Contribution of Eisenhower to NATO

Contribution of Eisenhower to NATO

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course Number and Name

Instructor Name

Due Date

Contribution of Eisenhower to NATO

The writer of this argument mainly employs the history of NATO and the role Eisenhower had to play within NATO to combat Soviet Union threats to Europe and North America. The history of the issues which faced North Americans and Europe in the fight against communism is elaborated. Europeans depended on support from the United States to defeat the Soviet Union, which had a lot of manpower in military state at its disposal. Eisenhower was a significant factor in winning the war because, alongside other individuals, he gave the NATO military a vital role and motivation to continue fighting against the Soviet Union as it was a fright for humanity and freedom. Therefore, this paper summarises the argument presented by Alexander M. Bielakowski and its merits and limitations.

With the use of different reliable sources, alexander brings out the exact manner in which Eisenhower’s leadership affected the NATO coalition. He was the first SACEUR (Supreme Allied Commander, Europe). The introductory part of the argument brings out the nations that came together to form a résistance body named North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). These countries included United States, Canada, Iceland, the United Kingdom, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, France, Portugal, and Italy (Bielakowski, 2004). They met in Washington, D.C., to sign the treaty, which was to see them successful in fighting against the communist spread from the Soviet Union. However, the main aim was to fight a common enemy and not try to be better. From the preamble of NATO, it is clear that the objective is to safeguard the common heritage, freedom, and civilization of the organization’s people, whose core principles were individual liberty, the rule of law, and democracy.

Even though it was a vital force that made great strides in protecting its people and protecting the common good, the United States suffered the loss of its military to a great extent. This was especially after the First World War. Due to this, there was no clear sign of its continuity as most people got discouraged, and there was no morale to continue fighting. This was because the goals of NATO were getting lesser and lesser supported by individuals from the United States and other European countries. However, the primary concern on the side of the United States was how the United States helped Europe. This was because many resources were being used, and it was not for the best of the United States. Truman’s administration was charged with determining whether it was beneficial to continue supporting the European countries in the fight against communism or not. When Eisenhower addressed this, he stated that the United States could send more military aid to Europe instead of more soldiers (Bielakowski, 2004).

One of the outstanding parts of the argument is the traveling of Eisenhower to the European countries in the treaty and determining that situation on the ground. He gave hope and informed the Europeans that they needed to be organized into one if they were to be successful and defeat communism. In the same spirit after his journey and seeing the state of the nations, he telephoned Truman, the then president of the United States. He stated why he believed that the United States needed to support European countries to fight communism. He also said that he respected Truman and his leadership and was ready for any military position he could be assigned, proving that he was a true leader.

This argument, therefore, is a display of the leadership qualities of Eisenhower alongside the NATO treaty. The main argument is between the United States supporting the European nations in the fight against communism versus the financial situation in the United States. Therefore the real question and as brought in this argument, as if it was beneficial to support Europe in the fight against communism if Americans were to be made bankrupt (Bielakowski, 2004). Therefore this needed an outstanding leader to decide this. Therefore Eisenhower was the man who had to convince Truman that it was necessary to support Europe even if not in the conventional way which had been developed before. Even though Eisenhower was not successful in every bit of his advances within NATO and the goals to prevent communism from spreading, he was successful in most of them. The last success was in the Lisbon conference, and therefore after it happened, he asked President Truman to release him of his duties.


Bielakowski, A. M. (2004). Eisenhower: The First NATO SACEUR. War & Society, 22(2), 95-108.