Crusade in Europe: Wartime memoirs of Eisenhower

[|Numbers|]

I have not finished reading this book yet.  However, some of the info in it directly from Eisenhower's mouth kind of shocked me to a certain extent.

 

Still somewhat early in the war during the North African campaign, Eisenhower supported the French who were Vichy / Hitler supporters to the extent that by default he also supported the Anti-Jewish agenda / persecution by the Arabs and French in the region.  He justified this because they were afraid of an Arab uprising that would tie down a reported 60,000 US troops that could have been used elsewhere.  According to Eisenhower, it was Patton that recommended the support of this idea along with a host of others in the US government.

 

A French General ( X-Vichy / Hitler supporter ) was assassinated and a " more friendly " version of a French General was inserted in his place.  However, the views of this General were no different than the previous Frenchman and persecution of the Jews continued along with the occupation of France's colonial empire.

 

Eisenhower also reported that during the initial phases of the North African campaign he was accused of being a Jew himself and had to publish his ancestry as a result to convince the Arabs and French otherwise.

 

The support of France's colonial empire during this timeframe is interesting in that THIS is a major component that caused such a problem later ( see Vietnam, Algeria, Lebanon, etc... ).  I find myself wondering what would have happened had France not had US support of their racist policies at such high levels in the US government.  Note:  I also have similar feeling of British and their policies at such an earlier timeframe ( see Iran, Iraq, etc... ).

 

Last Note:  The title does not lend itself well in the Arab community either.  Crusades tend to have negative connotations...

[Jamie_B]

See Sig.

[|Numbers|]

See Sig.

 

I did.  I do not believe the book itself will go into his political career but that part would be a nice addition to this book.  Oddly though is that Eisenhower constantly did the apolitical thing while in the military.  ie...  during the drive across Europe when it was imperative in a political sense to prevent the Soviets from getting to Berlin first, Eisenhower planned against that idea.  Eisenhower stopped his units well short of Berlin although there was practically ZERO resistance.  In the belief he would save American lives and prevent the war from prolonging the German resistance.  He drove his campaign in a southern area to prevent the German army from holding out in the mountainous regions.  Eisenhower even cancelled a parachute drop on Berlin to "appease" the Soviets desire to enter into Berlin as a quote unquote war prize for their country.  Even when it came time for the war to end, Eisenhower allowed territory that was under our control ( and other countries ) to be turned over to the Soviets.  Even as far back as 1944 during what became an unmitigated disaster called Market Garden, troops were held back from crossing certain lines and in other areas were put into a broad front strategy preventing the single thrust towards the heart of Germany.  Not sure what I should think of Eisenhower the politician or Eisenhower the military leader at this point.  However, for a man that professed to be apolitical he certainly did handle a lot of political issues as the Commander of Allied Forces in Europe.  Although I am somewhat sure that his military career dictated how he handled certain issues as the President.

 

Do you have a book recommendation for Eisenhower the President ?

 

The other books I have finished recently were wrote by Cornelius Ryan ( Last Battle, Bridge too Far, and the Longest Day ) which are some of the most detailed interview oriented history books I have ever read.  Note:  Ohio maintains the collection of Cornelius Ryan's notes, books, interviews, questionnaires, etc... that were taken to write his books.  Wonderful people there at the library who were more than helpful in my obtaining copies of interviews done during that time frame.

[Homer_Rice]

Nice reading list, Numbers. I suggest reading Omar Bradley's autobiography, too. I recently (within the last year or so) picked up a copy of De Gaulle's war memoirs. I've only skimmed through it thus far but you are welcome to borrow it if interested.

[|Elflocko|]

 

Do you have a book recommendation for Eisenhower the President ?

 

I know Bung was a big fan of "Ike's Bluff", though I've not had the opportunity to read it myself.

 

Another book that touches on his presidency, albeit not exclusively, is "Eisenhower in War and Peace".  

[|Numbers|]

Nice reading list, Numbers. I suggest reading Omar Bradley's autobiography, too. I recently (within the last year or so) picked up a copy of De Gaulle's war memoirs. I've only skimmed through it thus far but you are welcome to borrow it if interested.

 

I would certainly enjoy reading De Gaulle's memoirs.  Hopefully he is not as vain as Montgomery which his memoirs are littered with.

 

 

I know Bung was a big fan of "Ike's Bluff", though I've not had the opportunity to read it myself.

 

Another book that touches on his presidency, albeit not exclusively, is "Eisenhower in War and Peace".  

 

I will look into it.  Thank You.

 

Back to Montgomery and his memoirs.

 

The Memoirs of Field Marshal Montgomery ( 1960 )

 

I kind of needed to emphasize that I read the 1960 version as opposed to the 1958 ( ? ) version.  He printed a retraction to be included in his 1960 version and words were specifically changed in the 1960 version from what the 1958 version had.

