Eisenhower: A Soldier's Life

Rating:
Summary: A Compelling Story, Fair Writing, Poor Proofreading
Review: There is so much compelling in Eisenhower's story and his rise from obscurity, (he was a major for 16 years) to command of the greatest invasion in the history of armed conflict. D'Este gets most of telling this story right, especially the battles. D'Este also compellingly conveys the loneliness of command; you could cut the tension with a knife the morning Ike decides, based on the weather report, to launch the invasion of Europe on June 6th. The weight of that decision, and the fate of so many men, must have been crushing.

And yet I can't recommend this book. There no cohesive narrative flow; D'Este jumps around too much and as a result makes it hard to follow him sometimes.

Even worse, this book is replete with factual errors, some galling. His map of Northern Africa in 1942 confuses Algeria with Morocco. How the hell does that happen? Ike's father apparently married at the age of 2 based on the dates cited in the book. I could go on, but there is no point.

Instead of this book, pick up Ambrose's two volume bio.

Rating:
Summary: Many new insights into a supposedly well-known career.
Review: This book left me wondering who the hell Eisenhower was. I also got the impression that I shared that curiosity with Ike himself. It confirms all the bad mouth of him I heard during and after WWII while in the military. For example, one very high ranking officer who was in a position to know offered this assessment: "He never made a decision in his life! He left them to his staff and took the credit if they were right, and blamed his staff if they weren't."

This book confirms the near truth of that without exactly saying so. Eisenhower may have been a "soldier statesman" using euphemistic terminology, but it appears to me from the testimony of this deeply researched book that he was more of a man in a grey flannel suit. A company man. Also an apple polisher and "yes" man. These, of course, were exactly the traits necessary to make him the ideal man for the job that made him famous, "Supreme Commander" for the allies in Europe. If he had been any tougher in his decisions and in enforcing them he'd have been fired, or had to resign. He was, as the British said, "Chairman of the Board."

Having lived those times and been familiar with the famous names, I can't think of a single man who could have filled his shoes. D'Este suggests that Gen. Marshal was considered for the job and wanted it. I think he'd have been canned as too abrasive in the long run.

Ike's lack of combat experience was often painfully apparent as this book shows? It also shows that those who had such experience screwed up as often as he did. Examples are his principal subordinates, Montgomery and Bradley.

One strong point of this book for history buffs is the detail on Eisenhower's youth and early career. He was born into a very poor family headed by a father with problems that Ike may have inherited. First was a recognition, profoundly apparent in his father, that he was a born loser (which his son may have inherited and gone to extreme lengths to deny to himself, conceal from others and overcome in any case. ) Second was his father's inability to show love, or much emotion at all.

Eisenhower frantically engaged in contact sports and was a workaholic for whatever reasons. Men such a Pershing and MacArthur almost worked him to death, with little protest from him. It made him indispensable as a staff man and prevented his serving with troops, which he sorely wished to do. It also ultimately brought him to the attention of the top men in his profession on whose staffs he performed remarkably well and faithfully. Because of this Gen. Marshall ultimately recognized him as the Chairman of the Board that they needed in Europe to manage the prima donnas from several nations who held the top military commands. This made Ike famous since he automatically got credit for their successes. This book led me to wonder, however, if even becoming President ever really overcame a dark inheritance from Ike's roots.

Perhaps unrealistically, this book is full of episodes of grown men blowing their stacks, especially Ike. I was never yelled at by a General in my life and worked for a lot fo them, and never raised my voice at a subordinate in anger. It isn't typical military conduct, and especially not becoming livid while doing so like a kid with a tantrum. Big men becoming livid, like high school kids, is a chronic condition in this recital.

This is a tour de force of detail, a convincing revelation of the truth of Gen. Orville Anderson's appraisal: "We didn't beat the Germans because we were better men, but because they were stupider than we were."

On balance, a depressing book, since it is inevitable to conclude it is telling it like it was. The book suggested to me that I should read or reread a lot of other WWII memoirs and the biographies of the principal characters, since I am curious to know if during WWII, I and most Americans in and out of service, were living in an optimistic "fool's paradise" induced by war propaganda as this book suggests to me.

Ike's unhappy relations with his wife are also covered sketchily. I'd bet she was the classic example of a woman totally unqualified by background to be a military wife, or even an upper class one...

