Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One interesting thing about history is how long-ago presidents can be reappraised over time based upon how events they handled during their presidency play out in the future.
Does anybody think that Eisenhower's handling of Korea deserves a reappraisal in light of the ongoing problems there with the North Korean regime? Or has too much time passed, and the situation morphed too much from what it was in his day?
Would it have been better to hold out for a more permanent settlement to the Korean War, rather than agree to the shaky armistice that Eisenhower accepted early in his term, which left the mechanism for future aggression in place? Or does Eisenhower deserve credit for the fact that despite the ongoing state of official war on the peninsula, relative peace has held for nearly 60 years?
At the time, Former President Truman was highly critical of the settlement that Eisenhower accepted. Was it that much different from what Truman had been willing to accept, and was he just being sour grapes? Or did he have a valid point?
I like Ike.President Eisenhower, who was often content to delegate authority and did not initiate bold new plans,was a refection of the times.Yet, he was able to maneuver successfully through a period marked by tense Cold War relations and the frightening prospect of nuclear war.
The cancellation of the Paris Summit was probably the biggest disappointment of Eisenhower's presidency.A summit meeting with Nikita Khrushchev was planned for Paris in early 1960, but before it could take place, Eisenhower faced the biggest international scandal of his carreer. Just prior to the Paris Summit,the Soviet military shot down ine of the U-2 spy planes that had been supplying the Eisenhower administration with detailed informatiom about soviet defenses.Eisenhower at first denied the violation but faced with the hard evidence admitted he had "goofed".The talks were cancelled which were to have included steps toward the first nuclear test ban treaty.
He was a military man, but he preferred to use military power for diplomacy, rather than as a force, as was reflected in the subtitle of his White House memoirs:Waging Peace. Dwight D Eisenhower was certainly not the most active president, but the majority of Americans seemed to like it that way.
I liked Ike. When he campaigned in '52 his open limo passed thru our southside Chicago neighborhood, and we all cheered him, in spite of the fact that the neighborhood was nearly 100% for Stevenson.
Later, he considered sending my unit into Laos in 1960, but decided against getting American troops involved at that time, although the CIA was very active there. The order "prepare to issue ammunition" was received on the shipboard radio, and everyone held their breath. We had been having a "party" for three months in Hong Kong and the Philippines, and now it was time to pay the piper. But Ike changed his mind.
ive read alot about Dwight and his story is very appealing to the "ideal" president lifestyle....soldier, leader....makes people want to follow him. to be honest though, ive never found anything that I was overly impressed with that he did.
Personally, If I was going to cite a criticism of Eisenhower was his near absolute avoidance of confronting McCarthyism.
Eisenhower, to use his own words did not want to "get down in the gutter" with McCarthy publicly. Behind the scenes though Ike put CIA boss Allen Dulles on McCarthy. Dulles fed McCarthy false info which led to his downfall.
President Eisenhower showed great insight and wisdom during his time in office. ...In my opinion, his farewell address contained important truisms and warnings about the dangers of the industrial-military complex and the unwarranted influence in government that we have failed to heed...
I agree with this. Perhaps because he was in many ways a very low-keyed public figure, his warning did not seem to get nearly as much attention at the time as one would expect it would have, coming as it did from a well respected general and president of the nation.
In retrospect he seems to have been prescient, and in failing to give appropriate consideration to his words the nation became entangled by exactly those forces he warned us about. He was probably our last president not to be deluded by militarism.
Eisenhower sent the us military forces to South Vietnam under the guise of trainers and advisors for the US military mission. Later Presidents like JFK increased this mission because it was precieved that Eisenhower's level of enguagement was ineffective.
Yup, except JFK increased the mission effectively. LBJ's escalation, plus essentially tying our troops' hands behind their backs, eventually led us into a war we couldn't win.
Not that I have any specific opinion here, you understand...
I tend to agree that History will, in time, judge Eisenhower's administration more of a success than it was considered previously.
I will add my personal note: my father served in Europe during WWII. We were watching television together when it was announced that Ike had died. My father stood up and left the room, to be by himself and reflect on and remember General Eisenhower. He was greatly saddened by Ike's death. People like my father (a common infantryman, nothing special) held Ike in great regard (and his presidential administration did not shake that love for their commander).
At the time, everyone thought he had proved we didn't need a President. He played golf the first term and was ill the second
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
