Talk:Dwight D. Eisenhower

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Dwight D. Eisenhower was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: July 5, 2006
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Dwight D. Eisenhower as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Swedish language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Egos???

"This assignment would prove valuable preparation for handling the egos of Winston Churchill, George S. Patton and Bernard Law Montgomery during World War II."

At the very least, this requires infomation/sourcing to back it up. Mythiran 14:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dynamic Conservatism

Exactly what is 'Dynamic Conservatism'? What follows looks to me like a description of big government liberalism -- nothing conservative in the whole section. 14:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


For the citation needed in this section a decent link is http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,900543-1,00.html Though not a first hand reference it is from Friday, Jan. 24, 1969. Time I imagine is a valid enough source. WillisAdair (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military Industrial Complex

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)

[edit] Presidents table

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

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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

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 [1] 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.[2] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
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)

[edit] Truman offering to stepping aside for the 1948 Presidential race

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

[edit] Pictures

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.

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

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)

[edit] Ike and Goldwater

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 [3] --JimWae 21:12, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
    • I like your edit. Ellsworth 22:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Somebody want to fix this "sentence"?

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)

[edit] forbach?

What exactly does this sentence mean: "The Eisenhower family was descent of Forbach."? Dmharvey Image:User_dmharvey_sig.png Talk 00:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, Forbach is the name of a place in Alsace, present day France. John Anderson 07:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] first war general since Grant to serve as President?

Other Wikipedia articles show Hayes, Arthur, and Benjamin Harrison as general in the GAR. Harrison's was a brevet generalcy, but I'm not sure of the others. In any event, they were generals _during wartime_, which contradicts the claim in this Eisenhower article that he was the first since Grant. Something needs to be fixed somewhere....

[edit] Eisenhower's name

The article says: "He was named David Dwight, but quickly began to go by his middle name." Doesn't that mean he should really be called D. Dwight Eisenhower, and not Dwight D. Eisenhower? How did he write his own name? John Anderson 07:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, this issue has been covered in the article now. Good. John Anderson 09:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jehovah's Witness

It's misleading to categorize Eisenhower as a Jehovah's Witness, since it's clear he dissociated himself from it in 1915. I've removed the category. DJ Clayworth 15:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Also to add is that he was baptised a Christian while in office, and he was quiet evangelical. He put "In God we Trust" on our money. I think that the religion section should focus more on this part of his life because it clearly effected his presidental decisions. Tjb891 01:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Size - Its over the limit

We should think about breaking the article do to file size.

"Awards and decorations" could go to its own page, would that be enough? It is not very big, just a long list.

The logical break would be:

A) birth-to-after World War II/military career
1 Early life and family
2 Military career
2.1 Wartime commander
2.2 Dates of Rank

&


B) Political career to death
3 Eisenhower's Presidency
3.1 Foreign affairs
3.2 Domestic affairs
4 Cabinet
5 Supreme Court Appointments
6 States Admitted to the Union
7 White House Staff and Advisors
8 Retirement, death, and legacy

Feedback? WikiDon 08:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "The last war hero president"?

Why does the article begin this way when the next president, Kennedy, was decorated for his actions involving PT-109? for that matter, George HW Bush (aka Bush41) was a decorated WW2 fighter pilot. I realize that having had two draft dodgers (or at least sliders) in office in a row may create some sour feelings, but that's no reason to ignore facts.

  • The opening phrase is POV, and it's stylistically inappropriate for an article about a famous personality. Almost all the articles I've looked at begin simply with "<person> (born-died) was a <something>." I'll remove the phrase. Simishag 18:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • someone beat me to it, but i'll leave my support of the change here. Simishag 18:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Note 1 is copyvio?

There is some word-for-word copying between this article and

http://www.adherents.com/people/pe/Dwight_Eisenhower.html

But I don't have time to investigate further. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 68.40.43.141 (talk • contribs) 11:22, December 9, 2005

[edit] Ike the athlete took on the greatest football player in the world

Future President Dwight Eisenhower injured his knee trying to tackle Thorpe during that game.

