This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Describe the new page here. i just put in a report i wrote about eisenhower for school, but i wasnt sure if anything should be taken out...

More info: http://www.nps.gov/eise/chrono2.htm

Ah, I see. Well I did remove the last paragraph; I'm putting it below so you can restore it if you want. Currently I think it addresses some interesting issues but needs some refinement; I'll work on the article some and see if I can work the meaning back in. --KQ

So was Eisenhower a good president? Was he a terrible president? An incredible one? It all depends on what you consider great, and what you consider bad. Some people think it?s wonderful that he didn?t fight any wars, others think it?s pathetic. Some people think taking the ?middle way? is great way to compromise and get along with the whole country, others think that it?s just uninspired. So what do you think? Was he a great president? You decide.

It's pretty funny, KQ. I just wonder if this was taken from somewhere, thereby violating copyright. Danny

I don't think that's the case. The person above said it was for a school project, and also there's the Google exact term search, for instance here. --KQ

Yup, you're right. Sorry, I didn't see the remark about it being a school project. Danny

I don't doubt that Eisenhower was a "racist", but I would prefer to see something like the following.

Historian (put correct name here) wrote that Eisenhower opposed desegragation, because (fill in this blank). He enforced the Supreme Court decision because (fill in this blank).

Was it because he believed that it was his responsibility to enforce the law despite his personal preferences, or what?

Please note: I am not debating your POV on Eisenhower. I am discussing how to write the article from the NPOV. Ed Poor

I'd like an answer on that, too. I intended to make several passes through the article adjusting things like that, but I don't know if the original author is still around. --KQ

I notice that this article has a section with not only a strong POV, but also terrible spelling. The Anome

I spent nearly an hour tracking down the source of the genocide accusation. You all can decide how much of it to keep in the article, and how much to moved to the linked James Bacque article. Ed Poor

And now for something completely different (to quote the " Immortals"). How do I get the text to wrap around the picture?

I copyedited the whole thing, but I'd like to see some evidence about the POW camps. (The final paragraph is now English, but that doesn't mean it's NPOV or accurate.) Also, Eisenhower wasn't a Republican in '48--he had no party affiliation.

I also changed "there were no major conflicts" to "the US did not become involved in any major conflicts". Vicki Rosenzweig 10:39 Jul 30, 2002 (PDT)

Vicki, have you seen the James Bacque page? Or Eisenhower and German POWs... Ed Poor

Helga, unless YOU bring some acceptable proof of this hypothesis that does not come from some Holocaust revisionist website with neo-Nazi links, I will remove your additions every time I see them. [[User:Danny|Danny]

Danny, read again what I had put in last. I took out all reference to Buscue, whose name someone other than me had inserted to begin with. I am stating (and showing the website) by the German Government German Historical Museum with the Missing Person figures of the end of 1947 as 1.8 mill POWs and 1.6 mill civilians, by the Red Cross. The Senator's proof to the Senate for the famine is not known to me, nore do I know if it still exists or if it was destroyed with the records as well. General George Patton, another big player in Germany, by coincidence accidentally died Dec 1945.

Proof on internet are the missing under Allied Control Military Occupation Government. The Allied Control, Eisenhower, had set up and controlled every function in Germany from May 5, 1945 until 1949, after which a limited German Government was allowed to function. If you want to add missing persons to the headline column of the POW's and the Starvation, that would be alright with me. H.J.

Proof or no piece. Danny

What do you mean ,proof ? H.J.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The proof you tried to bring last night at German POWs was insidious. If you want to condemnd President Eisenhower of genocide, bring proof of your accusations. Danny

I much prefer to have Eisenhower cleared of this. But with the apparent destruction of records over several years and absolutely no one bringing any proof to clear him I can only go by numbers of people in his time, who acused him and not only him, but the administration. Unfortunately. H.J.

This is getting ridiculous. People are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Claiming something and then saying the proof (records) do not exist (were destroyed) is hardly proof either. The only people you have brought that said anything like that so far are one Senator better known for developing the jukebox, another Senator who also said that White people have the inalienable right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of dead niggers," a neo-Nazi revisionist website, and an author who quotes someone who says he was misquoted. Spare me. Danny

I agree. This page is on my watchlist (as are others that Helga has touched) and I will revert anything that is presented here that does not come with some legit proof. -- mav 18:51 Aug 3, 2002 (PDT)

It's certainly acceptable to me, 166. Thanks. Danny

I will leave it in if and only if there is adequate proof of your accusations. Danny

"President Dwight David Eisenhower (called Ike for short) had a big smile and big ideas." -- Is this NPOV? Is this original material or copied from something else?