Rating:
Summary: An analysis of Eisenhower's military career.
Review: This book tells just about all a person would want to know about Eisenhower's career as a soldier. From the early days when he pined for a combat command but was always assigned to staff jobs up to the end of World War II when he was the Allied Supreme Commander in Europe and a five star general. According to this book, he was still basically an administrative and political general all through the war. His number one achievement seems to have been keeping the Allied forces working more or less together, which seems to have required mostly politics and compromise. He doesn't seem to have ever been a tactician or a strategist. His command was constantly plagued by the personal ambitions of his subordinate generals, Patton, Montgomery, and Bradley. As per the book Patton was a genius at tactics but very unstable at times; Montgomery was an exceptional battlefield general but also a prima donna; Bradley was a competent general but a bit on the conservative and dogmatic side. Keeping all these personalities cooperating must have indeed been a tough job. Adding on all the other duties, including the vast administrative work made Eisenhower's job more than one man should have to do. Failing to delegate some of the other duties seems to have been one of his faults.

The book doesn't go into a lot of detail about the supposed assignation with his woman driver, Kay Summersby. It states that Eisenhower had little time for such a thing and little time when he wasn't surrounded by a lot of people, making it tough to have such a relationship. It does sound like he had a lot of interest in her.

Eisenhower's tremendously heavy decision to postpone the D-Day invasion for one day because of bad weather and then to go ahead with it the next day on the strength of a guess by his weather forecaster is given a pretty good treatment. The weather as it was on D-Day seems to have helped rather than hurt the Allies, so he couldn't have made a better decision.

There are some pretty good insights about the end of the war and the Berlin situation.

Parts of the General's early life were a surprise to me. It's interesting that he was a bare knuckle fighting champion and star athlete in his boyhood. He was also slated to be a star football player at West Point until he permanently injured his knee in cavalry training.
The fact that he was an expert cook and a world class poker player was a surprise to me.

All in all this is a worthwhile book for anyone who wants to study World War II or military history.

Rating:
Summary: Dwight Eisenhower--For Better and Worse
Review: This is a powerful, compelling and probably destined to be somewhat controversial book which captures Dwight D. Eisenhower in a different light than past biographers. Carlo D'Este has carefully and thoroughly woven together exhaustive research to describe with often brutally honesty "Ike," the man. Eisenhower's childhood, education at West Point, long and painful service between the World Wars and his meteoric rise from Lieutenant Colonel to Five-Star General reveal a man driven by ego and determination, fired by a tremendous and sometimes ungovernable temper. The author carefully removes the veneer from almost every important character within Ike's circle of friends, fellow soldiers, adversaries and others with whom he had to interact as he ascended to Supreme Allied Command. Ike's relationships with Kay Summersby, Generals Marshall, Patton and Bradley, Winston Churchill and Field Marshal Montgomery are explored in great detail, much of which will be new and intriguing to most readers. The political pressures Eisenhower faces as his responsibilities increase, from the Pentagon, to London, North Africa and finally the D-Day Invasion and ultimate surrender of the Germans, are artfully explored and the key players like General Charles de Gaulle, Churchill and President Roosevelt are brought into sharp focus. The author treats all those surrounding Ike with penetrating precision, extolling their strengths and exposing their shortcomings. Readers will come away appreciating that Eisenhower's almost mystical skills in holding together allies, led by men of great power and even greater egos, are the critical aspect of allied success in the war. His single-minded determination and methods for achieving the allied cause make for dramatic reading entertainment. This book is very well written, clearly revealing the incredible pressures Eisenhower faced and the travails they created, giving the reader an enjoyable and highly informative picture of one of America's greatest military men.

Rating:
Summary: Lengthy but extremely informative
Review: This is probably one of the most thorough treatments of Eisenhower's military career out there. Despite it's exhaustive coverage, Carlo D'Este manages to keep it very readable throughout. The reader doesn't get bogged down or bored anywhere in the book. A very gripping account of a very exceptional man.

Rating:
Summary: Lengthy but extremely informative
Review: This is probably one of the most thorough treatments of Eisenhower's military career out there. Despite it's exhaustive coverage, Carlo D'Este manages to keep it very readable throughout. The reader doesn't get bogged down or bored anywhere in the book. A very gripping account of a very exceptional man.