 

With that said, Montgomery was a very good military leader but tried in many cases to be too political in his campaigns which is almost a polar opposite of Eisenhower who tried to stay as far away as possible but kept getting dragged in.  He encouraged the use of a single thrust towards Berlin and finally succeeded in getting permission to utilize US forces ( 101st and 82nd ) as part of a British plan under British leadership.  However, permission was granted very late and the operation ( initially called Operation Comet ) was hurriedly placed into being.  Had the operation been conducted at the earlier timeframe, German troops (tank units, paratroop units, and others) would not have been in place and dug in.  This turned into one big failure which is commonly known as Operation Market Garden or a Bridge Too Far.  I, just yesterday, received word from a friend in Holland whom is a published author and historian that lives in Arnhem ( the end result of Operation Market Garden was Arnhem ).  He passed along a few copies of historical significance to me that involved my uncle which jumped as a Pathfinder with the 82nd Airborne.  The picture is directly after the battle of what survived of his unit.  40+ jumped as Pathfinders and what you see is what survived.

 

 

Montgomery hated the Israelis for a different reason than Hitler.  The British were trying to maintain their empire in Palestine / Israel and he was one of those tasked with maintaining order there.  Some of the Israeli terrorist were just as vicious as the modern day equivalent.

 

Montgomery was a little on the Sybil side.  One day he was friends with the Soviets and the next, he couldn't wait to declare all out war against them.  After the war was over, he can be seen as buddy buddy with the Soviets and even at one point wore a Soviet military outfit for a picture shoot.  Same thing goes for the Israelis in that ( much longer ) after the war, he conferred with Moshe Dyan ( sp ? ) on the how best to win the Vietnam War.  One day he was slamming Eisenhower and the next he was praising him.  Montgomery did not care who he slammed and even did it to his own British Generals which is one reason why there was a printed retraction in his 1960 version of his memoirs.

 

Montgomery's memoirs also touches briefly on things not stated directly in the book.  Those things being his being brought up in a somewhat dysfunctional family and later being accused of homosexuality.  Other items such as his support of Apartheid in South Africa are not discussed at all because his statements regarding that took place in 1962.  However, it is not hard to believe considering his earlier support of Arabs in North Africa at the expense of the Jews, etc...

 

Here is my plug for the author mentioned above:  http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Bridges-Parachute-Infantry-Operation/dp/1612002323/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1385823684&sr=1-4&keywords=the+battle+of+the+bridges

Currently accepting pre-orders.

 

Last Note:  It is impossible for me to give a very good impression of Montgomery's memoirs because of the constant flip flops in his personality.

[|High School Harry|]

Sort of off topic of Ike but two of the best books I have read on WWII history are

 

"Citizen Soldiers" by Steven Ambrose

 

and a knock your socks off look at WWII from the other side called

"The Forgotten Soldier" by Guy Sajer

would very much like for someone on here to read it and comment.

 

Currently reading "Inferno" by Max Hastings

Long and meandering, can read a few dozen pages and put it down,

pick it up a couple weeks later and pick up where you left off.

Also can read chapters out of order for individual essays or accounts.

Objective and pulls no punches.  Gives a different perspective of look at

things that went on not glossed over or sugar coated such as:

... The German blitzkreig early in the war and the French

... American bomber crews and what it was really like up there on a mission

... American prisoners of war and the Japanese... the Baatan Death March ... wow!  

 

The above books are devoid of the political agendas... etc.

[|Numbers|]

Sort of off topic of Ike but two of the best books I have read on WWII history are

 

"Citizen Soldiers" by Steven Ambrose

 

and a knock your socks off look at WWII from the other side called

"The Forgotten Soldier" by Guy Sajer

would very much like for someone on here to read it and comment.

 

Currently reading "Inferno" by Max Hastings

Long and meandering, can read a few dozen pages and put it down,

pick it up a couple weeks later and pick up where you left off.

Also can read chapters out of order for individual essays or accounts.

Objective and pulls no punches.  Gives a different perspective of look at

things that went on not glossed over or sugar coated such as:

... The German blitzkreig early in the war and the French

... American bomber crews and what it was really like up there on a mission

... American prisoners of war and the Japanese... the Baatan Death March ... wow!  

 

The above books are devoid of the political agendas... etc.

 

Here's a few comments but have not read them yet.

