15 Stars: Eisenhower, MacArthur, Marshall: Three Generals Who Saved the American Century by Stanley Weintraub

15 Stars: Eisenhower, MacArthur, Marshall: Three Generals Who Saved the American Century Reviews

• 
  Kate

  Oh thank goodness I finally finished this book! It has only taken me 18 months to slog through it. You have to know a lot about WWII (and WWI) already to make much sense of it, but the bottom line is that Eisenhower was more lucky than skilled, MacArthur was a meglomaniacal jerk and George Marshall was a hero. So there
• 
  Mike

  Author Stanley Weintraub presents the lives of three great men, all of them generals in the service of the American Army, from the WWI era to WWII and then on to the Korean conflict.
  
  Having known very little about the character or the lives of these men, I had a lot to learn! Gen. MacArthur was a complicated man possessed of an enormous ego. That ego, though, was matched by an incredible talent to win a war against a determined, disciplined, and dauntless enemy - the Japanese.
  
  What I found to be a most interesting fact was that after being recalled from Japan in 1951, he returned with 47 tons of belongings which he had acquired during his years in Asia. 47 tons! To think that he had all that in the Waldorf-Astoria in NYC until he died in 1964!
  
  Gen. George Marshall was the exact opposite of Gen. MacArthur. Marshall, known all his life for his "ramrod integrity," never sought to promote himself in any way. He always wanted what was best for the country and for the people of the world. The "Marshall Plan" won him the Nobel Peace Prize, and rightly so.
  
  Gen. Dwight Eisenhower was more like Marshall than he was MacArthur. He once worked under MacArthur, later to become his equal as a 5-star general, then his superior as President of the United States. However, there was always some tension between the two, even though both men often denied the hostility between them.
  
  One area of criticism against Gen. Eisenhower is his long-term relationship with his chauffeur, a young Irish woman (serving in the British military) named Kay Summersby. Although there is no evidence of impropriety between them, their exceptionally close relationship served as a catalyst for gossip, rumor, and the possibility of disgrace; following the war, Eisenhower was considered a paragon of virtue and his relationship with Kay Summersby could have jeopardized that.
  
  In summary, America owes an eternal debt of gratitude to these three men. Owing to his election as President of the United States, Eisenhower is the most honored and least forgotten of the three. However, as Stanley Weintraub points out, any of the three could have become president, with all the fame, accolades, and the sometimes infamy that office guarantees.
  
  
• 
  Brian

  15 stars provides an excellent look at three generals who played a pivotal role in shaping the United States in the 20th century. The book is filled with detail and is by no means a light read but it is worth every sentence. The scope of the book forces the author to be vague at times and it does not cover every detail but gives a general sense of how these three men shaped the century. This is not meant to be only a book about World War II as some other reviewers have complained about. It is meant to analyze the impact these men had on shaping the post war world as well which means not every detail will be covered. As to the bias of the author I have to agree that it is overly harsh on MacArthur who having many faults with his own hubris was made to be almost malevolent in his pursuit for advancement. For those who are starting out learning about World War II and how it shaped the United States this is a great place to start. For those who have read a little bit wider you may want to pass on this one as it does not add much new but summarizes the lives of these men and how their interactions shaped the country.
• 
  Christopher

  Received this book from my father and was initially hesitant in ready because it had the appearance of being dry and slow-paced. I was wrong.
  
  As an avid reader and reviewing of military history there was a lot in this book that I did not known. It pretty much all centered on the background maneuverings that these three were engaged in to not only win the war and the peace there after but in advancing their careers.
  
  I've never read much on Marshall but he very much comes across as the man who kept the military machine moving and concentrated on the winning the war.
  
  Eisenhower seems not to be a brilliant strategist but glue that held the Allies together.
  
  And MacArthur is well MacArthur. How he did not get relieved after the debacle in the Philippines I believe is one of the greatest mysteries of that time. The man was neither a leader nor a strategist, he was a pompous arrogant that needlessly lengthened the war.
  
  This book pulls no punches on any of them. While praising their accomplishments, Weintraub does point out faults and mistakes.
• 
  Bill

  An acceptable account of how these 3 men's paths intersected over decades and through some of the most tumultuous events in history. However, I got the distinct feeling that the author to a degree "mailed this one in." This is not one of his best by far.
  
  I remember seeing a C-SPAN program in which the late historian Stephen Ambrose described Eisenhower as "the man who came closest to having no faults." I find it incomprehensible that he would rate Ike more highly than General Marshall, especially when you consider Kay Summersby and Ike's refusal to speak out on Senator McCarthy's attacks on his mentor and patron.
  
