Crusade in Europe Paperback – July 2, 1997

Reads like a well written text book. The author was objective and avoided the temptation to be self serving. The author completed the book without the aide of a ghost writer or editor.

Overall, a very interesting book.Plus factors+ It was fascinating to hear about WWII in Europe as recounted by the America and Britain's Supreme Commander in that theater.+ From a personal development and management perspective, I learned something about prioritization, effective execution, relationship building and organizational skills.+ It was interesting to read about Ike's interactions with historical figures such as Churchill, FDR and General Zhukov - probably the greatest general in WWII.+ Ike's insight is enduring, such as when he writes: "The democracies must learn that the world is now too small for the rigid concepts of national sovereignty that developed in a time when the nations were self-sufficient and self-dependent for their own well-being and safety. None of them today can stand alone. No radical surrender of national sovereignty is required—only a firm agreement that in disputes between nations a central and joint agency, after examination of the facts, shall decide the justice of the case by majority vote and thereafter shall have the power and the means to enforce its decision. This is a slight restriction indeed on nationalism and a small price to pay if thereby the peoples who stand for human liberty are better fitted to settle dissension within their own ranks or to meet attack from without."+ All of these so far outweigh the significant flaws below that I still give the book five stars.Minus factors- Ike is brilliant but not a great writer. This book could have used a good editor. It contained too much jargon and didn't develop the character of the generals. In terms of writing quality, Max Hastings' "Infero" is superior and a better introduction for those who have not read about WWII.- The book was too long. It contained lots of detail without an apparent point other than to recount historical facts.- Ike didn't acknowledge any serious faults or mistakes. He sounded defensive about the Battle of the Bulge and letting Monty pursue his failed Market Garden campaign.- Ike's political ability to build strong relationships and maintain alliances was a weakness in this book. At times Ike's praise of people was over the top and he sounded like a politician sucking up. Ike was insufficiently critical of weak generals like Montgomery, apparently not wanting to offend the British. Ike also did not give enough credit to Patton, the one and only US general the Germans feared. Instead, Ike spent too many pages in making Patton sound unbalanced and not enough pages on Patton's accomplishments in turning things around in North Africa, breaking out of Normandy, and coming to the rescue in the Battle of the Bulge.- Ike omitted how much more sacrifice the Russians made in bearing the brunt of the war. For the most part, Ike did not mention the incredible numbers in terms of Russian casualties, deaths etc.- Ike did not give the German army its due in terms of its effectiveness, putting aside how evil Germany was. Ike's bragging about the two Germans to one American loss ratio as the Allies overran Germany omitted that the overall balance of the loss ratio during the war was well in Germany's favor.- Ike should have spent more time on the Holocaust and camps.

Leadership and decision making during WW2 was nicely recorded in this book. Also, the deep respect he had for the average soldier and how leadership decisions effect them.

This guy could write! Wow! How much better educated was the average man back then, I wonder. I couldn't stop highlighting and taking notes. This is as close to doing your own archival research of the War as you can get. Of course, without all the trouble. This first hand account is at its worst overly pious and self-congratulatory, although backed up with receipts. Eisenhower is humble and holier than thou but also extremely persuasive and intelligent. I can't imagine a better man to have led the Allies. It's unfortunate with the perspective of history, all of the principles espoused in this tome that he'd abandon later as president, but it reminds one that the president does not have the same authority as the Supreme Allied Commander. In that role, he praises Democracy and cooperation to no end, yet, it was his complete control, albeit with certain politically astute concessions, that led to our great victory. It's all a perfect field of view from which to assess the last chapter on Russia, our different systems, and the future of Democracy. Ike is transparent. This is not propaganda. It's an extremely charming and sympathetic account of all the myriad organizational demands of running a full scale war. It's narrative arc is remarkable, and extraordinary anecdotes are sprinkled throughout. (The King of England had to step in to stop Churchill from attending the storming of the beaches at Normandy — by threatening to join him!) That and much more. It's a loong read, but impossible to put down. Even if you think one portion of the war will be less interesting than the others, I implore you to read the whole thing to guarantee full context. It's worth it. Bravo, Ike. You were not perfect, but you were a great one. Also, his prescription for Democracy's future is still applicable today. Shows how far we've fallen, unfortunately.

Published in 1948 this book is so close to the events in time, and also in the person of the actual author, that one could be forgiven for suspecting that perhaps the passage of time and the treatment of the subject by others further removed, might produce a better, or more accurate, history. Well, perhaps that is a fair observation, but I have read many books on WW2 and this one stands as my joint favourite, along with Churchill's magnificent "The Second World War", again a history bound to be somewhat slanted by the author's personal involvement with the momentous events described. The two books taken together very much show, in certain instances, how each man viewed the same events and decisions from quite different perspectives.This book, "Crusade in Europe", deals almost exclusively with the European campaign and Eisenhower's own involvement in it. I found it to very lucidly present the progression of the war from the North African campaign (Operation Torch) through Sicily, Italy and finally the incredible undertaking of the Normandy landings (Overlord), through to Germany's unconditional surrender on 07/05/1945 - effective from midnight on the 8th. A myriad of background military and political facts are included along with ongoing observations and recollections of personalities involved and of how decisions regarding strategy and tactics were reached. It is undoubtedly an extraordinary achievement that such a virtually flawless level of cooperation and cohesion was arrived at between the British Empire and her US allies under the overall leadership in the European theatre of one man - Eisenhower. That this unity was achieved is clearly a reflection on his exceptional abilities to deal with a multitude of competing high-ego personalities in a way which allowed all involved to ultimately defer to his authority with respect and confidence. Success in building this relationship must also be credited to the political leaders involved, Churchill and Roosevelt, particularly Churchill who had to eat some pie (not too humbly!) on a number of occasions when his own strong feelings regarding strategy were overruled by the Commander in Chief. And Eisenhower had the ability to personally and solely take some decisions, in the face of opposing advice, in relation to mind numbingly frightening options, not the least of which was his final "go" for Overlord to begin. Had he been wrong the consequences would have been too horrific for most men to even contemplate. He was the right man for the time and his account is mandatory reading for all who are interested in the history of those extraordinary times.Incidentally, I read the Kindle edition, which I found excellent, but I used Google maps in conjunction with it to keep track of where everything was happening. I feel sure I would do the same even with the print edition as a side by side map with the book really brings the entire story alive.

Reading this book, as opposed to many others on military campaigns by those involved, one gets a graphic picture of a man in control, acting in an way as a Conductor and subordinating everything to the achievement of the overall objective - which was absolutely clear. An example is the Battle of the Bulge which, in many texts, comes over as a major threat to the campaign, but in his book, Eisenhower considered the exposure as an acceptable risk and an opportunity to cause major damage to the enemy. I thought the book was a tour de force.

I am well-acquainted with the history of WWII, but in all these years of study I had never read Eisenhower’s viewpoint. It is a fascinating read, explaining the military, political and human conditions which he and his staff faced. This book has given me a much more balanced view of that war, and I will encourage my children & grandchildren to read it.

Early days but enjoying the perspective.

Good read but not an easy read for me personally. Written in a style of still issuing orders. Full of respect for the guy for holding the allies together and for what he achieved in his life.