ahead of more senior officers -- after the U.S. entered the war, Eisenhower proved himself up to the difficult task of managing the alliance, from dealing with prickly personalities (like Bernard Montgomery's, George Patton's, and Charles DeGaulle's) to balancing the demands of all alliance partners. Eisenhower was no strategic or tactical genius, but he approached genius with his diplomatic management of the alliance. Smith underscores this.

It has taken longer, however, for Eisenhower to be recognized as a good, let alone great, president. The process began with Fred Greenstein's THE HIDDEN-HAND PRESIDENCY, which showed that Eisenhower was craftier, smarter, and more firmly in control of his White House than previously believed. His smile was winning, to be sure, and it won him favor, but there turns out to have been substance beneath it. He was not an innovator or ideologue, but more than just the smiling face of the 1950s, he was a shrewd political operator.

Smith covers these two elements of Eisenhower's dynamic life and blends them into an eminently readable biography.

Smiths account of the life of Eisenhower provides a insightful look at a man who shaped the last century. By providing rich context to all the major events, Smith frames the significance of the role Eisenhower played in creating the world we know.

The account lacks somewhat in creating understanding of the motivations and thoughts of this great man, but even his contemporaries lacked that understanding. What is clearly understood is the honor, patience and dignity with which Eisenhower acted

A great man a very good book

Smith does a pretty nice job overall but his focus on the Eisenhower-Summersby relationship is odd, to say the least. Most historians discount Merle Miiler's account of an Ike-Summersby love affair as a complete hoax. Nothing in the interviews Miller had with Harry Truman were even close to be the charges that Miller leveled. One reviewer went to great lengths to criticize (rightly) Stephen Ambrose for his fabrications about Ike but no one seems to pay any attention to the total lies propagated by Merle Miller about Eisenhower's "affair" with Summersby. I think the fact Smith bases so much of his book on a complete fabrication calls the entire book into question. A very readable book but with a great many flaws.

Doesn't matter your political leanings, this is a tremendous read of one of our most interesting presidents during what Jean Smith demonstrates was far from a sleepy easy time. From Normandy to Gary Powers this bio delves deeply --- but in an entertaining and captivating way --- into the challenges Ike faced and how he managed them. A great read for anyone interested in our immediate post war history, and also for anyone who wants to understand our heritage!

I read Smith's FDR book and was delighted to find this one. I was riveted by the subtle turns of fate that brought Eisenhower from obscurity to the leader of the allies in WW2, and was likewise surprised to discover the moral bedrock that made him a fine if under-appreciated American president. Although I had previously read Stephen Ambrose' bio, this book was so rich in detail that I was never bored or thinking, "Wait, I have heard all this before."

Great book. Great read. But for me, I would have liked to have seen more maps included along with the descriptions of the various German/French campaigns. Otherwise, a wonderful profile on an often overlooked president.

This book succeeds in its goal to present Eisenhower as a human being, emphasizing the multiple influences on his development (particularly during the wars) and the successes and failures of his Presidency. If you're looking for a book on Eisenhower's time as a general, the D'Este bio is probably a better choice. But if you want to understand how an obscure colonel ended up with 5 stars and became President, this is the book. I was particularly impressed with Smith's mastery of the Army between the wars and how much he took advantage of his previous work on Lucius Clay. Ike's tumultuous relationship with MacArthur is given full treatment here, as is Ike's ability to use his Army contacts to manage his career (especially, but not exclusively with Fox Conner - who deserves a full scale biography of his own!) The material on the Presidency is particularly effective, organized as a series of critical decisions, rather than just a recitation of facts and dates. Strongly recommended!

While I thoroughly enjoy reading well written biographies, I don't usually find myself rushing though evening chores so I can grab a bio and get engaged in it before bed, like a well written mystery novel. I did for this book. This book was one of those rare non-fiction books that kept me engaged through the whole thing. Eisenhower was President when I was born and so I knew very little about him. He certainly flew under the radar compared to other contemporaries of his. From his childhood to his retirement as President, the book covers most of his life in great detail. The author helps us understand how this complex character could be so successful, even though (like the rest of us) he had his flaws. The book talks about his ability to wage war, coupled with his ability to keep the peace. A truly great American. If there is any issue with the book, it is that the author glosses over his retirement years. 60% of the book is Eisenhower the warrior, and 35% is of the Presidency, but I felt cheated to learn more about Eisenhower the farmer/retired statesman. But that is relatively minor. This book will find a treasured spot on my bookshelf.

