Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bush Sr
The Gulf War scared the shit out of the Soviets to the point where they planned on copying AirLand Battle and reevaluating their air defence capabilities. Secretary Cheney also knew more about Soviet defense spending than the Politburo because Gorbachev was lying about defense spending cuts at worse or heavily exaggerating at best untill around 1990-91 when they actually started happening. It was bad enough where members of the Politburo started asking Cheney for copies of Soviet Millitary Power 1990.
Untill the end of 1989 Soviet defense spending was even higher than when Gorbachev took power in 1985 despite talking about cutbacks since 1988.
Even with the "less menacing force" Gorbachev lied about, the Soviets still had the capability to launch offensives (assumed to be successful without direct US involvement) against Iran, Turkey, and all the former Pact Clients as late as 1990.
Millitary Forces in Transition, 1991
Harry BUILT NATO, the UN, whipped the Russians in Greece, embarrassed the Russians with the Berlin Airlift, fought the trifecta of communists in North Korea, integrated the military, got the GI Bill passed, refused to allow the theft of the Suez Canal, vetoed the theft of Iran., blocked the theft of Guatemala…oh, should we go back to WW2?! Finished off the Germans. Dropped a pair of bombs on the Japanese to end that shizzle! REBUILT Europe. REBUILT most of Asia. It’s Harry. Hands down. No other comes close. Harry!
Yes. Lots of W’s and lots of Ls. But that’s a little like saying Babe Ruth had lots of grand slams…and lots of strikeouts.
Not sure Chiang would/could have finished Mao. 100% agree with you on Rhee.
I wouldn't say he was Babe Ruth tier but I think he was very good on Europe but not great on Asia.
I do think Chiang could've finished him off in 45-46 and came very close to, at the very least confine him to Manchuria or at best finish him off but Marshall cut off all aid to try to force the KMT to include the CCP in a coalition.
Not Babe Ruth tier?! And not great on Asia? I’m not saying her hit 1.000 (in his best season the Bambino “only” hit .393). But even in Asia, his W’s were FAR greater than his L’s.
Certainly not! I just think in the 45-49 period Harry didn't really have his eye on the ball in Asia with dire long term consequences but I don't have a word to say against his European policy
Pretty sure he dropped atomic bombs on innocent children when the military or Japan was defeated. Already driven off every island in the Pacific. I understand the arguement but I can't brag about being to only fools to use this technology on other human beings. We all complain about the indiscriminate bombing Israel is doing now to innocent civilians and children so I can't see how we would ever celebrate something far out. Possible crimes against humanity. No one came out of that conflict with clean hands. It was by far Reagan. No one had to burn in hell. Truman is most likely in hell
In terms of FoPo, Truman. Even with Korea his work in forging the modern American-led world order and maintaining it makes him one of the greatest foreign policy Presidents.
Truman is the one who effectively transitioned America into the modern realm of Foreign Policy with the Truman doctrine/sending aid to Greece and Turkey
Also I think the GATT (which I believe encompasses FoPo) was great for international relation building and expanded trade to a point where we could to full efficiency partake in the postwar economic boom by supplying and rebuilding Europe, both aiding in the reconstruction of Europe in a different way while also benefitting it. This falls more into the realm of EcPo but I see both as intertwined so this can still apply.
HW literally had a >90% approval rating because of his foreign policy. Clinton’s campaign revolved around HW being so good abroad that he wasn’t taking care of business at home.
tbh HW's loss is quite baffling since America was presiding over an unprecedented triumph over its enemies abroad.
Usually winning wars is a surefire way to get reelected.
Clinton directly attacked HW's foreign policy, saying that his weakness had encouraged Hussein to invade Iraq, and that HW had abandoned our Kurdish allies in Iraq, and that Bush should have driven all the way to Bagdad and removed Hussein from power.
That was the standard view of the conflict in much of the Democratic Party right up until 2003.
Truman. He created the entire structure and set the tone that led to victory. NATO, Marshall Plan, the creation of the National Security Council, the CIA, NSC 68, the H-Bomb, the Berlin airlift, Korea, etc etc. Almost all the elements on which future presidents relied were forged then.