Eisenhower recalled of Thorpe in a 1961 speech. "Here and there, there are some people who are supremely endowed,""My memory goes back to Jim Thorpe. He never practiced in his life, and he could do anything better than any other football player I ever saw."[4][5]

[edit] Guild Hall Address

I added to the quotes section a passage from Ike's London Guild Hall Address, one of the greatest of short American speeches (he wrote it himself). This may not have been the best quote--it's so full of memorable passages that I found it hard to choose. If someone can find a better one, be my guest.--20 March 2006

[edit] Ike

Why was he called "Ike"--Scott3 03:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ike was simply a nickname used for him. For future reference, please direct factual questions to the reference desk. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious and not very interesting trivia

—Uninteresting; not notable. Washington and Grant were two Generals who served as president, Washington was promoted in 1976, Grant "saved" the Union, of course they will always be members of the U.S. military. Besides, the fact as it relates to Ike is already mentioned in the article in a much better way.
  • Eisenhower's height was 5'10½," or 179 cm.
—Uninteresting. If he had been 7'1" or 4'9", yeah, maybe include it, but average height? Who cares.
  • He is sometimes called the "Trinity President" because he served as President of the US and President of Columbia Univerity, and had a presidential-like role in the military.
—Dubious; unverifiable as far as I can tell.

--Easter Monkey 16:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course these are "trivial." The only qualification here is that they are accurate and a smidgen interesting. General or not, one doesn't automatically stay in the military forever. The only one I would reject is that goofy "Trinity President" one. Also, Ike (the oldest) handing the reins to JFK (the youngest) IS interesting.Sfahey 17:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because a trivia section in bullet points definitely doesn't count as good prose, and nor does an enormous list of awards. If the 'trivia' is genuinelt trivial it doesn't need to be here, while if it's relevant it should go where it is relevant rather than being shunted out to a section which implies it's not relevant. Worldtraveller 15:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ROLE IN COUP IN IRAN 1950S

I don't think I am the right person to write the summary of Eisenhower's sponsoring a coup, spending $20M American taxpayer dollars, in Iran, overthrowing Mohammad Mossadegh, but surely it should be here. In his book All the Shah's Men, Stephen Kizer goes into great detail about it. It, he says, is the root of our problems with Iran and the Middle East, including terrorism, since then. 1950s. I see already the Eisenhower bio is too long. However, my gosh, isnt this important?

Not just Iran, but the crushing of the other secular, pan-Arab, etc. independent movements led to the current crop of terrorism and fundamentalism with the Middle-East, when you crush one form of resistance people aren't just going to give up and lay down they'll find another forum to get together and try and stop you screwing with them.
But would you rather they all went off on an independent path and didn't do as they were told and probably even used their nations resources for the betterment of their population rather than increasing the profits of foreign corporations? LamontCranston 5:28, 7 Aug 2006 (UTC)
Actually it looks like there is a concerted effort to change US history and prevent this knowledge from coming out on Wikipedia. I put the Iran stuff in the article and it was deleted almost immediately today. An argument could be made that the short-sightedness and greed of the Republican party going back to 1953 paints a direct path to 9/11. My guess is that future changes to reflect reality will be continuously deleted on Wikipedia.
Considering the obvious bias shown on the subject by the above posts, I suggest you find a reliable secondary source that backs up what you want to put in, post it here, and allow other more neutral editors to add the information. You can also add it yourselves but be open to NPOV criticisms and attacks on the reliability of the sources. Please remember WP:AGF, sign your edits, and don't assume a conspiracy where it could just be simple oversight. Ramsquire 00:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The information you want is in the Eisenhower Presidency article. Ramsquire 00:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
You're blaming the 1953 issue on the whole Republican Party? Are you joking? Do you think that the Republican Party supported this overthrow? That was another psychotic act by Eisenhower. He did a lot of those types of things. Jtpaladin 23:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

  • Lead needs just 1 more paragraph at least.
  • Image : Image:Churchill and Eisenhower.jpg is copyrighted. Lincher 01:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dealing with the Trivia section