Comprehensive doesn't begin to describe one of Jean Edward Smith's biographies. It is a good start, then you must add detailed, readable and entertaining. What Smith has doen for John Marshall, Lucian Clay, U.S. Grant and FDR, he now does for Dwight D. Eisenhower, one of our overlooked presidents. Although there have been numerous books about our 34th President, none have been this comprehensive or as objective. Smith doesn't hesitate to discuss in detail Eisenhower's marital problems, his extramarital affair during World War II, as well as his now remembered efforts in the area of civil rights and others. This is an outstanding book.

Historian Jean Edward Smith's new biography of Dwight D. Eisenhower, "Eisenhower in War and Peace" is a wonderful examination of a brilliant general and a fine president. More than either of these titles, Ike was truly a great American. Tracing his rise in the U.S. Army, Smith points out the role both luck and ambition played in Ike's career, as well as the links forged with other great officers like George C. Marshall and John J. Pershing.

The Chapters on World War II are brilliant and make one appreciate the role Ike played in both the Mediterranean and on the continent of Europe. Smith, a former army officer himself, offers a grand look at the D-Day landings and Ike's crucial role. Ike's White House years make for equally great reading and further deepen one's appreciation for Ike's service.

This is a fine study that highlights the virtues of truly outstanding leadership. Recommended.

Good easy book, but it's just not informative on domestic US policy-making, just a lot of boring abroad stuff during presidency. This crap is over 300 pages of the book. It does give a fair assesment of Eisenhower as general, he could've ended war in 1944 if he listened to Montgomery but more lives had to be lost thx to indecisiveness..

I got this book expecting another dry recitation of the facts about Eisenhower and his presidency, and I'm pleased to say that author Jean Edward Smith gave me quite a surprise! Eisenhower in War and Peace is a rich, detailed volume about our 34th President, from the life he led as a youngster in Abilene, Kansas and his time as a cadet at West Point, through his wartime years, his marriage to Mamie as well as a wartime affair with Kay Summersby, into his presidency and beyond. There are some out there who might deem this book a little too detailed, but I think Smith nailed it right on the head in showing Eisenhower as a human being -- flawed, but who did the right thing when it came down to it. I enjoyed this book, and it is my hope that other readers will as well.

Republican Presidents are always vilified by the left-wing. It is crucial to socialist movements that all opposition figures be constantly defamed, no matter what the truth may be. The principle was laid done by Lenin in his 1902 "What Is To Be Dome?" and amplified by Trotsky, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Goebbels, Mao an into the modern era by Alinsky and others.

Thus, Dwight David Eisenhower, an extraordinarily capable man who had already proven his mettle in commanding the African and European Theatres in the greatest, widest-ranging war in history is still today assaulted by left-wingers as an incompetent, do-nothing, affably stupid figure as President of the United States. It is pathetic and revealing that the same people who mouth worn-out assaults against Eisenhower for having played golf while in office are silent when reminded that their current hero has played more than 100 rounds of golf in just over three years, far more than Eisenhower in the same time.

Accomplished biographer Jean Edward Smith has approached Eisenhower's life and accomplishments without biases. His research has been prodigious and exhaustive.

He brings to us a portrait of Eisenhower as an unusually effective administrator and manager of other men. His early life was influenced by the America left-wingers hate: the America of opportunity, where ordinary people guided by a simple morality believed they could, through acquiring an education, working hard and honest behavior, make something of themselves. For Eisenhower, there was no need for racial, gender, ethnicity or sexual preference allowances to give him an advantage. He came from humble origins, secured an appointment to West Point, studied hard, entered the United States Army and worked effectively in a series of jobs, gaining notice as an unusually able administrator.

His great test came as a commander of Allied troops in World War II, not on the battlefield, but as the executive commander of a sometimes fractious coalition where many of the players were prima donnas. Eisenhower was one of several remarkable men who commanded the American and British forces and economies of the time. Roosevelt and, to a far lesser extent, Churchill, had the great good sense to leave the war fighting to their military men, while they guided the political aspects. Both these leaders also appointed and largely left alone subordinates who achieved incredible accomplishments in terms of providing and transporting war materiel. Roosevelt brilliantly allowed General George C. Marshall and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to be largely unhindered. No one knows Roosevelt's reasoning in appointing Eisenhower as commanding general of the African and European forces, but it was the right choice.

