The President and the Apprentice: Eisenhower and Nixon, 1952-1961

Gellman does an incredible job. This is a MUCH needed truth serum for generations raised on myths and partisan distortions about Ike and to a greater extent- Nixon. Gellman shows how many "historians" and "journalists" simply cannibalize the works of one another and this is how myths- distortions and outright lies perpetuate over time. Gellman has done the most extensive look EVER at the ACTUAL documents to dispel the myths, distortions and lies. Please notice this as you read.There is a STRONG lobby out there to deny Ike and to a greater extent - NIXON- the credit they deserve. You will never read history the same again. The average reader does not have time to check footnotes. They rely on media and books- thinking they are accurate. As an historian I can tell you- a lot of it is a game. This book does not play the game. I only hope Mr. Gellman will write a similar book on Nixon as President. If he does- we will learn that Nixon achieved more than all but one President in the 20th century- FDR.The writing is clear and easy to read. It really transports you back to the time period. An argument can me made that Nixon is the most consequential VP ever- since we finally have a study that uses the actual documents of many people. I require this as reading for how to do history!

Although I liked this book very much, I found myself getting a bit skeptical as I was up to about page 400 and Nixon had yet to do something Ike didn't like (OK, a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much). The premise of the book is that Eisenhower and Nixon had a much better working relationship than what the history books tell us, and the 125+ pages of notes Mr. Gellman supplies at the back of the book certainly lend support to that premise. Gellman also makes very clear that Eisenhower's management "style" was not one of friends and partners, but of a pure military command structure- one with Ike at the top and with Nixon as one of many players within that structure. That said, it is also clear that Eisenhower used Nixon much more effectively as VP than was the norm for the job up to that time.If you're inclined to dislike Nixon, you'll likely treat this book with more skepticism than I did; but as I said, it's hard to question Gellman's research. Also, as this is a pretty lengthy book about the eight years Nixon spent as Eisenhower's VP, it gets into some lengthy discussions about policy and political issues that were important at the time, but don't seem to matter as much in retrospect. I don't mean this as a criticism as much as a caution to those who might not want to read in long detail, for example, about Nixon's trip to Africa.

The author spent 20 years researching the Eisenhower/Nixon Administration from 1952 until 1960. His premise is that historians have been unfair to both Eisenhower and Nixon as to their accomplishments as President and Vice President. Concerning Eisenhower, books written over the past few years are starting to promote the idea that he was more successful than past historians have given him credit. The author further argues that the relationship between the two men was closer than previously thought and that Nixon played the most significant Vice Presidential role up to that point.The author has convinced me that he is correct about these premises. But, the author feels compelled to take on and do intellectual battle with previous historians. He particularly is harsh concerning Steven Ambrose. The author claims that Ambrose lied about what he wrote about Eisenhower and invented sources (especially about interviewing Eisenhower). This is a position that Jean Edward Smith took in his recent book on Eisenhower. I am convinced that Ambrose did lie about interviews and information that he provided about Eisenhower, especially concerning civil rights. But that does not mean that all other historians have done the same. Author goes too far in citing and battling other authors. He attacks articles and books that do not agree that the Eisenhower /Nixon was not one of the best and most successful administrations. Some of his attacks are well reasoned, others are weak. He attacks a significant and famous statement from Earl Warren's book about a conversation that he had with Eisenhower prior to the Brown v. Board of Education on the grounds that Warren's book was published after he died and that Warren did not like Eisenhower. Warren is considered by many to be a significant figure in 20th century politics and judicial circles. He has been treated by historians as ethical but flawed. To claim that he lied because of a personal feeling towards Eisenhower is ludicrous.The author glosses over shortcomings of the Eisenhower administration (such as American Foreign Policy concerning the overthrow of the Shah of Iran). The Author feels the need to attack Truman in order to promote Eisenhower.With the above being said, he has provided a new look at the relationship between Ike and Dick and his coverage of Nixon's role as Vice President is very impressive. I disagree with some of his points and find his attacks on other Historians a bit childish, but believe that he provides new insight and facts that were not commonly known. For that reason, I recommend this book for students of American Presidents.

Excellent portrayal of the Eisenhower years and Nixon's contributions. Difficult to understand Nixon's 1950's political profile as compared to his White House years. Makes you wonder how he would have evolved had he won the 1960 election. Loss then and the 1962 California race appears to have deeply changed him. Today he would be considered a flaming liberal. Eisenhower was a canny leader who knew how to maneuver in Washington and used his VP to great advantage. A great book.

As expected

Great book!

Very interesting analysis of the relationship between th two men.Clearly demonstratesthe growth of Nixon's strength in domestic and foreign relations.

Fascinating book!

Some good detail and overview about the relationship between Nixon and Eisenhower is somewhat spoiled by the hagiographic nature of the coverage of Nixon in particular and hid boss. Their attitude to "communism" is never justifed becasue the writer , like them, seems to think that opposing communism as a political force as opposed to the USSR as a brutal rival is "natural" . Well it isn't. The Guatamalan coup is justified whereas the Hungarian supression is not. Why? Both were comitted by brutal regimes intent on protecting "their" place in the world.We see flashes of "tricky" Dicky in some very sophistic arguments by him but not enough.He appears to have been a dedicated and courageous pulbic servant but his flaw was power-hunger. Eisenhower appeared to be above that but both of them certainly needed extensive education in economics.