As noted above, the Trivia section of this article was one reason for its original delisting as a good article. Also, it does not conform to Wikipedia:Trivia#Recommendations for handling Trivia. I would like to discuss (a.) whether the information should be kept, and (b.) if it should be kept, where it should be merged. My recommendation regarding how to handle each of the nine bulleted items, in order, is as follows:

1. Move to Eisenhower's Presidency
2. Delete or move to Dwight D. Eisenhower#Retirement and death
3. Move to Eisenhower's Presidency
4. Move to Eisenhower's Presidency
5. Move to Eisenhower's Presidency
6. Move to Dwight D. Eisenhower# Awards and decorations
7. Move to new section, Dwight D. Eisenhower#Popular culture
8. Delete or move to new section, Dwight D. Eisenhower#Popular culture
9. Move to either Dwight D. Eisenhower#Early life and family or Dwight D. Eisenhower#Retirement and death. (Seems to make more sense in the former, but I think it would read better in the later.)

Your feedback would be appreciated. Regards, Accurizer 02:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of the changes (except 7 & 8) proposed though if they stay as trivia, the problem isn't fixed it is merely dispersed. I would just suggest to add it to the article as a prose. For 7 & 8, Pop culture and Trivia sections are seen as the same in WP so they should remain minimal to none, though having them shouldn't be a reason for the failing of the article.
Fixing the Fair use rationale of the image mentioned above and modifying the lead section will help the article reach GA status. Lincher 17:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed

For being on hold for over a week.--SeizureDog 11:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disposition of Trivia

  • Removed as unverifiable: "Eisenhower was involved with testing motorcycles coast to coast for the U.S. military. This long harrowing experience later influenced his goal for an Interstate Highway System." Rather, his involvement in the U.S. Army's 1919 Transcontinental Motor Convoy and subsequent experience with German autobahns during WWII convinced him of the need for the Interstate Highway System (see [6] for example). I was unable to locate any reliable sources regarding Eisenhower's supposed experiences with motorcycles. Accurizer 02:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bricker Amendment

For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article. I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1. I'd welcome comments. I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balanced budget

I see this statement in the legacy section:

Eisenhower's reputation has risen since that time because of his non-partisan nature, his wartime leadership, his action in Arkansas, his being the last President to balance the budget (before the second Bill Clinton term) . . .

Didn't LBJ balance the 1969 budget? Or am I thinking of something else?--Idols of Mud 17:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish-German?

I removed this catagorey because I've never seen anything to confirm it, and whoever added it did not cite a source. From all the biographies I've read of this man, his family was of ethnic German Alsatian descent, and not of Jewish background.

I agree that I think he was German but what the heck was this bizarre claim that he picked up the nickname "terrible Swedish Jew"? I'm not even going to post any of the websites that make this claim but they show a picture of Eisenhower with those words in the yearbook at West Point. Is this some kind of inside joke because it's not funny. Frankly, I think it's antisemitic. Jtpaladin 19:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's antisemitic as well, considering that the first website I found that asserted that claim was "jewwatch.com". After looking around on Google, there appears to be no reputable basis for such a claim. --ForbiddenWord 19:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The West Point remark must be some kind of inside joke because I don't see what the heck is the point of that retarded comment. It doesn't even make sense. Jtpaladin 23:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why you would take a claim like that seriously. Consider the source when you hear a rumor. I strongly doubt that a page like "Jew Watch" can be considered trustworthy, exactly. --ForbiddenWord 12:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Texas

Putting WikiProject Texas here so the bot will not retag it. Ingrid 14:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overthrow of democratically-elected government of Iran

A section on this topic was deleted 20:08, 5 October 2006 Flcelloguy. Was the objection to the way the section was written, or the quality of the references or lack thereof, or does the editor doubt the role of the US in the overthrow of the eader of Iran and the installation of the Shah?Edison 03:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation: Keelhaul

How the heck can we completely overlook this massive inhumanity perpetrated by the Allies and executed by Eisenhower? Eisenhower was a merciless lunatic as underlined by this tragedy. We know what this operation was all about and what Eisenhower's part was in it. We know that millions of innocent men, women, and children were slaughtered because of this, among other such operations, under direct order from Eisenhower. This was a post-WWII action that is one of the greatest horrors for which Eisenhower was responsible. And, this is not just German prisoners of war but people from all over Eastern Europe. How can we gloss over this issue?