 

That book reminds me in a weird sort of way about the Korean soldier conscripted by the Japanese Army to fight the Soviets, captured by the Soviets to fight the Germans, captured by the Germans to fight against the Allied armies in Normandy, captured by the Allied army (506 PIR, 101st Airborne) and was accused of being a Japanese in a German uniform.  He later emigrated from Russia to the United States where he died in Illinois (1992).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Kyoungjong

 

His story was never turned into a book but was briefly touched on by Cornelius Ryan (in his notes gathered while writing his books) and Stephen Ambrose (D-Day June 6, 1944: The Climactic Battle of WWII).

 

In regards to Inferno, I would much rather read that book after reading the brief review I found.  Apparently it is not rehash of other WW2 books.  Inferno focuses on the individual and not necessarily on a General or politician.  Hasting's quote from the book has me wondering just a bit;  "Hastings concludes that whilst the Nazis fought individual battles well, their overall war effort showed "stunning incompetence."

 

Other books I have read show that it was not their handling of the war but the biggest error in that they started it in the first place.  In regards to resources, manpower, supply, etc...  both Germany and Japan were doomed before it even started.

 

Note:  One thing I would love to find more information about is the British effort to bomb Russia before the Russians joined the Allies while the Russians were still attached to the German alliance.  That one little effort had it been successful might have changed the dynamics of WW2 ( imho ).

[|High School Harry|]

 

Here's a few comments but have not read them yet.

 

That book reminds me in a weird sort of way about the Korean soldier conscripted by the Japanese Army to fight the Soviets, captured by the Soviets to fight the Germans, captured by the Germans to fight against the Allied armies in Normandy, captured by the Allied army (506 PIR, 101st Airborne) and was accused of being a Japanese in a German uniform.  He later emigrated from Russia to the United States where he died in Illinois (1992).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Kyoungjong

 

His story was never turned into a book but was briefly touched on by Cornelius Ryan (in his notes gathered while writing his books) and Stephen Ambrose (D-Day June 6, 1944: The Climactic Battle of WWII).

 

In regards to Inferno, I would much rather read that book after reading the brief review I found.  Apparently it is not rehash of other WW2 books.  Inferno focuses on the individual and not necessarily on a General or politician.  Hasting's quote from the book has me wondering just a bit;  "Hastings concludes that whilst the Nazis fought individual battles well, their overall war effort showed "stunning incompetence."

 

Other books I have read show that it was not their handling of the war but the biggest error in that they started it in the first place.  In regards to resources, manpower, supply, etc...  both Germany and Japan were doomed before it even started.

 

Note:  One thing I would love to find more information about is the British effort to bomb Russia before the Russians joined the Allies while the Russians were still attached to the German alliance.  That one little effort had it been successful might have changed the dynamics of WW2 ( imho ).

 

Wasn't it "Citizen Soldiers" that tells of the German commander who surrenders and turns his entire

unit, lock, stock and Panzer over to the Americans and was shocked to find that they were not going

to be uniting to fight the Russians?

 

Patton's feelings abut the Russians are pretty well documented including in the movie.

Held back to allow the Russians to capture Berlin, etc.

If his ideas had been heeded things in Europe would have developed a lot differently.

[|Numbers|]

 

Wasn't it "Citizen Soldiers" that tells of the German commander who surrenders and turns his entire

unit, lock, stock and Panzer over to the Americans and was shocked to find that they were not going

to be uniting to fight the Russians?

 

Patton's feelings abut the Russians are pretty well documented including in the movie.

Held back to allow the Russians to capture Berlin, etc.

If his ideas had been heeded things in Europe would have developed a lot differently.

 

I am not sure which in specific German commander turned his troops over expecting to fight the Germans.  However, I believe it would not have been an aberration in some of the German's minds.

 

Himmler attempted negotiations with the Allied nations in the West.  Himmler wanted surrender of German forces on the Western Front only so that those troops could turn around and face the Russians.  This took place shortly before total collapse of the German nation.  During one of the conferences by the Allied Armies ( I think Casablanca ), the Allied nations agreed that there would be no separate negotiations taking place and most certainly NO CONDITIONAL surrender.  However, every nation violated these rules to a certain extent before the war was over.  Eisenhower would hear nothing about anything unless it was total and complete UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.  As a matter of fact, Eisenhower refused the previous wars courtesy of being "called upon" by a surrendering armies Generals.  Eisenhower stated he never even talked to one himself until the end of hostilities and that was only to acknowledge the surrender.

 

In regards to Patton;

 

Patton was not the first General who wanted to arm the Germans and turn them against the Soviets.  It may have been Montgomery, while Patton's idea may have derived from the British ( I don't know but am simply guessing ).

 

Winston Churchill and General Montgomery were among those in the Allied army that wanted to continue the war against the Soviets.  There was even a date for the assault to take place ( July 1, 1945 ).  Montgomery was even told to stockpile German war materials for just such an event.  Truman knew of this plan and consulted his staff on the matter.