I removed the comment about "insubordination to the president". Governors are NOT subordinate to the President, the comment was highly POV. -- Zoe

Lists should not replace prose but should be used as a supplement to it in order to ensure all the points are presented. This article needs some reorganization and more logical sectioning now. I also moved this article back to the more common and less complex name per our naming conventions. -- mav

I hate these data dumps of lists without making them into complete sentences. It's starting to be a trend around here. -- Zoe

Ya know, timelines are pretty useful. Vera Cruz

Not if they replace prose. See above. --mav

Im not trying to replace prose. Vera Cruz

Your list did replace paragraphs of text. Granted the paragraphs aren't great (esp. the "smile" part) but they are easier to read than lists. Lists are good as a secondary methods to present information since they can be far more complete but we still need to explain the more important points and events in paragraphs of text. -- mav

The smile part is pov. The rest is still there. Nobody cares if wikipedia thinks he had a nice smile. Vera Cruz

Where? Your list? -- mav

I'm at work right now so I will reintegrate the text later. --mav

the text is at the top... Vera Cruz

At the top of this cur diff [1] yes. But not in the article. --mav

and stop bashing my timeline-its damn informative Vera Cruz

I wasn't bashing it. I was just saying that paragraphs of text are more important. --mav

Just curious as to why there isn't more information about his public views and statements regarding this situation. --AWF

If someone wants to write specifically about Eisenhower's role in the CIA support of the Iran coup, http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html looks like a much better source than the "iranchamber" site. Daniel Quinlan 06:44, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)

Why does this article start with his military career and work backwards to his early life? Adam 06:09, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There's a mention of a poll of historians ranking him as 11th - does anyone have a link to a full list? Timrollpickering 12:20, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I can't see why the Presidents table I added should be deleted. It's very helpful. The other table does not do the same things as the full Presidents table, and other presidential bios have both tables. -- 65.73.0.137

Actually I kind of like your table (although I wish we could avoid the initialisms). But if we use it we should at least take out the other nav bar. There is no need for two of them at the bottom of each page (especially with it also in the infobox at the top). I tried to find a page which set the template for these pages to discuss this at but didn't see it. Anyone know if we have such a page? Rmhermen 18:19, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

By the way, thanks. But sometimes people would like to know the previous or next President after a particular one, or skip to an unlinked President instead. I hope this is helpful. -- 65.73.0.137

There is no historical evidence that "hundreds of thousands" German prisoners or "SEFs" died under either American or French control following the German surrender. The accusation was made in one undocumented and poorly researched book in the mid-1990s.

This claim should be removed from the bio. --Anon

I don't think that would be a good idea given the controversy we've had over this very issue. It would be much better to say where the document came from and that it is widely regarded as false. -- mav 04:01, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Dwight Eisenhower was a man of tremendous integrity and decency. He was an historically great leader of the United States and its armed forces and those of its allies. To suggest that he committed genocide is farcical. This is not a question of a genuine historical dispute. The real issue is the main problem that Wikipedia, an otherwise wonderful resource, is plagued with: a proliferation of crackpots.

-- Wtmgeo 20:39, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We should change it. WinterSpw 07:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Everybody says that there was tons of Germans killed. Who says? I think people need to research better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.69.237.13 ( talk) 02:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just some random thoughts, that might not be worth "tits on a boar" as they say in the Army: Eisenhower was a bigot who despised African Americans. So much for the "man of tremendous integrity and decency". Read Earl Warren's autobiography for the proof. Yet, the man integrated Little Rock -- he upheld the Constitution. Part of the paradox of Great Men, eh?

That said, Ike signed off on Patton's killing of prisoners. It's also taken as gospel in France (for what that's worth) that he let the camps of German prisoners deteriorate horribly, with the loss of many lives. The again, was he really responsible? He was promoted to the Chief of Staff in '45, to replace Marshall.