Rating:
Summary: an American tragedy
Review: Though Mr. D'Este does not play up this angle as fully as he might have, Eisenhower's real greatness, in historical terms, may lie in his nearly Washingtonian democratic reserve. Today we take for granted the notion that the military is subject to civilian control and that even great victors will yield to their elected commanders in Washington. In this assumption we do a disservice to history and to the remarkable men who've served us, for there is nothing less common in the bloody epoch of warfare than for a conquering army and its leader to quietly return home without making any demands first. Whether through luck, through the genius of the system, or through God's "special providence", America has been blessed with generals who have asked nothing for themselves despite winning stupendous victories. Eisenhower not only joins the long list of American heroes in this regard--which includes Washington, Grant, and Pershing--he also, as Mr. D'Este does make clear, was willing time and again to set aside his own strategic judgments in favor of those of the political branch. This becomes clearest in the run up to the fall of Berlin, when, despite his own doubts about the Soviets, Eisenhower held off American forces, at the behest of Washington, in order that the Russians might take the city. Though he might have fought the point harder had he not been ambivalent about the value of the city as propaganda and its worth as a military asset, it is nonetheless the case, as Mr. D'Este shows, that Eisenhower considered such decisions to be ultimately political and therefore above his pay grade. Thus, his greatness as a hero of democracy.

On the other hand, there is a high price to be paid when what are also necessarily military questions are left entirely to the political class and the world was to pay an enormous cost, and Eisenhower was to pay it in his presidency, for clinging to the delusion that the Soviet Union was a reliable ally. If Eisenhower did not comprehend on the intellectual level--as did military geniuses like Patton, Curtis LeMay, and Churchill--that a reckoning with the Soviets was absolutely essential, he appears, from Mr. D'Este's somewhat contradictory account, to have felt it in his guts. Had he turned to the best military thinkers he may well have followed those instincts, but in accepting the views of politicos instead he effectively sentenced the world to a fifty year Cold War. Thus his tragedy, that in doing what was clearly right from a democratic standpoint, he did great harm to that democracy and the rest of the world. He is then, at one and the same time, blameless and blameworthy. There is no easy answer to how he might have done otherwise, though Mr. D'Este does drop some hints.

Even at that early stage there was already significant tension between the Americans and the Russians and it seems possible, maybe even likely, that had Eisenhower simply given his commanders in the field somewhat freer reign they would have come into contact and then conflict with their Soviet counterparts. Likewise, had Patton just been given the go ahead he'd have taken Berlin and provoked a firestorm, possibly a literal one, with the Soviet Union. In this regard, there's an especially poignant moment in the book :

[E]isenhower revealed privately to Patton that he was soon to halt the First and Ninth Armies at the Elbe River to await the arrival of the Red
Army. Third Army would be given a new mission to drive southeast toward Czechoslovakia. "From a tactical point of view, it is highly
inadvisable for the American Army to take Berlin and I hope political influence won't cause me to take the city," he said. "It has no tactical
or strategic value and would place upon the American forces the burden of caring for thousands and thousands of Germans, displaced persons
and Allied prisoners of war."

Patton's reaction was incredulity. "Ike, I don't see how you figure that out. We had better take Berlin, and quick--and on to the Oder!"
Later on, in the presence of his chief of staff, Patton reiterated the need to drive on to Berlin, arguing that it could certainly be done in
forty-eight hours by Ninth Army. Eisenhower, wondered aloud, "Well, who would want it?" Patton did not reply at once, but placed both
hands on his friend's shoulders and said, "I think history will answer that question for you."

Now even if Ike was not always as obtuse on the question as his statements to Patton suggest (one assumes he may have felt he needed to be overly direct with Patton) and even if his decision was defensible given the time and the place, who today can reasonably quarrel with Patton's devastating judgment? Certainly the amount of room that Mr. D'Este devotes to discussing General Eisenhower's decisions in regard to the Soviets suggests that even a favorably disposed biographer suspects that history agrees with Patton, not Ike.

So, in a fitting sense, the tragedy of Eisenhower is that the very thing that made him great, his democratic nature, made what should have been the pinnacle of his career into a far more ambiguous moment. As important as the defeat of the Nazis was, by leaving the Soviets in control of Russia and the East, we essentially swapped one form of totalitarianism for another, thus calling into question the very point of the war. But it is one of the tragic flaws of democracy (or at least of American democracy) that the deaths of its citizens are so horrible to contemplate that even once provoked into war there's an overwhelming tendency to end the war before it's been fought to completion, a tendency that frequently makes the peace worse than the further war that was avoided. Just in the 20th Century the United States too soon put an end to hostilities--nearly always unilaterally--in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Somalia. Eisenhower may then be seen to have reflected what is best and what is least fortunate about the democratic way of waging war, making him both the quintessential American soldier and a paradoxical figure of tragedy.

