The Supreme Commander: The War Years of General Dwight D. Eisenhower

Some might say Ambrose is the poor man's William Manchester. Certainly American Caesar, Manchester on MacArthur in the Pacific, is perhaps a better book. Better perhaps because of its more fascinating subject. Or better because of its more personal tone. MacArthur was certainly a poseur and so the Pacific campaign was often just all about him. And that gets us to the crux of the matter - bizarre as it may seem, this is not really a book about Ike. Or perhaps it is, in that Ike was there, but he was not really there. Someone once wrote that all men have in them a wild red dog, that once let out they become dangerous, but also capable of true greatness, or true evil. What stops most or at least many from letting that dog out is ambition. What drives a proud capable man to write a carefully crafted flattering letter of apology to a superior? Ambition. What drives us to keep our mouth shut at a crucial time? Ditto. Ike was so ambitious that he didn't see the title of Supreme Commander, Allied Forces as the pinnacle of his career, and he was right. So, the prototype of the modern politician, Ike the General here is the master deal maker, compromise maker, a fairly pro-Anglo American general running the Anglo-American coalition. By the fact that he was willing to say or do almost anything to keep the coalition, and thus his own reputation and future prospects, alive - amd that he succeeded, handsomely at times - is testimony to how shut up that wild dog was. Thus is a long read, and often, especially with the rather prosaic Ambrose style, quite dull. But don't let that put you off! Once you have slogged through the prologue and rather turgid Italian campaign - why were the allies in Italy? Answer: because they were in North Africa. Why were they in North Africa? Something about promising Stalin they would attack somewhere in 1943 - what a great reason! - you start to appreciate this long journey on into France with Patton, Bradley and Monty et al. Ambrose, Ike's official biographer, who met him personally near the end of his life, is about as pro his subject as it is possible to be. Perhaps Ike's steadiness rubbed off as Ambrose also manages to give most of the Allied commanders a fair shake (or benefit of the doubt, if you like). So, little intrigue, a long, complex campaign - if you aren't a huge fan of Ike, and I wasn't right off the bat, you will come away with a certain appreciation of his talents - perhaps he was indeed the right man for the job.

Stephen Ambrose has written some of the best WW@ history ever and this is no exception. Here we see the REAL general Eisenhower, the doubts along with the confidence, the heartaches along with the triumph. For a rare glimpse of the higest levels of command in the most important moment in the twentieth century, this is it.

Ambrose edited the Eisenhower Papers project for many years and finally turned his talents on writing a military biography of Ike. The Ike opus is infinitely superior to Ambrose's earlier biography on Henry Halleck and his research and knowledge about his subject is obvious throughout.The only "criticism" I have is that Ambrose is blatantly biased in Ike's favor and makes no bones about it. The first words in his introduction are, 'Dwight Eisenhower was a great and a good man," which is undoubtedly true, but a biographer should take more pains to disguise their own feelings. There is very little criticism of Ike in Ambrose's work, which borders on the hagiography. Perhaps a bit more of Harry Truman's invective towards Eisenhower could have infused these pages.Still, Ambrose is a wonderful writer and his works are always fun to read and informative. This is an excellent look at Eisenhower in World War II, even if it is a completely uncritical examination.

I was not aware of the fine writing of Ambrose until I read "Citizen Soldiers" and in "Supreme Commander" he does yet another job of putting the reader right there besides Ike as he learns, commands and most importantly earns the trust of all who comes in contact with him.Many of Ike's compatriots questions his skills as a soldier but all are certainly of his positive human skills at bonding a diverse group to attain the goal of defeating the enemy, in this Ambrose describes well. And from this experience at war time an outstanding president is groomed. I think Ambroses' "Eisenhower: A soldier and President" will have to be my next purchase.One point I'm a bit disappointed is the fact that Ambrose does not spend much time dealing with Ike's rols in the debacle of Hurtgen Forest, the problems with Repple Depple, and the problems with the problems caused by Segragation in the Army, several of the areas that Ambrose had detailed discussions on in "Citizen Soldiers". But all in all, an excellent read.

Stephen Ambrose skillfully tells how Eisenhower developed into one of the greatest military leaders in history. Eisenhower was able to lead the Allies to victory WWII because of his ablitiy to keep the alliance together. Eisenhower understood that the only way to achieve success was to build a consensus among differing viewpoints on how to conduct the war. He had to understand British strategies, goals, traditions, and hardships and meld them together with American objectives. He realized that the British have all ready been punished thru years of war, where as the Americans had justed entered the war and had not endured the hardships in the degree in which Britain had. Eisnehower was faced with many strong-willed military and political figures like Roosevelt, Churchill, Montgomery, Bradley, de Gaulle, and Patton, each of whom had their own views on how to conduct the war. Eisenhower was able to work with this men, which was no small feat. It is diffcult to see how another person would be able to lead such a diverse group of people.