He also was influened by Patton's anti-semetism and reportedly singed off on some anti-Semetic policies in Morocco. (Ike wasn't exactly fond of Israel, either.) Patton's hatred of Jewish displaced persons (DPs) is well documented, but he was Military Governor AFTER Ike.

I'd like to see some real documentation about the German prisoners, though. Otherwise, it is and remains a rumor, though one that should be mentioned. Joe Blaznalis, The Fashion Plate of Professional Thumb-Wrestling 05:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Was Ike really a bigot? I really think his views on blacks were no different than the majority of his peers, or any white brought up during the same time period, for that matter. Arnold, King, Spruance, Patton - none of them were in favor of integrating the Armed Forces, particularly during the war. Dukeford ( talk) 23:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You left out Churchill, Montgomery, Brooke, Alexander, and Cunningham.

Is there a reason not to mention his mistress or his involvement in Vietnam or the Bay of Pigs? Is it not true? Rmhermen 03:02, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

Vietnam and Bay of Pigs, fine. However, the only first-hand account of his relations with Kay Summersby - actually his driver and secretary - is her "autobiography", in which she acknowledges that they never had sexual relations. Ellsworth 17:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In a June 22, 1997 article in the Washington Post, Susan Eisenhower (granddaughter of Ike, but also a serious biographer in her own right) cites a scholarly consensus that Summersby did not write the "autobiography" at all. Ellsworth 18:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In a March 1, 1998 article in the Post, Gil Troy, chairman of the history deparment at McGill U., also opines that Summersby's version of events is a fiction. In 1948, Summersby published a war memoir, "Ike Was My Boss", that made no mention of the "affair". Ellsworth 17:50, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, the story is a very well known one. It ought to be mentioned, even to say that it is disputed. As to the 1948 book, I don't think that means anything one way or the other - of course she wouldn't mention an affair in a memoir published during Ike's lifetime. john k 18:18, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, maybe not "of course" - it would just take a some intestinal fortitude to do it, which she obviously didn't have. The lack of mention of the "affair" in the 1948 memoir could be taken as undermining her credibility, you know, like a prior inconsistent statement. Ellsworth

I am going to list Kay Summersby as a "related article" - that's probably the best place to play out the dispute. Ellsworth 18:27, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC) And I will put the contra sources on that article's talk page as well. Ellsworth

If it's worth putting in a link, it's worth some brief mention of why the link is relevant. Other encyclopedias have mentioned that "rumors of the affair caused strain in their marriage" http://www.britannica.com/dday/article-2058 and it was covered in documentaries by PBS. It was explicitly stated as so by Truman in the book cited, and it was described as true in Summersby's deathbed book. The nature of their affair or relationship is unclear, but the fact of belief by his Commander in Chief that they had an affair is worth mentioning. I certainly heard the story told in my US history class in the 1960's before either book. Her omission of it in 1948 is hardly surprising. Illustrating how careful spin-doctors were in the war period and immediate postwar period, in Harry Butcher's book about serving as Ike's assistant, a photo of Ike and staff is included which was suppressed during the war because of the way Kay was smirking at Ike. The arguments against inclusion boil down to "Summersby and Truman were liars" which could be added to the article if there are verifiable sources. It remains a fact that many people believe the story to be part of the history of an American President. Edison 21:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

there is no doubt whatsoever that Truman was misonformed about the matter. Evidence from a group photo does not meet reliability standards. Rjensen 22:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"No doubt whatsoever???? " The group photo was not mentioned as evidence they had an affair, but it documents that spin control was done during the war. That they had an affair ? Kate's book said they "found ourselves in each others arms. Our jackets came off. Buttons were unbuttoned. It was if we were frantic and we were." But Ike was unable to consummate the deed. In David Eisenhower's book "Eisenhower at War" he said "However far it went, the two were attached. Eisenhower was under tremendous pressure and in need of company. Beyond this the truth was known only by them, and both are gone." As to the rumor having widespread currency during the war, see the NY Times June 3, 1984, "Presidents I Have Known" by Clifton Daniels: He met Ike in London during the war, and said "As I was a guest in the same house and others like it, I heard the gossip about the general's off-duty diversions, which included his romance with Kay Summersby, his driver from the British Motor Transport Corps." Stephen Ambrose's biography "Eisenhower Volume 1" says that during the war Mamie was furious when Ike twice slipped and called her Kay. Again, my request is that we include mention of the rumored affair. The rumor and its widespread belief is a fact. Whether he "had sexual relations with that woman" is less so. Edison 00:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