I can't attest to the quality of these websites but certainly they are a good start in which to open a broader perspective of the "Dark Side" of Eisenhower:

http://worldaffairsbrief.com/keytopics/Keelhaul.shtml

http://www.serendipity.li/hr.html#Keelhaul

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance34.html

http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/for/us-germany-pow.html

These are just a few of many links where solid sources can be found to write an acceptable section devoted to Eisenhower's part in this atrocity. I know a few articles exist in Wikipedia regarding the German soldier starvation, Operation Keelhaul, etc. but they are devoid of reference to Eisenhower's part in them. Certainly, work to be done. Jtpaladin 00:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


The illusion of control. The presumption that at the very moment the Reich surrended, Eisenhower somehow had immediate and total control of an entire war-devastated continent is ludicrous. Europe was devastated. The allies had won, but no one was in control and the ensuing economic chaos took years to sort out. And in the process many refugees and destitute Germans died of untreated disease, hunger, cold ect. It was horrible, but to blame Eisenhower for all of this is stupid and simplistic beyond belief.

Only someone suffering from ideological erosion of their logical thought process would lunge for such a conclusion.

Sean7phil (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image talk:Churchill and Eisenhower.jpg

See the above page for a discussion on the notability of a visit and speeches by Winston Churchill and Eisenhower to Richmond, Virginia on March 8, 1946. It seems to me that the visit is not sufficiently notable for inclusion, which means the fair use image Image:Churchill and Eisenhower.jpg will need to be removed. I will wait a few days before removing it in the event another editor feels differently. Accurizer 01:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed after 5 days. Accurizer 01:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Official Chief of Staff portrait

Image:EisenhowerChiefofStaffPortrait.jpg I'm not an expert, but his shoulder patch reads like a SHAEF. Does this mean Chief of Staff? If yes, please write it in a clearer way. Hope I didn't misunderstand something that already explains it. FloK 07:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ike was a 5-star "General of the Army" when he was appointed Army Chief of Staff in 1945. This portrait is from the time he was head of SHAEF, before his '44 promotion to 5-star status.Joe Blaznalis, The Fashion Plate of Professional Thumb-Wrestling 05:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presidential Cabinet

Where is his cabinet? Did someone delete it or was it never in this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.189.197.44 (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Good question, but I don't know either. Extremely sexy 21:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eisenhower Dollar

The last years these were minted was 1978, not 1979 (in 1979 the Susan B. Anthony dollar started). Corrected this.75.70.125.3 06:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do not revert citation tags

Citations are most definitely needed for the material in the religion section. Removal of these will be considered vandalism, and will be reverted as such. K. Scott Bailey 19:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elephant

Someone replaced the entire article with "elephant" so I deleted it. I'm sorry but I don't know how to replace the original article. Currently, it's blank. Ole 22:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

There is a significant amount of vandalism with random letters being inserted near the beginning of the article. Perhaps it should be protected. Makerowner 18:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree: only registered users should be allowed to edit the article from now on for the time being, hence. Extremely sexy 22:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protection is requested. --Adavidb 05:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Important bits left out of Farewell Address to the Nation

After mentioning "military-industrial complex":

"The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted."

Is completely omitted from the speech. Why is it?

This was a sizable part of the point he was putting across. Leaving it out completely misrepresents Eisenhower.

Thanks. Gnatinator 10:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Full marks for you. Extremely sexy 15:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Took out claim

Removed claim of false Armageddon prediction under the "Religion" section, since it was not cited and it is a major claim, when putting it back put citation immediately along with it. (unsigned comment)

[edit] High school in memorial of Ike

Removed link to high school because it directs you to a different high school than the one mentioned in this article. A page should be made for the Dwight D. Eisenhower High School in Blue Island, Illinois if so desired. Jason947 00:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Approval Rating Graph

I made that graph, maybe you would like to put it on the page.