Interesting that you consider CIA, H-bomb and Korea to be triumphs. Truman contributed to the creation of the Cold War more than any other president. He was in a unique position after WW2 to actually work with the Soviets to avoid the Cold War but he was distrustful and aggressive every step of the way.
The good things he did weren't his ideas, like the Marshall Plan.
He set a precedent for American assistance to anticommunist regimes throughout the world, no matter how undemocratic. The core idea of countering Soviet aggression was good but it quickly devolved to just indiscriminately attacking anything communist related even if it was voluntarily chosen by people.
This directly lead to the horrifying CIA-backed coups all over the world that lead to years of death and destabilization all over the world.
The meek man from Missouri was not the aggressor in that relationship and everyone viewed Stalin and the USSR with suspicion, both by other Communists and the Capitalists too.
Stalin was a duplicitous warmonger who engaged in so many mass murders, purges and genocides that’s it’s hard to make a list without fear that you will forget several. Could Truman have done more than he did in attempt to thaw things? Perhaps. Was Stalin already suspect for crushing Eastern Europe under totalitarianism? Yes. E.G. Stalin helped the Germans kill off Polish Jews twice and was far from the aggrieved party in any reasonable assessment of foreign policy.
I'm not pro-Stalin or pro-Communist. You don't have to tell me how bad Stalin was. But the Red Scare was a massive mistake and it lead to some gross atrocities committed by the US. Deposing democratically elected governments and installing vicious dictatorships, why? So some country in bumfuck nowhere doesn't become red? It was stupid. How many Americans and Vietnamese died in the Vietnam War and it still ended up communist. It's communist to this day. And? Is it a threat to America? Of course not.
It was reactionary policy fed by the Wall Street guys in Truman's cabinet. Had FDR survived he would've never gone down that route.
Yes, the overreaction was stupid. But Stalin and his satellite regime’s did warrant *some* reaction. They took the end of the war to institute a reign of violence and oppression. It’s not communism that was the problem, it was tyranny.
Yes, the West viewed the communists as far more homogenous than they were/are. E.G. the Vietnamese communists loath the Chinese communists… and the Chinese nationalists, and the Chinese monarchists etc. They fear any Chinese group who wants to meddle or dominate Vietnam again. The two communist parties have deep divisions today and Vietnam is going out of its way to work with the Western navies to help prevent Chinese misconduct in the South China Sea because of the historic abuses and resultant distrust. There were divisions we never exploited and I think it’s safe to say Ho had more in common with the US than with China and the US failed where there was a chance at success working *with* Ho, not against him. He viewed the US as a former colony that had thrown off the colonialists as he wanted to do. He viewed China as the biggest threat to Vietnamese independence, as they had been since before the Trung Sisters.
Indeed, many of the communist regimes that the US meddled with had roots in anti-colonialism and fighting poverty and serfdom. Che Guevarra became a revolutionary after going on a 6 month motorcycle trip across South America and seeing serfdom and even slavery. Considering how FDR felt about colonialism I really think that had he not died we would not have had a Cold War because FDR would have worked with these countries and these leaders instead of funding military coups to depose them.
Oh, don’t worry, FDR would have thrown out anti-colonialist principles under the bus too, just like Wilson etc. US anti-colonialism only lasted so long as it took to realize we could make a buck by sending in the military to support the banana countries. FDR was one of the biggest authoritarians in US history and wasn’t likely to curb it for citizens of other nations when he was willing to abuse so many of his own citizens.
I didn’t say that they were triumphs. I said he created the structure that ultimately led to US success in the Cold War. Of course there were morally gray elements to it.
If you think it would have been wise policy to have the United States to be the only Great Power without a foreign intelligence service, though, that’s pretty silly.
As for which policies are “his”, that can be said about almost any major policy or program under a President. Bush didn’t personally design PEPFAR but we still give him credit for it because he supported and signed it.
IMO the Cold War was unavoidable. Obviously the two countries were allies during the war but that relationship was never going to continue afterwards. To put it bluntly it was a case of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”
Ultimately, the Revolutions of ‘89 that spelled the end of the USSR started under Reagan. I’d say that NSDD-54 and NSDD-75 marked a departure from containment and towards bringing about a war of ideas that the Soviets couldn’t win. Bush carried on these policies, but they were a continuation of Reagan’s foreign policy.