there is no doubt that Truman had totally garbled the poor information he received. PBS has detailed quotes that refute the rumors. Truman supposedly told an interviewer that Ike wrote to Marshall saying he wanted a divorce and Marshall refused. Historianss and archivists looked thoroughly for the letter and found it: In actuality Ike wrote Marshall a letter asking permission to bring Mamie to Europe and that request was refused by Marshall. Historians have gone back to the Truman tape and discovered Truman never said a thing about Summersby--the interviewer later made that up. As for Sommersby's second book: she never wrote it: she died shortly after signing the contract and a ghostwriter wrote the entire text. While she was alive she denied there was an affair. Take a look at [2] So Summersby never made a claim, nor did Truman. Rjensen 07:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In attempts to keep the reputations of some Presidents as shiny as a newly minted proof Ike dollar, some editors WAY overstate the certainty of any exculpatory material they have found, do a lot of hand waving, and then delete material which is verifiable. A granddaughter who wasn't there somehow followed Ike and Kay all over England, North Africa and Europe and monitored that no hanky-panky ever went on after hours. We must ignore the grandson who says "Eisenhower was under tremendous pressure and in need of company" and that we can't know for sure. A historian "opines" it didn't happen, so it didn't. The citation about Mamie being upset about the rumors is ignored. Ike's Commander in Chief says it did, but per Rjensen "there is no doubt" Truman was "misonformed," and the we are told Truman never said it. The crucial letter is not found in the files so it never existed. No one has ever purged files of embarassing material. A different letter with a different topic (Mamie) is found, which "proves" there was never a letter about Kay. Proofs of the currency of the rumor in wartime London are ignored. The presence of the story in Brittannica is ignored as evidence it is "encyclopedic" and notable. In a Clintonesque moment, impotency is taken as virtue: the Summersby book says they made the attempt and Ike was unable to complete the act. Do you have a verifiable source for your claim "Historians have gone back to the Truman tape and discovered Truman never said a thing about Summersby?" Did you ever hear of tapes being edited (as Nixon did with the missing 18 minutes?) Do you have a verifiable source for the claim that Summersby had no role in the writing of her second book, the assumption that the "ghostwriter" or collaborator did not use Summersby's wartime diaries as foundation for the things stated in the book? That Summersby died before the writing began? Why did you delete the "see also" link to the Summersby article, which now very POV only says that "IT NEVER HAPPENED!" Clinton and the Kennedy families would no doubt be delighted for someone to spin-doctor those Presidents' bimbo moments so thoroughly. I am going to restore the link to the Summersby article because it is relevant, verifiable, and notable. "She[Mamie] remained an ardent supporter of him[Ike], though their marriage had been strained by rumours of an affair during World War II between Eisenhower and his driver-secretary Kay Summersby." Cited at http://www.britannica.com/dday/article-2058 Edison 16:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

well no. Summersby herself repeatedly said there was no sexual affair. The Encyclopedia Britannica is not a reliable source according to Wiki rules on reliability--note that it does not give its sources for this old chestnut. Truman never mentioned Summersby --the transcripts prove that story was added afterwards by Merle Miller. What it comes down to is: not a single reliable source says there was an affair, and numerous reliable sources (including the woman herself) deny it. [3] Rjensen 16:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The book by Miller stands as a verifiable source. What is your verifiable source for your claim that the tapes are different from their published version in the book? Where is a veerifiable source for Summersby denying there was an affair? Failure to say in her 1948 book that there was a sexual affair is far different from her asserting there was not. In 1948 she was his friend, and wanted his help to immigrate to the US. It would not have benefitted her or him for her to mention any liasons in her book. Her 1948 book was a popular day-to-day account of their time together during WW2, so it alone is deserving of a link from the Eisenhower article, even without the rumors of romance. The Britannica item helps to establish that the rumored affair is "notable" and "encyclopedic," not that they got naked. I do not see who besides the two of them could prove they did not have sex, or how close their wartime relationship was. Edison 21:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it not pretty common for people to deny extramarital affairs? And more remarkable to assert them? And whether or not the general and his attractive young WAC driver were physically intimate, there was clearly a relationship bewteen them going beyond what is expected for generals and drivers, even drivers who get quickly promoted to Captain. Edison 18:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have also heard about the death of German prisoners following the surrender. I too, agree it is farcical, but would like to know the name of the book that published it in the mid-1990's to satisfy my curosity. Can anyone provide the information? mmm1inmt