As you read this account, it is impossible not to be awestruck by Eisenhower's performance under the pressure of resisting the various special interests in the form of cantankerous and often over-rated military leaders like Montgomery, emperor-wannabes like de Gaulle (with whom Eisenhower developed a close and sincere friendship), the glory-seeking and sometimes reckless Patton, the steady and plodding Bradley, the Air Force Generals, the politicians and more. Smith addresses the issues that concern the small-minded, such as whether or not Eisenhower had a sexual involvement with his British driver. Who cares?

Many of Eisenhower's decisions on the conduct of the European campaign remain open to "what-if" argument almost seven decades after the last shot of WWII was fired. So what? Rational people re till debating the strategy and tactics of the American Civil War, far more than a century later.

As President, as Smith makes very clear, Eisenhower was equally remarkable, a capable and competent administrator who got things done through other people, including the elected representatives in Congress. Though the left-wing deride Eisenhower as the "do-nothing" President, history records a different story, one of a growing economy, a nation at peace and improvements in the nation' infrastructure. In all, Eisenhower, as Smith explains, accomplished a great deal for the good of the nation.

Fair-minded people reading Smith's biography of this great man will learn a lot about Eisenhower, both in terms of his personality and intellect and of his performance as five-star general and President. He, Eisenhower, was quite a remarkable man, which Smith makes abundantly clear.

Jerry

Smith managed a rare balancing act: he combined extensive primary source research with strong writing...and that's not easy. He could have challenged Eisenhower a bit more, however, particularly over his civil rights record. Nonetheless, "Eisenhower: In War and Peace" may be the strongest biography I have ever read.

Here is the man. He won't be overshadowed by the Supreme Allied Commander or even The President of The United States. He will shine though all the magnificent achievements with his humanity intact and you will come to know the forces that molded and drove this complicated human being as never before. Oft overlooked and viewed as the Great Caretaker of the country's postwar peace and prosperity, he is revealed to be acutely aware of the threats that faced the newly greatest nation on Earth and he has been proven to be eerily accurate in his final warnings and admonishments to the American People. Read it for yourself, for your children, and for our future. Smith previously turned his exhausting eye on FDR and produced a tome that opened up the man amidst the legend and he has surpassed himself with his exemplary portrait of Dwight David Eisenhower as we used to say "warts and all"

I found the majority of this book to be very informative. I got a good picture of who Eisenhower was as a person, in a relatively unbiased way. It was also enjoyable to read most of it. It was, in general, very well written.

However, the book is way too long. It's over 800 pages, and at least 200 of those could have been pared off without affecting the author's ability to show us who Eisenhower was. The author got sidetracked with delving deeply into events that were off-topic. This was especially noticeable to me in the 250+ pages about WWII. The author spent a lot of time introducing us to various players in WWII, lots of pictures of other leaders, various battles, planning, etc. It was like the focus was on the war itself. At least half of that section could have been gotten rid of as it did nothing for our understanding of Eisenhower.

Still, I enjoyed 3/4 of the book enough to give the whole 4 stars. It would have been 5 though with some serious editing to eliminate 200 pages. I would recommend this book to those interested in the topic, or who enjoy biographies or "popular" history, however, feel free to skim when needed.

The book is great but the book binding is shoddy. After getting through approximately 120 pages, pages 25-48 detached from the binding and fell out. I am quite dissatisfied with the publisher-Random House, and will think twice about by a book that they publish.

Well written book. Informative, and seems to be from an impartial viewpoint. He points out the issues, and both sides of the argumant as opposed to many books that either glorify or vilify others (e.g., Patton, Montgomery). I thought that it could have had a nit more depth in some areas; but that might have made it too long.

Good bio. Tries to be unbiased and most of the time it succeeds. Would have liked to read more about Ike's reaction to the holocaust atrocities committed by the Nazis and his sentiments about the Jews.