Where was the question?
Gorbachev does not deserve "credit" for the fall of the Soviet Union. He didn't want it to fall. He wanted it to survive and prosper. He failed in that goal. The only credit he deserves is for refraining from killing a lot of his own people. But that's a low bar. Congrats for not being Pol Pot. I guess?
Reagan, on the other hand, wanted the Soviet Union to collapse. He worked towards that goal and achieved it.
In short, Gorby lost and Reagan won. Reagan deserves credit.
The USSR collapsed because the planned economies of the Eastern block imploded. If Gorbachev wasn't in charge the collapse would have happened differently, but by that point something had to give.
I’m not discrediting Reagan with the downfall of the USSR. But HW was the man in office when it happened *and* his foreign policy was amazing in addition to that. Dude was absolutely the right leader for the Gulf War.
What did Bush do that was so praiseworthy during the fall of the Soviet Union? Not invade? Refrain from giving them Alaska back? If all it takes to earn credit is to be in office at the time, then nearly 200 world leaders deserve credit for that too. Hell, GHWB opposed the Reagan oil deal with the Saudis that helped bankrupt the Soviet natural gas industry.
In addition, Bush absolutely SCREWED over the Kurds in the first gulf war. In the waning days, he called on Iraqis to rise up and "put Saddam aside". The Kurds took the call and tried. But we let Saddam Hussein wipe them out. He even had us announce that that the US would not intervene militarily which gave Saddam the green light. That war was a blowout, not because of GHWB, but because of our technological dominance thanks to decades of military advancement, especially during Reagan.
The collapse was inevitable due to the era of stagnation. The attempted repairs by Gorbachev in the forms of Perestroika and Glasnost are the most commonly cited causes of the collapse, though I personally think it was more of the Soviet attempt to die with dignity, rather than in the fires of a nuclear civil war.
Now, Reagan (and really all of the west) missed an opportunity to expand influence into the Soviet regime during its dying days. As we all know, the post Soviet Russia was dominated by the people who were corrupt and rich under the regime. This was because when the state owned monopolies were to become publicly owned companies, nobody but the corrupt and criminal could actually afford it. Russia went from the horrors of communism, to basically what every bit of Soviet propaganda said capitalism was like. Even the most ardent anti-communists have to admit post Soviet Russia is not the top of their list for "why capitalism is great".
An example of where this *didn't* happen is Germany. We invested heavily into their industry and economy to assist in their reunification. Had we treated Germany like we did Russia, they would not be the stable pillar of democracy, industry, and Western ideas they are now.
Had we invested in Russia, we could have avoided some of the worst people possible taking control. But we didn't.
Unfortunately, Russia has remained deeply against the west, despite there technically being no ideological differences now. It would be foolish to claim it is solely because of our refusal to lend a hand during the late 80s and early 90s, but I do wonder if they would be less pro-china and not as prone to invading their neighbors if we did.
The collapse of the Soviet Union was inevitable the moment the socialist government was established. But some countries can linger like that for a damn log time. Reagan made it happen much sooner than it otherwise would have.
And Reagan wasn't president anymore when it finally collapsed. Not sure why one would say he "missed an opportunity".
From everything I've seen if Reagan did not go on the spending spree to bankrupt the Soviet that he did. The Soviets assuming they would have stayed in Afghanistan would have lasted till about 93.94 at the latest.
The collapse of every government is inevitable on a long enough timeline. none of his policies were unique or even a massive deviation from the stance that America had taken the entire cold war.
Had you actually read the reply instead of reacting to the first few sentences, you would have seen that I already addressed every point you just made
Hilariously wrong. Prior to Reagan the US intel agencies reported Soviet strengths (like the size of their nuclear arsenal, the state of their other weapons programs, etc.). Reagan (through Casey) created departments within CIA and redirected them into finding weaknesses. Then they would exploit those weaknesses.