• Our article discussing this is at Eisenhower and German POWs. Rmhermen 14:33, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

The item in "legacy" about the funeral being the last worldwide live telecast from the national cathedral is of marginal import in this article. Including the parenthetical item about the 9/11 service at Parliament Hill ... is this somehow an explanation of why that other telecast was not worldwide? ...goes WAY beyond relevance to Eisenhower's legacy. Sfahey 15:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The following quote:

"he won the respect of front-line commanders such as Omar Bradley and George Patton."

is so far out of line that it needs to be updated. Alot of bad decisions were made by Eisenhower exactly because he didn't have any front line experience. He continually sided with Montgomery in order to not upset the British which had the effect of continually halting the advancement of Patton. If Eisenhower had backed Patton instead of Montogmery, the war would have been over in 1944 instead of 1945.

Patton continuously complained about Eisenhower and his appeasement of Montgomery. He also recognized in 1943 that Eisenhower was "Running For President" rather than fighting the war. Even Bradley, who played politics and favoritism to jump from being Patton's subordinate to being his commander, came to the same conclusions about Eisenhower.

One of the big mysteries of World War II is why Eisenhower so totally backed Montgomery instead of his own General Patton. The only victory truly attributable to Montgomery was El Alamein. Thereafter, he let his forces get bogged down in Africa. Patton Bailed him out. In Sicily, He forced Eisenhower to change the plans in his favor, yet He let himself get bogged down. Patton drove his forces into Messina. In France, after D-Day, He got so bogged down citing a restructuring of his forces that he only advanced about 20 miles in 75 days. Meanwhile, Patton was charging Paris, advancing over 200 miles. Montgomery then forced Eisenhower to halt Patton so that Montgomery himself could enter Paris! He again had Patton halted when Patton was taking the fight to the enemy and had all resources diverted to Montgomery's Operation Market-Garden, which was a complete and utter disaster. Firstlensman 18:15, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. I have read that Ike disliked Monty, but felt he had to back him sometimes to keep the Brits behind the whole mission. Sfahey 22:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What you have above is a massively simplified version of history. Patton likes to think that he would have won the war if it had not been for Montgomery and the 'appeasement' of him by high command. It's far from clear that that would actually have been the case. Patton's victories in North Africa were against a foe that was already defeated, short on supply and surrounded on three sides. A closer examination of the situation in Normandy will reveal a situation much less clear cut.

Let's not also forget that not pissing off your allies is supposed to be one of the jobs of a general. Patton didn't seem to have the hang of it. (So is not physically assaulting your men, which Patton didn't seem to have quite clear). And while Market Garden tends to be thought of as a defeat, because of Arnhem, go and look at how far the operation did' advance.

As for Paris, it was de Gaulle who entered, not Montgormery; surely a reasonable thing to do. How would you feel if the French forces were libarating Washington while their US Allies were off fighting somewhere else? DJ Clayworth 15:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Would Patton have been able to coordinate the invasion of Normandy, the biggest and most complicated military operation in human history? I doubt it. Patton had his strengths, Eisenhower had others, and everybody piggybacked off Zhukov. The plan came together on the Western Front (as the A-Team would say) with inevitable mistakes. It it hadn't been the ones Ike or Montgomery made, it would have been the ones someone else made. Anyone who thinks Patton and his Sherman tanks could have ended the war in 1944 should just look at how tenaciously the Germans were fighting against the much heavier armored Russian tanks on the Eastern front. 1944? No way. And I'm vastly amused that the writer of the above Patton as superman theory signs himself "First Lensman." His military thinking indeed seems to come from Doc Smith's accounts of vast space armadas led by mutant geniuses who never stop to worry about the fog of war.--23 March 2006

Firstlensman, Montgomery never got bogged down in North Africa - he won every engagement he fought there, with the exception of a brief repulse in taking the Mareth Line. And can I remind you that it was the British who finally broke the German line and took Tunis, whille Bradley took Bizerte? Patton did not bail Monty out in any way shape or form. Compare Kasserine to the Battle of Medenine, which was a textbook example of how to kill panzers. ~Darkmind~