 

For further info see Operation Unthinkable:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

 

Note:  To me IMHO it appears the British military were looking at war in a political sense while the US military was simply focused more on winning the battle as efficiently as possible without concerning themselves with the political ramifications.  See how Germany was carved up at the end of hostilities, how the access to Berlin was accomplished, and how the "Eastern Bloc" nations were occupied and strangled.  Numerous examples of the Soviets ignoring what had been agreed upon by the Allies can be provided.  I think it is called leave the politics for the politicians and war for the soldiers or something like that.

[|Numbers|]

Nice reading list, Numbers. I suggest reading Omar Bradley's autobiography, too. I recently (within the last year or so) picked up a copy of De Gaulle's war memoirs. I've only skimmed through it thus far but you are welcome to borrow it if interested.

Found the complete memoirs in the library the other day.

Still trying to finish a book on Eddie Rickenbacker which is dry but informative.

From the brief skimming of the memoirs, De Gaulle was somewhat poetic.

[|Numbers|]

Started memoirs of De Gaulle. I am only a third into what I can only describe as well written piece of work. I have read multiple memoirs of wartime leaders and this one has me as a captive audience to his words.

Kind of full of his self importance and worth it is amazing that France did not surrender twice during WW2 ... The British were basically supplying his troops with their equipment, etc... but he continually maintained his colonial empire mentality at all costs. ...and we paid dearly for this attitude / mentality in the 60s and early 70s. Some could argue that Lebanon and Syrian issues of today arose as a result of French mindset.

De Gaulle did bring up an interesting fact that happened before WW2. De Gaulle wrote various papers on how and where France was weak. The Germans did almost exactly what he said could and did happen. His papers were published in the nations paper. Not all of them but the most damaging was published for all to see. Kind of reminds me of another prediction regarding the attack on Pearl Harbor by an American general.

In cases involving attacks by Free French forces in Africa, he would send word ahead that he was coming. It appears De Gaulle seemed to think the Vichy would simply give up every time. This thought process was dangerous and resulted in needless deaths as a result. It did work a couple times but was still costly.

Interesting take on his early views of American politics. Kind of hateful. Slamming Roosevelt pretty hard for not getting involved militarily. Still kind of early in the book but I don't believe he trusted any country.

[Homer_Rice]

Our perceptions of DeGaulle are seen generally through an Anglo-American prism. In France, he was like Washington and Lincoln rolled into one. Loved and hated. Personally, I like the guy for his steadfastness and his taking on the moral stance of "I am France" during a period when Vichy was selling out the country. You are right about some of his antiquated views re colonialism, but I suggest that you see that from the frame of reference of his unwillingness to be subservient to either the US or the Brits. Note his response to the Algerian crisis in the late 50s. (I once worked for a fellow who was an ex-member of the OAS and who came from a politically connected family. He actually once had dinner with DeGaulle. He hated the man and told some interesting anecdotes.)

 

Two documentaries I strongly recommend regarding France and WWII are The Sorrow and the Pity and Hotel Terminus. Both are available as disks from Netflix. If you don't do Netflix then send me a pm.

[|Numbers|]

Still early into the read but De Gaulle could probably draw different comparisons from a variety of people.

His "I am France" stance is imho a subjective point of view. The majority of people in power appeared to support Petain. De Gaulle appears to acknowledge this fact in the book.

Algeria could turn into a whole new thread. Not sure I want to tread into those waters.

I have access to Netflix. Will look into that.

Let me be clear. I am trying not to judge this man, I am trying to gather different perspectives on his thought process. From an Anglo perspective it is very easy to get the wrong impression. From French perspective he seems to have the best interest of France at heart. US as noted in Eisenhowers writings were different from the British perspective of someone like Montgomery.

Yes the Vichy sold them out but it could also be said that they managed to salvage a portion of France at the very least. Had France continued the struggle against Germany in what was doomed to be a losing battle, France would have suffered much more in loss of people and economic means. As it was, there were multiple opportunities to set up a French government in Africa. Yet, France decided to just simply sign an armistice and end the killing. De Gaulle desired to continue a losing battle and had it been up to him, France would have suffered even greater losses imho.

I am still only a third into the book. The reading continues to be as captivating as the first page. Putting ones mind and thought process on paper for the world to see takes a different breed. What I get is a small window into the minds of some of the most important people in history.

[|Numbers|]

...Note his response to the Algerian crisis in the late 50s. (I once worked for a fellow who was an ex-member of the OAS and who came from a politically connected family. He actually once had dinner with DeGaulle. He hated the man and told some interesting anecdotes.)...

 

 

After looking through some of the history of the OAS I would imagine this guy has plenty of stories to tell.  Assassinations, murder plots, uprisings, political intrigue, etc...