GRADE : A

Rating:
Summary: Fascinating look at a surpisingly complex man
Review: Through the lens of history, Dwight David Eisenhower, General of the Army, Supreme Allied Commander, President, is often seen as the affable embodiment of all that it is to be American. Of course, the truth is actually much more interesting. In Carlo D'Este's superb biography we are introduced to an Eisenhower who is full of contradictions and failings, but one who ultimately takes on a greater, and certainly more real, stature as a result of them.

As with his likewise excellent biography of Patton, D'Este sets the stage for Eisenhower's life by exploring the origins and beliefs of his forebears. As a result, the reader is introduced to perhaps the greatest irony of Eisenhower's life: his parents were staunch pacifists, and while proud of their son's accomplishments, were never particularly comfortable with his chosen career path. It is also worth noting that Eisenhower's life was utterly different from George Patton's, whose career became intertwined with his own. Unlike Patton's privileged upbringing, Eisenhower was dirt poor for pretty much his entire life, and yet the two men were close friends for decades before the pressures of war drove them irretrievably apart.

What is perhaps most interesting about Eisenhower, is that America's most well known soldier never actually directly commanded men in combat. His proficiency as a trainer kept him out of the trenches of WWI, and his skill as a staff officer meant that thereafter, he was always the brain behind the throne for a string of officers including such luminaries as MacArthur and Marshall. Yet, it was this perceived deficit in his resume that actually proved to be his greatest strength.

Above all, Eisenhower was a master administrator; he could take a long view of the situation, and insomuch as he was able, build a consensus out of the egos of his generals. It is perhaps the greatest strength of D'Este's research that he can paint a portrait of Eisenhower beset on all sides by prima donnas like Montgomery, Bradley and Patton, who is still able to maintain control over the long term progress of the war. D'Este is particularly scathing of Bradley, who is clearly the most overrated general of World War II, but even with Montgomery and Patton, who were undoubtedly Eisenhower's superiors in matters of operational art, he correctly recognizes that they lacked the fundamental character traits that made Eisenhower so successful as Supreme Commander. Traits like patience, affability, and the ability to place the good of the Allies above his own feelings meant that he could guide a supremely fractious coalition to victory.

That's not to say that D'Este is an unabashed admirer of Eisenhower. He correctly recognizes that, particularly early in the war, Eisenhower was far too tentative in his command. Moreover, he had a tendency to place personal loyalty above competency, and tolerated far too many laggards on his staff for political reasons. Moreover, as an infantryman, Eisenhower never completely grasped the need for maneuver and speed in his operations, a failing that lay at the root of his problems with Patton. That said, Eisenhower is often unduly criticized for not capturing Berlin. Military considerations and possibilities aside, any captured territory behind that designated in the Yalta agreements would have been turned over to the Soviets at the conclusion of hostilities anyway.

Finally, a few complaints about what is overall an excellent work. First, D'Este all too frequently digresses into long descriptions of the operational situation and then fails to link it back to Eisenhower. It is perhaps inevitable in that Eisenhower was in a position where he was frequently just an overseer. Still, I would argue that there are plenty of fine operational histories of WWII, and that the narrative could have been greatly improved by more effectively tying Eisenhower to the action on the ground. Secondly, while I applaud the use of primary sources, D'Este's use of the them is oddly stilted. For example, he will insert the text of a letter from Mamie Eisenhower to Ike, but then fail to link it to the overall flow of the narrative. Such non sequitors can be very disruptive, and more than once I had to flip back a page to pick up the point D'Este was trying to convey. Lastly, I was rather disappointed that D'Este didn't include Eisenhower's illustrious post-war career. While 1945 is certainly a logical stopping point, and D'Este can hardly be blamed for not tackling the monumental task of researching the post-war years, I finished this work feeling that I didn't have a complete picture of either Eisenhower the soldier, or the man.

Those complaints aside, I would like to reiterate that this is a superb biography. As was the case with "Patton: A Genius" for war, D'Este reveals his admiration when appropriate but is never unbalanced as a result. He gives a fair evaluation of Eisenhower's triumphs, and likewise considers his tragedies, and his miscues. Throughout, he offers a fascinating, thoroughly real portrait of a remarkable man. Perhaps the best compliment I can pay to this book is to state that it is my sincere hope that D'Este will follow it up with a second volume covering 1945 to the end of Eisenhower's life.

Rating:
Summary: Review (Eisenhower: A Soldier's Life")
Review: To fully develop an understanding of a public figure or event, it is best to avail one's self of several sources or books written by any number of authors. Ideally, this will provide a well-rounded and multi-perspective approach to the event or individual under review. Carlo D'Este's single volume biography "Eisenhower: A Soldier's Life" is a great place to begin this journey as it relates to Ike Eisenhower. D'Este follows Eisenhower from childhood through the Allied invasion of Normandy and finally to V-E Day. D'Este's writing is smart, engaging, and fast paced. Should D'Este maintain an interest, the book provides an excellent foundation for a second and final volume covering Eisenhower, his postwar years and the Presidency.