Smith misinterpets the salty language of the past as bias and spends too much time on the potential affair with Eisenhower's driver.
The review misses Ike's constructive work in the Phillipines, Italy, and even more on the reconstruction of Western Germany that began as soon as soldier had their feet on the ground.
Eisenhower clearly recognized that many German bureaucrats were Nazi Party members as a means to keep their job and provide party membership fees to the NSDAP (just like mandatory union membership in the USA) but that they were were aboslutely necesarry to maintain the infrastructure of Germany vis a vie the removal of these people in Sicily who replaced by Mafia members who remained in office for decades.
Eisenhower initiated the sytematical screening for new leaders of all generations beginning with Adenauer the former mayor of Cologne; to Erhard, the minister of ecoomics and student of a Jewish Nobelist who had escaped to the USA; and Franz-Joseph Strauss, a former lieutenent, to mention a few.
Eisenhwoer also initiated the Gewerbefreiheit that took the shakles of the economy and substantially contributed to the German Wirtschaftswunder. The fair treatment of German POWs who continued to support the 'Amis' even now in their nineties.
The reviewer misses the interpretation of the Military-Industrial Complex as the "Military-Social/Medical Complex" that he tried to avoid by creating a catastrophic health insurance beginning at $10,000 paid for by the US Government thus creating an upper ceiling under which prvate health insurances can work safely (Ref: Peter Drucker). This was blocked by the Democrats because it might have obviated the 1965 and 2010 health care legislation in the US that passed undread. The book misses the departation of the Kossacks.
Altogether, the book adds some interesting details but is to biased because of his left tilt.
Andre N.Minuth, MD, Fresno, CA [email protected]

Great book , however, I strongly urge you to offer it in audio book CD format. In CD format it can be quickly enjoyed by simply inserting the CD in an automobile CD player.

Please offer it in CD format!

Don Dale

The first half of the book is entirely conventional. There is nothing of great interest, and certainly nothing new. Basically, the first half is an expanded version of what you learn in high school and your run of the mill tv documentary.

The second half of the book, post-world war II, becomes ridiculous. The author clearly holds the all-too-common view that all good acts must, by definition, have been performed by a liberal democrat. Thus, even though I had been taught my entire life that Eisenhower was a republican, it turns out that he was apparently a liberal democrat. According to this biography, Eisenhower never even had a small squabble with democrats in Washington. In fact, the only Eisenhower opponents identified in this book were . . . that's right . . . republicans. It's hard to imagine why the republicans would ever support Eisenhower as their nominee for president twice considering the fact that he was their enemy. The ridiculousness reaches one of its many peaks when the author concludes that Eisenhower felt more hate toward Joe McCarthy than he did for Hitler. Really? Eisenhower hated a rabble rousing name-caller, who as far as I know never killed anyone, more than he hated the murderer of tens of millions of innocents? It's all so absurd. As far as I could tell, there is absolutely no new revelation in this book. It is a rather bland re-hash of the general events of Eisenhower's life, but told from the perspective of an insulated academic structuring history to fit his fantasy. The book is relatively well written though, which is one thing that distinguishes it from most "academic" works.

Smith obviously had no intent to view the man critically. He doesn't even blush at reporting Ike's comments regarding his post-war visit to Russia. His reference to Stalin as "benign and fatherly" went completely unchallenged and unquestioned by Smith. Eisenhower's stated conviction that we could get along with the Soviets if we just tried to understand each other is treated as inspired and thoughtful. In truth, Eisenhower was right about the Soviets on nothing! His instincts were one hundred and eighty degrees off course, as opposed to Patton, for example. Smith however acts as if Ike alone had all the right answers, completely ignoring how history has proven Ike wrong without exception.
When there is no way to white-wash Ike's shortfalls, Smith ignores them. Not a single word about losing Cuba to Castro. NOT ONE!!
To make this "excellent clerk" out to be anything more than that is a work of fiction, not biography.

I just listened to an interview with the author on the Republic Broadcasting Network. For the record, the interviewer was a rather unorthodox woman named Deanna Spingola.

What struck me about the interview was the author's denial of established historical facts like the starvation blockade of Germany during and after World War I and the use of German POW's for forced labor after World War II.

There are long Wikipedia articles about both these subjects. Google "Forced labor of Germans after World War II"
and "Blockade of Germany." Here's a quote from George S. Patton from the first article :"I'm also opposed to sending POW's to work as slaves in foreign lands (in particular, to France) where many will be starved to death." He also noted "It is amusing to recall that we fought the revolution in defense of the rights of man and the civil war to abolish slavery and have now gone back on both principles."

Probably any good treatment of World War I would discuss the starvation blockade. One I just finished recently is Politics of War: The Story of Two Wars Which Altered Forever the Political Life of the American Republic

The author discredited himself in the interview. He's either ignorant of some of the basic historical facts of the period he's writing about or he's the equivalent of a Holodomor denier.