Fascinating bit of revisionism, eh?... I hardly know where to begin, so I'll just drop a few bombs and be off with it... The idea of Ike running for president in 1943 is patently absurd. even in 1952, he was still turned off by the idea of running for president. Indeed, had Taft agreed to back NATO, Ike would gladly have retired to Gettysburg. In 1943, Ike still thought Marshall was headed to Europe to command the invasion -- indeed, so did Marshall. The idea was that Ike would serve in a nebulous CinC role in Washington, nominally Marshall's boss yet actually subordinant to him (an organizational nightmare, which reminded Marshall of the intenable structural battles within the War Department prior to its 1940's reorganization). Let's don't forget that they were pretty much making all of this up as they went along. With that in mind, Ike's masterminding of Normandy, his juggling the terribly huge egos scattered all over his command, and his singular capability of getting everyone to pull on their oars at the same time and in the same direction made him almost certainly the only choice for the job. Marshall could have done it by force of his intellect and rank, but second to him only Ike was really up to the job. (Don't forget -- Ike was the one who dreamed all this up as early as 1942 while laboring in the War Plans Office.) By the way, the concept of Patton as a spearhead or an overall commander was then and is now patently absurd. Patton, while a great battlefield general, was utterly incapable of running a large-scale operation or even thinking in terms of things like logistics -- Thesurveyor 05:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the nonsensical pseudo-history found in many of the first comments in this section of this mediocre discussion, is the fact that, to any historian worth his or her salt, the complete absence of any reference whatsoever to Eisenhower's true opposite number (and, in terms of intellect and experience, his acknowledged superior), the CIGS, Field Marshall Alan Brooke, should alert people to the worthlessness of the entire article. Brooke was Eisenhower's equivalent - in fact his structural superior - from 1941 to 45, not Churchill. Churchill's equal was Roosevelt - almost. Brooke designed the shape of the strategy in the Western hemisphere and Eisenhower was happy to make use Brooke's genius. So without Brooke, there would have been no Eisenhower (or is it 'Eisenhauer' - we just don't know). But there still would have been a Brooke and there still would have been a war. Idiot revisionist Yanks. Jono 31/10/07 (ask me here if you want my email to begin a 'discussion'.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.173.75 ( talk) 00:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Typical British sour-grapes attitude. Brooke was originally slated to be the Allied Supreme Commander, but was supplanted by FDR with Eisenhower. Good move! Brooke was NOT Ike's opposite number - that would have been George Marshall. Ike was one of Marshall's proteges, so to say that "without Brooke, there would have been no Eisenhower" is pure rubbish. Finally, Brooke showed his true colors by publishing his wartime diary, full of snippy and bitter comments on his American counterparts. It's ironic that NONE of the WWII American Chiefs of Staff (even the briny Ernest King) were as full of vitriol in their published memoirs as Brooke or Cunningham were. Dukeford ( talk) 23:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

From the BBC documentary 2005 "D-Day to Berlin" http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2004/05_may/14/dday_tv.shtml : " Monty was convinced that only a single powerful British-led thrust into Germany would finish the war and, in an effort to force Eisenhower (Ike) into supporting him, launched the ill-fated drive towards the Rhine - Arnhem. Ike's Generals, Bradley and Patton, insisted the advance into Germany should be on a broad front and that the final victory should be led by an American. Eisenhower chose the broad front and, by spreading Allied troops too thinly, he turned hope of an early victory into a pipe dream. " Whether Monty or Patton would have been more successful is debatable as both had personality traits that made them difficult to deal with at equal level. But Op. Overlord and Op. Goodwood had been Monty's design and had achieved its objective of the Americans liberating Paris within 90 days while the British (and Canadians etc.) held the pivot point of the western front. And the position of these forces was key to the logistics of the Allied effort to the Rhine. Patten was much further to the south. With limited fuel supplies coming in by pipeline at Normandy as well as some tankers, Patton was in the wrong location for a fast advance on Berlin because he would outstrip his supply lines. Bringing in fuel by tanker from the Bay of Biscay was too risky and far, and to bring it up from Marseilles an impractical distance. And with the launching of the V1 and V2 rockets from Holland and environs Eisenhower should have committed a larger force to breakthrough in the North until the Rhine crossing was secure before winter set in. He did understand the importance of Antwerp and the Scheldt but then let Monty divert his forces to Op. Marketgarden rather than reinforce him to do both. Ultimately IMHO Monty had learned from his early days in WWI the value of a spearhead action while Eisenhower remaining at home less so. Or if Eisenhower did equally understand he still elevated Corps unity and Politics as higher in importance. And that was the first of the mistakes that led to the Ardennes offensive "Battle of the Bulge". An offensive that began in the same forest the Germans had used to good effect in 1914 and 1940! TT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.138.118 ( talk) 07:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The article says Truman denied offering to step aside if Eisenhower ran as a Democrat in 1948, but Truman's diary discovered in 2003 records that Truman urged Eisenhower to run as a Democrat for President in 1948 with Truman as his VP. See, Truman Wrote of '48 Offer to Eisenhower , New York Times, July 11, 2003