Military scholars and professional historians will debate for the indefinite future Eisenhower's success as the Supreme Allied Commander. D'Este is careful to never edict one way or the other in this regard, but simply provides the facts and incidences as they occurred. Interwoven in this massive drama, D'Este speaks to numerous key events, key individuals, the decisions they made and the motivations behind these decisions.

The reader will no doubt find himself surprised to learn of the extent to which the senior leadership of the Allied command each worked and conspired to his own ends. The miracle is not that SHAEF managed to provide the leadership necessary to win the war against the Nazi's, but that this leadership proved successful in the middle of so much inner turmoil, confusion, personal agendas and God like egos. It was in this environment and not that of the battlefield that Eisenhower would find his greatest successes. Despite Eisenhower's meteoric rise from Lt. Colonel to the exalted rank of five star general, it is questionable whether Eisenhower ever established himself as anything other than a superb staff officer and military diplomat. As noted in the book and as referred to by many of his subordinates, Eisenhower's position and responsibilities are best described as those of a board chairman. Even Eisenhower, when questioned by Adm. Louis Mountbatten, admitted that his role was somewhat analogous to that of a chairman of the board. While Eisenhower possessed many great qualities, it will never be known if battlefield command was one of them.

The cast of characters is large and D'Este provides just enough information on most that the reader will find him or herself seeking out additional biographies to continue their study of these WWII giants. Some of the more common names that D'Este discusses include George Patton, Bernard Montgomery, Omar Bradley and George Marshall.

Relative to these individuals, the book will either reinforce the reader's current opinions or provide the reader with a new respect or revulsion of these men as soldiers and as individuals. George Patton is shown in all of his brilliance for war and for genuine leadership, as is Bernard Montgomery. Far from the popular caricature of a small, arrogant, and poor military strategist and leader, D'Este shows Montgomery of possessing genuine leadership qualities, an excellent mind for military strategy, and surprisingly, not the nemesis of Patton that even Patton thought that he was. Omar Bradley was first celebrated in the press by the famed war correspondent Ernie Pyle. Ernie Pyle wrote of Bradley as a "general of the masses'. It was only subsequent to this flattery that Bradley, then and for the remainder of his life, encouraged this perception. The truth is more critical of the man. "The real Omar Bradley was rather narrow minded and utterly intolerant of failure. Historian S.L.A. Marshall, no admirer of Patton, categorically asserts that Bradley was "played up by Ernie Pyle....The GI's were not impressed with him. They scarcely knew him. He is not a flamboyant figure and he did not get out much to the troops. And the idea that he was idolized by the average soldier is just rot." George Marshall is probably the only man in this huge historical biography that is presented as the consummate professional with a true understanding of leadership and in possession of the ideal of selfless service to one's country.

It comes as no surprise to the amateur historian that many of the American leadership felt as though Eisenhower was too willing to compromise to the British and in doing so, hurt American morale and strategic efforts. However, D'Este shows that this concern was not only held by Ike's American subordinates, but also by George Marshall and even President Roosevelt. Certainly, it can be argued that Eisenhower did this in his Herculean effort to maintain a unified Allied coalition. However, one is left with the strong feeling that Ike gave into the British as much for his own military survival and success as he did to achieve a level of Allied harmony.

D'Este also provides many seemingly minor facts that when deeply considered add a new and stronger appreciation for the sacrifices of the men in uniform. For example, although the storming of the miscellaneous beachheads has traditionally received the attention and praise, D'Este outlines for the reader the tremendous sacrifice made by the American bomber crews in support of the D-Day invasion. As D'Este explains, "The most devastating losses however, were incurred by the valiant Allied air crews. Between April 1 and June 5, 1944, the Allies lost two thousand aircraft and twelve thousand aircrew killed in action in pre-D-Day operations. By the time the Normandy campaign officially ended in August 1944, twenty-eight thousand air crew had been lost in air operations over France."

In summary, D'Este provides a fair and balanced review and analysis of Eisenhower's leadership during the critical war years. As D'Este notes in the epilogue, Eisenhower believed that no one man was indispensable. Eisenhower held himself to this same litmus test. However, once completed, this book makes clear that as a unit, as a fighting force, Eisenhower and his Lieutenants were an indispensable group in a time that the world needed them the most.