--Jean-Francois Landry 17:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm Not Sure Why

But in the source code, there are several more sections after the trivia section (Footnotes, external links etc.) which are not visible in the article. can somone with more wiki experience fix it? --Captain Proton 09:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bonus March

Didnt Eisenhower help break up the bonus march if so why isnt it in here? 69.136.162.114 13:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Space Race

No mention of the Army Ballistic Missile Agency, the National Council on Aeronatuics, or the founding of NASA? Just a short mention that the "Space Race" started during Ike's term, and nothing more? This was a significant chapter in American history and Ike's presidency so it would be useful if a couple of paragraphs could be crafted summarizing this period at the dawn of the Space Age. - Dravecky 15:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, Dwight D. Eisenhower told his wife on his deathbed that he loved her. His final words, however, were: I have always loved by country And, he once told Mamie Doud that she came second, after his country. (*SSF*CK) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.109.227 (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from article

[edit] Trivia

  • Eisenhower was 5' 10" in height.[1]
  • He was the last U.S. President to be born in the 19th century.
  • He suffered from Crohn's disease.[2]
  • Eisenhower smoked four packs of Camel cigarettes every day.[3]
  • The loblolly pine tree on the left side of the fairway at the 17th hole at Augusta National Golf Club is known as the Eisenhower Tree. He put his ball in the tree so many times he campaigned to have it removed. It stands to this day. The membership built a cabin for Eisenhower, one of 12 on the course. The cabin, built to Secret Service specifications, still stands on the course and is adorned with an eagle on the front porch.[4]
  • Eisenhower has been portrayed by several actors, including Tom Selleck in the 2004 television program Ike: Countdown to D-Day which depicts the 90 days leading up to the D-Day Invasion. On June 6 of that year, Eisenhower's grandson, David, along with Roosevelt's grandson, David, and Arabella Churchill, granddaughter of British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, appeared on MSNBC during the network's coverage of the 60th anniversary of D-Day and talked about the roles their grandfathers played during the allied invasion.[5]
  • Eisenhower enjoyed cooking as a hobby throughout his life, with particular emphasis on outdoor cooking. During his time as President, he even cooked food on the White House roof,[6] a photo of which exists in the National Archives. Notwithstanding her husband's cooking, Mamie once famously said, "Ike runs the country; I turn the pork chops."[7]
  • Eisenhower experienced tinnitus.[8]
  • Eisenhower was the last president to wear a fedora. After his presidency hats generally stopped being an integral part of men's clothing.[9]

[edit] First German-American president

  • Articles note things such as Kennedy's being the first Catholic president. Wasn't Eisenhower the first German-American president? Dogru144 05:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
He may or he may not have been. Are you sure he was the first with German ancestry? His German roots went back at least 4 generations, so he thoroughly Americansed. Also, JFK was a Catholic, which is a matter of religion, not ethnic background. -- JackofOz 05:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
And the first German-American US-President was William Howard Taft —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.198.223 (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] State funeral

His state funeral was unique because it was presided over by Richard Nixon, who was Vice President under Eisenhower and was serving as President of the United States.[26]

This is problematical. In what sense does a non-minister of religion "preside over" a funeral? Nixon may well have attended, but surely the funeral was conducted by a minister. No? Also, the cited website [26] does not load. -- JackofOz 05:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ike did not end the Korean War

A peace treaty has never been signed. North and South Korea are still technically at war. Eisenhower ended American involvement in the war effective with the cease fire, which came about with the U.N.'s acceptance of India's proposal for an armistice. Don't give Ike more credit than he has coming to him. User:71.92.108.197 (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2007