Surely someone can find a public domain image of Ike? The lack of an image is incredibly poor. john k 00:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I took care of it and found a public domain image at the Eisenhower Library site and added it. I too was disgusted there wasn't a pic for Ike. Wgfinley 20:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I decided to start going through the pictures on the entry to make sure all of them were properly tagged and updated.

• Image:Eisenhower-young.jpe (Ike & Mamie on Steps)

I located this image in the Eisenhower Library PD holdings as well. Updated the photo with the additional information there. I changed the caption as it said it was taken "during WWI" but it was taken in 1916 which is before US entry into the war. The caption now includes where and when it was taken.

• Image:Eisenhower1947.jpg (Ike headshot in Army uniform)

I located additional information on the US Naval Historical site that listed this image as PD and as an official US Army photo, updated that image's tag to reflect product of US Army.

• Image:Ac.eisenhower2.jpg (Ike & Churchill walking)

Bad news on this one, I found reference to it as an AP image which means it is copyrighted. I put it into nonfreedelete status so, unfortunately, it may be going away. Looked all over the place trying to find it as PD until I found it referenced as an AP image.

• Image:Nixon Eisenhower nominated 1952.jpg (Ike & Nixon accept nomination)

While I liked this photo this file is terrible, pixelated and distorted. It says it's PD but I'm pretty sure that is a newspaper image of some type and likely a copyright violation. So, I replaced it with, I believe, the much better PD image: Image:Eisenhower 68-91-3.jpg

• Image:Eisenhower and Kennedy.jpg (Ike greeting JFK at latter's inauguration) and Image:Eisenhower in the Oval Office.jpg (Ike in Oval Office) were both properly tagged and referenced as PD images (yay!!).

Right now I'm working on trying to get some photos from later in the president's life up there and hope to have that done soon. Enjoy!! -- Wgfinley 18:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, after a very quick response from an archivist at the Eisenhower Library I have two post-presidential pictures of Eisenhower up already. Now that was fast!! -- Wgfinley 22:29, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Ike/Goldwater commercial can be found on this page. Just go to the 1964 campaign and click on the first commercial in the Goldwater column - Ike at Gettysburg. The Ike-Goldwater friction material might be better off in the Goldwater article. Ellsworth 20:49, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• OK, but he was not speaking on behalf of Goldwater - nor did he say anything to support him except some criticism of BG was "tommyrot" -- and that "no [sane] man would..." - Nobody I knew of took that commercial as anything more than very lukewarm mending fences party loyalty - It is obviously an excerpt, Ike does not even finish his sentence, does he? Leave some mention in, but include source [4] -- JimWae 21:12, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
  • I like your edit. Ellsworth 22:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

His state funeral at the Washington National Cathedral on March 31, which President Richard Nixon, former president Lyndon B. Johnson, and foreign dignitaries, led by French President General Charles de Gaulle, who was making his first visit to the United States since taking part in the funeral of JFK to honor a World War II comrade, and Belgium's King Baudouin, attended, was part of a full military funeral in Washington that lasted three days, which Eisenhower approved himself three years earlier.

His state funeral at the Washington National Cathedral on March 31 was attended by President Richard Nixon, former president Lyndon B. Johnson, and foreign dignitaries including French President General Charles de Gaulle and Belgium's King Baudouin. It was part of a three day, full military funeral, as was approved by Eisenhower himself three years earlier. Sfahey 17:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)