September 27, 2007 11:58 AM

Michael Korda on his new book 'Ike: An American Hero'

Mark_Wolf(Q) What prompted you to write a biography of Dwight D. Eisenhower?
Michael_Korda(A) First of all, I've always been impressed by Ike, and the way he arrived in the UJ in 1942 as a newly promoted major general (temporary) and instantly won the confidence of Churchill, even though the U. S. had only a few hundred troops there then. Then too, I wrote a short biography of Grant a few years back, and it struck me how similar the two men were--small town boys who were awkward at West Point, with no great ambition to be officers (both of them went to the Point because it was the best way to get a free college education), both of them modest, but tough, and both of them, once they reached high command, with the same strategic outlook--no showy, "set-piece battles", just a steady, constant advance, grinding the enemy down day by day until he no option but to surrender. And both of them far better and more important 2-term presidents than people (and historians) think today.
Mark_Wolf(Q) You write that Eisenhower, even as a child, became a "master of concealing himself behind his chosen mask of tongue-tied, good-natured affability." How did that pose serve him in later life?
Michael_Korda(A) Ike concealed an icy intelligence, fierce ambition and a hair-trigger temper behind that big grin, and it served him all his life by making people under-rate him. Among the people who saw through it were FDR, General Marshall, Mamie, Churchill amd Charles De Gaulle. This, by the way, explains Ike's reputation for garbled syntax--he was a very good writer, an excellent speaker, but when it was a question he didn't want to answer, he took refuge behind bumbling--he was a master at concealment. It is hardly surprising that he was wildly recognized as the best poker player in the U. S. Army, in the days when that mattered!
Mark_Wolf(P) Welcome to Michael Korda, author of "Ike: An American Hero." He will discuss and sign copies of his book during an appearance at 7:30 p.m. tonight at Tattered Cover, 2526 East Colfax Avenue.
Mark_Wolf(Q) I'm sure many people who read your book are also watching Ken Burns' The War on PBS. Some historians criticize Ike for not beating the Russians to Berlin. What's your view?
Michael_Korda(A) not my view that matters, but Ike's (with which I agree). Ike believed it would cost him at the very least another 10,000 casualties to reach Berlin, and also knew that the occupation zones of Germany had been agreed upon by FDR, Churchill and Stalin at Yalta. First of all, there was no point to his sending troops (and sacrificing lives) to go beyond the American occuptaion zone, since the moment the war was over, the Russians would insist on their getting out. Secondly, the zones and the status of Berlin were political matters that hasd been settled by the heads of state. Neither FDR nor Truman would have agreed to Ike's breaching the agreement that had been made at Yalta, whatever people may have thought about it later on. Ike had no wish, as he said later, to explain to the parents or husbands of 10,000 men why he had sacrificed their lives for no strategi c gain, and in defiance of a political decision and a detailed map that had been drawn up the three heads of state. It is no part of a general's job to circumvent an agreement made by the president of the United States. Those who feel that we should have "taken" Berlin, or tried to, forget (1) that the Russians were already there, (2) that the occuptaion zones had already been drawn up, and (3) that nobody at the time necessarily believed that it would become a thorny issue in the Cold War, which had not yet begun, and everybody (except perhaps Stalin) was anxious to avoid.
Michael_Korda left.
Mark_Wolf(P) Mark_Wolf: Welcome to Michael Korda, author of "Ike: An American Hero." He will discuss and sign copies of his book during an appearance at 7:30 p.m. tonight at Tattered Cover, 2526 East Colfax Avenue.
Michael_Korda joined.
Mark_Wolf(Q) A question from Rocky Mountain News political writer M.E. Sprengelmeyer: Retired Gen. Colin Powell comes to mind as someone who was often goaded to make the switch from the military battlefields to the battlefields of elective politics. He decided that an Ike-like move was not for him. Based on what you know, do you think Eisenhower would be any more or less likely to make the transition from general to politics in this new media age?
Michael_Korda(A) I think the Kay Summersby problem would have been magnified, of course. As it was, it caused Ike plenty of embarrassment (and Mamie more), in addition to which the Taft forces spread the story that Ike was Jewish (the least prejudiced of men, Ike dismissed this), and pro-British. Of course the Kay story would be worse today, but I don't think iot would have stopped Ike. I myself always thought Gen. Powell would make a good president, but I think he got cold feet, and perhaps a man who gets cold feet shouldn't be in the Oval office.
Mark_Wolf(Q) Kay Summersby was Ike's driver and companion during World War II. You write that their relationship and rumored affair "still vexes biographers." You edited and published her book, which affirms the affair but your book doesn't take a stand, saying "Nobody knows and prurient speculation is out of place." Do you think their relationship was physical?
Michael_Korda(A) Well, I try to be fair. There was an intense emotional relationship between Ike and Kay, but Kay claimed that Ike had only once tried to consummate their affair. Ike, of course, wisely ignored the question. I think that if he only once tried to cosummate their affair in 3 and half years away from home, it is evidence of formidable restraint. Either way, however, their relationship could only give great pain to Mamie, who handled the problem with great class.
Mark_Wolf(Q) Kay Summersby was Ike's driver and companion during World War II. You write that their relationship and rumored affair "still vexes biographers." You published her book, which affirms the affair but your book doesn't take a stand, saying "Nobody knows and prurient speculation is out of place." Do you think their relationship was physical?
Michael_Korda(A) Question is repeated
Mark_Wolf(Q) Why did Eisenhower oppose dropping the atomic bomb on Japan and did he ever come to believe using it was the right decision?
Michael_Korda(A) No, Ike wrote about it very firmly in CRUSADE IN EUROPE. He believed that the Japanse were already defeated and actively looking for a way to surrender, and that dropping the atomic bomb on them was unnecessary and would be bad for the reputation of the United States. He also said that once you let the genie out of the bottle you could never put him back in again. Interestingly, he didn't know about the A-bomb project until after VE day, when Secretary of War Stimson told him about it in Potsdam. Ike angered both Stimson and Truman by advising them not to use the bomb.
Mark_Wolf(P) Welcome to Michael Korda, author of "Ike: An American Hero." He will discuss and sign copies of his book during an appearance at 7:30 p.m. tonight at Tattered Cover, 2526 East Colfax Avenue.
Mark_Wolf(Q) Why did Eisenhower end the Korean War so quickly after he was elected?
Michael_Korda(A) He went there, he flew over the ftront lines in a Piper Cub, and observed the terrain and the way the Chines ahd dug their artillery into the rock sides of the mountains, and drew the professional judgment that any attempt to attck them would be hugely costly in lives, and unlikely to succeed. He could see no way to victory without the massive use of atomic weapons on the Chinese ports and supply lines, and he thought that the American public would not support this, nor the rest of the world. In the circumstances, trhe best thing was to end the war as quickly as possible. Ike was always a realist. In war, if you can't win, quit, and could see there was no real chance of winning. The armistice in Korea is still in force today, by the way.
Mark_Wolf(Q) How do you think Eisenhower might regard the Bush administration's conduct of the war in Iraq?
Michael_Korda(A) I can't answer for what he would have thought, but he did say that if America ever tried too become "an occupying power in a seething Arab world, he was sure we would regret it. He would also have regarded trying to do the job with 160,000 troops as ridiculous. He belioeved that when America had to use force, it must be overwhelming force, with the moral support and the active participation of the American people. But this kind of extended "colonial" occupation of countries with a very different culture was something he always opposed.