Talk: Dwight D. Eisenhower
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
An event mentioned in this article is a May 31 selected anniversary
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
| Contents |
Deaths of German prisoners
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)
Mistress and Vietnam/Bay of Pigs
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
Death of German prisoners
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)
Parliament Hill?
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)
Let's Not Sugarcoat History
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)
