Dwight D. Eisenhower

Eisenhower in War and Peace by Jean Edward Smith

Tier 2

This is an excellent biography written by one of the genuinely great biographers of our time, Jean Edward Smith. He also wrote the FDR biography that I chose for this project, and while I felt that one left a little meat on the bone, that does not diminish Smith’s talents as a writer and historian. In this instance, I felt his book was comprehensive and enjoyable.

Dwight D. Eisenhower is an interesting figure. His public persona is one of a boring but stable man and president. A military genius who adeptly pivoted to the political sphere after his career as a general was finished. His greatest hour is remembered as occurring while he was on the battlefield and not in the White House. Having read Smith’s book, I feel that all these assumptions are incorrect, and almost the opposite is true in every instance.

There is a great deal of background on his early life and previous service, but I think it’s best to jump right into his command during World War II. This is, after all, what he will always be remembered for. Now, a lot of discussion surrounding the military commanders in WWII is a bit of a mess to sift through. There were huge egos (aside from Dwight, you famously had Montgomery for the British and Patton for the Americans), and everyone talked during and after the war. They could be petty and vindictive, and everyone wanted their share (and more) of the credit. This makes it hard to know exactly who to believe in these things. No one wanted to take the blame when there was a failure, and, as the saying goes, success has many fathers. What seems to be clear from my reading is that Dwight was no military genius. He didn’t have a remarkable sense for strategic initiatives, and he was not some legendarily inspirational figure. He was, instead, a sublime organizer.

Smith is quick to highlight his mistakes and failings during the war—Operation Market Garden, The Battle of the Bulge, North Africa, Sicily, and the eventual push into Germany are all criticized at length in this book. They should be. Eisenhower did not cover himself in glory in any of those situations. But a strategic genius was not what was needed to win the war. The Allied forces had greater numbers and supplies. And, if required, they also had brilliant generals and commanders throughout their ranks with egos to match their brilliance. What was needed was a moderator. A politician, if you will.

This is, of course, ironic, given the reputation that Eisenhower has. He is seen as a largely apolitical individual, but Smith’s book paints him as quite the opposite. He was charming, charismatic, and could delegate and handle the massive egos that proliferated through the European theater. Smith successfully argues that, despite his failings and mistakes, the war in Europe was brought to a swift conclusion due to Eisenhower’s proficiency in those realms. His talents as a politician, not a military mind, distinguished him.

These talents were on full display after the war. There was a brief period where he contemplated not entering the US political arena as he wondered if more power would be had as the Supreme Commander of NATO forces. Ultimately, he saw the value in leaving the military and running for president. He roundly defeated Adlai Stephenson (a tragically forgotten man, but that’s a different story) and took office in 1953.

His time as president is overshadowed by his successor. Kennedy was a vibrant figure, and the sun of his short presidency seems to have blotted out Eisenhower’s time in office. He’s seen as the old guard who was only there to give way to Kennedy and the new generation. This is an unfair characterization (Kennedy had this effect on both his predecessor, Eisenhower, and his successor, Johnson, but we aren’t there yet).

Eisenhower’s presidency is seen as more idyllic than it truly was. The fifties, in general, are viewed as boring and prosperous and little else. But, of course, this is only as seen from a narrow perspective. If you were black, the fifties were anything but boring or prosperous. It was a brutal and transformative decade that left countless dead and more inspired to fight. Eisenhower wasn’t nearly active enough when it came to Civil Rights. He was content to sit back and let it play out, only acting once there was no other choice.

Similarly, he did not do enough with the Red Scare and Senator McCarthy. Given his immense popularity and close relationship with the returning GIs, he could've swayed public opinion considerably if he’d spoken out. But that would’ve been to risk his standing and popularity. It would’ve meant he might’ve endured the same outlandish lies that McCarthy was directing at others. And Eisenhower was too crafty and ambitious to let those issues taint him, even if he did feel McCarthy was a detestable figure.

But it wasn’t all bad. Eisenhower was, much as in the war, an effective delegator. He oversaw others and knew how to get the most out of them. He also knew when to say no. His advisors once argued that he should drop three atomic bombs on Vietnam (a conflict that was only beginning), and he not only dismissed the notion but also expressed his disbelief that they even suggested such an action. Moments like this rarely get as much consideration as they should. We are quick to criticize or praise an action but slower to acknowledge the courage it takes to say no. Eisenhower had that courage, and he should be commended for this.

His finest moment may have been his farewell address, where he warned the nation of the growing military-industrial complex. For a man so defined by his military service to give this warning was a brave act. As the years go by, it has been made abundantly clear that his warning was correct and, tragically, ignored. Still, he deserves considerable plaudits for giving this warning, even if it was all for naught.

This book details countless other interesting stories and moments of triumph and defeat. He was a man with a temper. He carried on an affair during World War II. He was a brilliant bridge player and a difficult man at times. Smith would argue he is one of our greatest presidents (and Americans). I would fall short of that assessment, but he’s not what you imagine him to be. He is not some boring representation of fifties prosperity. He is not a military genius who was forced into the political arena (like Grant, say). He is, rather, a complex man, and this book does a wonderful job of painting that complicated portrait.

Previous
Previous

John F. Kennedy

Next
Next

Harry S. Truman