How can you say that he "ended involvement"? Aren't American troops still there, haven't they been there for 57 years? The "INVOLVEMENT" has NOT ended. The "WAR" has. WikiDon 07:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it hasn't. A lot of people don't seem to realize. The Korean War is NOT OVER!!! We signed a cease-fire, not a peace treaty. Legally speaking, the war could start again any minute, as soon as one side decides to break the cease fire. The Korean War was one of two wars the USA fought in the 20th century that ended with a cease-fire, not a treaty. FYI, the other was the 1991 Persian Gulf War (which, by the way, is why the US was well within the bounds of international law to invade Iraq in 2003, as every time they shot at or locked onto a US or UK aircraft, they were violating the cease-fire agreement.) It may seem like splitting hairs, but NO ONE ENDED THE KOREAN WAR!!! It's not over!--SpudHawg948 11:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously this is an issue of semantics. Should conflict break out on the Korean peninsula, no one could claim it was directly related to the war of the 1950s. I think, some 50 years later, it is safe to say that Eisenhower ended the Korean war, regardless of whether the means by which he ended were a guaranteed terminal at the time it happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.75.69 (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


OK he ended the Korean Conflict (the fighting and the killing) but not technically the war...

Sean7phil (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ribbons

I was immediately struck by the fact that in 2 portraits he wears only 3 ribbons, in contrast to lesser officers who wear so many. What are the decorations he displays? Too Old 10:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone construct a "reconstruction" of Ike's ribbons, like the one in the Douglas MacArthur article. That stuff is great and invaluable (well, at least to cranks like me!) Stuff like that makes Wiki not only unique, but valuable (and fun!). Joe Blaznalis, The Fashion Plate of Professional Thumb-Wrestling 05:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up: It's been changed recently, but for the longest time the rule on wearing ribbons with dress uniforms was "all, some, or none" meaning the individual could choose to wear all their ribbons, some of them, or none at all. It was up to the servicemembers discretion. He may just not have wanted to appear vain or ostentatious, or maybe they were just a little too heavy?--SpudHawg948 11:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of Family

So one person invented the origins of his family in the Saarland, the other person dreamed up the origins in the Odenwald, only one paragraph apart from each other. How in the world is anyone ever going to believe anything of the hyperreality that Wikipedia creates with nonsense like this? Perhaps after all he was from Munich.... What a load of crap again. 69.205.58.226 14:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ike's dates of Rank as a Soldier

Can someone construct a table of date of rank, like the one in the Douglas MacArthur article. I love that stuff!Joe Blaznalis, The Fashion Plate of Professional Thumb-Wrestling 05:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Eisenhower presidential museum notes that he has a less than stellar military career until he was "discovered" and fast tracked to general from Lt. Colonel. This should be added. How should we word it?

[edit] Health and impact

The article presently doesn't mention his health barring the cause of his death. Lord Owen notes that his heart attack in 1955 led to a new level of openness about the health of presidents. He was one of the first to receive warfarin as a medical treatment - nowadays it would be unthinkable to use a more-or-less experimental compound on a head of state, see Link 1959. JFW | T@lk 10:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Declined reputation?

Maybe, but Gallup states he was the "most admired man" for 1967 and 1968.[7] One of only a few times the sitting President didn't win the honor. (Granted this might in part be because of LBJ's unpopularity)--T. Anthony (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military-industrial complex

This has become seen as a prescient warning for many historians around the globe. Should it not have a mention in the BLP? Or have I missed it? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There are already referrals to this in the "Post-presidency" and "See also" sections. —Adavidb 00:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Powers U-2 spyplane

Powers getting shot down over Sverdlosk on a CIA/USAF mission on May Day, 1960, upset Eisenhower's 1958-1960 plans for a Nuclear Test Ban treaty. Upcoming Big Four summit talks in Paris were cancelled. This should be in the article. Binksternet (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Education of his brothers

The statement that "Dwight D. Eisenhower (and his six brothers) attended Abilene High School" is incorrect, since one of the brothers -- Paul -- died in infancy. (See page 69 of Michael Korda's 2007 biography "Ike".) Thus, only five of his brothers also attended Abilene High School. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latinsq (talk • contribs) 01:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Birth Name?

The entry says "Dwight David Eisenhower, born David Dwight Eisenhower", but the Early Life section says "born Daniel Dwight Eisenhower". The Eisenhower Presidential Center website doesn't mention his birth name [8] Does anyone know more about this? Not only is it in poor form for an article to be contradicting itself, there are no sources for either name. Joliefille (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You apparently encountered a vandalized version of the article, since corrected and temporarily protected. —Adavidb 04:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)