  Also, I never realized how close MacArthur actually got to being President (via Taft). What a thought.
• 
  Garry Wilmore

  This is a study of the three five-star generals of World War II -- Eisenhower, MacArthur, and Marshall -- and of how their lives and careers intersected from the First World War onward. The author's prejudices become clear early on, as he clearly dislikes MacArthur (as did many others), and admires Marshall, with his opinions of Ike comprising a sort of mixed bag. Oddly enough, after decades of reading about World War II and its major personalities, I have never read a biography of George C. Marshall, although that will change now. Few Americans have ever been more respected than he, but few have done more to deserve it. The main impact of this book on me was to enshrine Marshall as my new hero, and I recommend it to one and all.
• 
  Kimberly

  Although I love WWII history, it took me a couple months to get through this. I found the writing style terse and the pace quite slow. I was surprised and disappointed to learn of Eisenhower's remote command style. Had it not been for Marshall, he may have remained a secondary player in the European theater. Luck, more than skill, appeared to play a roll in his success. Not surprising, I found MacArthur to be an egomaniac and Marshall a true hero.
• 
  Spencer Willardson

  The book probably should have been called "Ike, Marshall, and the Megalomaniac in the Pacific." MacArthur was a piece of work, but he was kind of used as a straw man throughout the book. I expected more synthesis of the lives rather than the three parallel histories that were woven throughout the book with the introduction and brief conclusion to tie them together. It was an interesting read.
• 
  Lou

  I'm not a military "buff" but I found this book very readable. It's a fascinating slice of 20th C American history, and the three Generals' personalities are remarkable.
• 
  Killian Nolan

  An interesting story weighed down by inconsistent writing, odd choices in pacing and the inherent problems of writing a group biography.
• 
  Bruce

  Best non-fiction I have read in a long time. Honest, insightful, no hero-worship or tear-downs for the sake of tearing down. Marshall was a saint, Eisenhower was in the right places and the right time, but no great general and feet of clay. MacArthur could have been President. Thank God we didn't get that megalomania liar for President. Only Marshall and Truman, and then his own miscalculations kept him from doing more international damage than he already had in the Phillipines, Korea, etc.
  
  I learned more about WW II and the Korean War than I had ever known. I was appalled at the behavior and insubordination of the generals, especially MacArthur, but really all of them except Marshall. I hope our present military commanders are more prone to direct honest communication and following civilian orders.
• 
  Rolf Kirby

  An interesting history of the three five-star generals of the US Army who rose to fame in WW II.
  - Marshall comes across as the most principled by far. He was truly a duty honor country kind of general.
  - Eisenhower was a team player who won the Crusade in Europe. He loved golfing with wealthy executives. A low point was when he made the political decision to not respond to McCarthy's outrageous attacks on Marshall during the campaign season of 1952.
  - MacArthur was a posturing egomaniac buffoon who should have been cashiered after failing utterly in his duties at the start of the Pacific War. Interestingly he was the only one of the three to see combat in WW I where he distinguished himself.
• 
  Katie

  This book felt incomplete - starts in media res in 1941, 25+ years after these figures first interact. Too bogged down by specific details/diary entries to be super readable, but also paints with a broad brush when discussing any event outside 1941-45. Nonetheless, a beach read in comparison to the tome that was the assigned reading for the TEI. Chock full of interesting stuff. A good reminder that historical events were unpredictable to people in the past; leaders grappled with decisions that we see as inevitable.
• 
  Patrick

  I found this book an interesting read. I have read other more comprehensive biographies on each of these three generals. I knew they had overlaps, but I still enjoyed reading in detail about the intersections of these men throughout their careers.
  
  
  
  I have read reviews about this book discussing the author's overly negative outlook on all three generals. Parts of the book I agree with, others parts could have been presented in better detail.
  
  
  
  I found MacArthur's background fairly consistent with other books. I wish that there might have been more detail of his experiences in Japan after the war. His influence on that country's post war recovery seems to be imense, but is not laid out.
  
  
  
  Ike's war-time European command experience seemed to get a mild shrift by the author. If I had not read other sources previously, I would have deemed Ike as unworthy of command. I am sure that accolades could be made for at least some of his decisions and interactions with others.
  
  
  
  The author makes Marshall come across as milktoast. Personally, I think Marshall was the most interesting of the three general in terms of impact on the war effort and direction. Other literary resources show him to be a much venerated and respected individual throughout most of the world. Churchill and British General Brooke are not the only persons to view Marshall's performance during the war. I would consider him an unsung hero.
  
  
  
  I wished the author would have gone into more depth on interactions with other generals during their careers. I am positive there is a large of amount of detail available through existing published resources where overlaps and intersections with others are explored. One example is the influence of Fox Conner (Pershing's WWI Operations Chief) on Patton, let alone Ike. It would make sense that Conner probably had overlaps with MacArtur and Marshall too.
  
  
  
  Overall I enjoyed the book as a decent summary of these three men and careers, their intersections and their influence on history. But read it after you already have done some basic background reading on these individuals. Without that background, you might walk away from this book with different impressions of these generals than history actually presents.