This is a very good biography of Dwight David Eisenhower although I feel constrained to say that the section on his presidency suffers from the writer’s clear political bias. This biography covers Eisenhower’s entire life although it might be best thought of as covering 5 specific time periods – his early childhood, his early military experience, his central position during World War II, his time as President of Columbia University and his Presidency.
I thought I knew a good deal about Eisenhower’s life. I had read extensively about both the European and Pacific theaters of World War II. The histories of the European theater, of course, covered him as central to that theater and the histories (and biography of Douglas MacArthur) covered Eisenhower’s period as aide to General MacArthur in the Philippines. In addition I felt I knew a great deal about the period of the 1950s when Eisenhower was President. Given all of that I did not expect to learn much new. I was wrong.
This book covers Eisenhower’s early military career in some detail and there is much I never knew about the locations where he served as well as the jobs and schools he attended and the important people he knew and met while ascending the military ladder. Although I knew about his friendship with other officers like George Patton, I did not know the depth of their friendship or the length of time they knew each other. In some ways this section was the most interesting to me because I knew little of what was covered.
Of course the book covers Eisenhower’s period as Supreme Commander in the European theater comprehensively but it also details some little known incidents during the war. One example is his refusal to believe reports that the Casablanca landings had failed and that the troops were re-embarking because, he said, he knew George Patton and that there was no chance Patton would cancel the landings and re-embark the troops. This section is full of such anecdotes and they add greatly to the readability of the book. One oddity, for me, was the author’s clear opinion that Bernard Montgomery was the great general of the Western European Theater. There is no real mention of Montgomery’s great failures, only his successes, and little mention of the bad blood between Montgomery and Eisenhower. As with other armchair generals the author is firm in his opinions as to the wisdom (or lack thereof) of Eisenhower’s strategic view of how the war should have been fought. His opinions would, perhaps, hold more weight with me if he if he had ever held a combat leadership role.
The coverage of the Eisenhower Presidency is thorough although, as with his coverage of the European theater, his opinions are clear. Many of Eisenhower’s most difficult decisions are lauded as great without any mention of the negative consequences stemming from them. One example is his decision to stop the British-French-Israeli seizure of the Suez Canal. The author speaks of the political good will the US generated in the non-aligned world but makes no mention of the anger of the British, French and Israelis as well as the consequences in US-French relations afterwards. I am not suggesting that the decision was either right or wrong, only that the author’s views influenced the way some events were covered and the wisdom of alternative actions was never considered.
Paul Hecht’s narration is very good and I recommend this book, with some reservations, to anyone interested in learning about Eisenhower and the central role he held in much of the 20th century.
I read this book in paper format more than 30 years ago, but I had forgotten how good it really is. When I saw it available in audible format I jumped at the chance to listen to a previous good read.
Some of the reviews I have read are very hard on the book, but I believe that the are looking in the wrong place. What makes this book so interesting and unique, at least to me, was the idea that humans could encounter aliens so different that all of our assumptions would be wrong. How do two species interact when one is general and adaptive in nature and the other is differiented. That is at the core of this story; at least for me.
The process of meeting, all of the mistaken assumptions and the final realization as to just how different the species are is, I believe, a very interesting story with, for new readers, an unknown conclusion.
But listeners should know that this story is from 1974 and hence some of the story line is 35 years out of date. I believe that to be the cause of some of the bad reviews. Perhaps those listeners did not know the copyright date and might have been more charitable to the male-centered character of the story.
All in all I think this is a nearly great book with more than adequate reading.
Report Inappropriate Content