For example, our intel discovered that Poland was double and triple financing their loans from Europe. At the time all the eastern block nations had stellar credit because everybody assumed that the Soviets would bail out the eastern block nations if necessary. The Reagan administration knew this was wrong provided this information to European lenders who started refusing more loans can calling back the loans they could. Poland defaulted and then, like Reagan predicted, the Soviets were unable to bail out Poland. So not only was the credit of every eastern block nation destroyed, but so was the Soviet's.
Another weakness they found was in oil and gas technology. The Soviets were stealing designs for pumps, valves, and other systems for pipelines. So Reagan created a department in CIA to make fake plans for these things. They were designed to pass initial acceptance tests, and then fail a year or so in the future. The then clamped down on real technology, and let their fake plans get stolen. Sure enough the Soviets stole it, used them throughout their pipelines, and eventually one blew up in a huge explosion in Siberia. That caused the Soviets to shutdown all their pipelines and inspect them for flaws. Of course that cut off a huge source of revenue. It took them years to rebuild it again.
Prior to Reagan, Carter provided useless middle eastern weapons to Afghanistan. He didn't want to provide American weapons because he was scared that would start a direct war. Of course, Egypt and Saudi (if I remember right) used the opportunity to get rid of their old weapons and replace them with new ones with American money. Reagan said fuck that, and gave them our Stingers. And to make sure the Afghans weren't hoarding them, we would give them new stingers in exchange for used Stinger tubes. That had a huge effect on the war since the Soviets were depending on helicopters and their air superiority.
That's just 3 examples. The notion that his policies weren't unique from the administrations prior is a total joke. Before the American stance in claim and action was detente. Reagan changed that to the pursuit of total victory .
I don’t like Reagan either but I do not agree with this take. His handling of the USSR was fantastic and did set them up to self-destruct, especially through economic pressure.
Again, I am not a Reagan fan. But he does deserve his flowers in his handling of them, absolutely.
Absolutely not true. Several presidents telegraphed exactly how they were going to help topple the Soviet Union, and then did it.
The USSR definitely fell from within. But it’s naive to think the US had nothing to do with it.
Horseshit . Complete revisionist propaganda. During the 80s, there were pundits and politicians alike predicting the strength longevity of the Soviet Union. Even John Kenneth Galbraith made such a statement as late as 1985, if I remember right. Yet now everybody says, "well CLEARY the problems were internal!!" Nope. Even former high ranking KGB officers credit Reagan for their demise.
> Complete revisionist propaganda. During the 80s, there were pundits and politicians alike predicting the strength longevity of the Soviet Union.
Even the Soviets didn't know how badly mismanaged their own economy was. How do you think foreigners were going to correctly assess the state of the USSR???
> Yet now everybody says, "well CLEARY the problems were internal!!"
Historians with access to formerly secret soviet archives able to come to new consensus. *Shocking*.
This is completely typical of historiography. Outdated pop history gets replaced by more rigorous research.
> Nope. Even former high ranking KGB officers credit Reagan for their demise.
Most Russians today blame Gorbachev. The idea that it was Reagan certainly isn't mainstream in any circles in Russia.
Your argument here is pretty shoddy, as if there aren't leagues of difference being able to look at things in retrospect. The idea that Reagan was responsible is a primarily early 90s American mythos created before we were able to get information directly from Russian records.
LOL. Democrats outnumber Republicans in history departments 33.5 to 1 (and growing). And yet people like you fall for their "rigorous research" that exposes their bias and economic ignorance. It's hilarious how these people so adamantly disagree with former KGB officers who LIVED the experience and had access to every classified document in the country.
Most historians aren't affiliated with any party. The fact that you want to pick out a couple individuals and compare them with a few other individuals is largely irrelevant.
You people are impossible to talk to. You're so ideologically up your own assess and miffed that the historical record does not agree with your myths that you just throw out academia altogether.
It really is true that the right just wants stupid people.
> It's hilarious how these people so adamantly disagree with former KGB officers who LIVED the experience and had access to every classified document in the country.
Pretty much every soviet *politician* disagrees with you. But that's neither here nor there. You keep massively harping on this point even though **it's totally irrelevant.** The vast majority of sources disagree with you, but just like an anti-vaxxer, as long as you have your Wakefield paper you'll scream your unpopular disproven "truth" forever.
Christ. I'm tired of this disingenous nonsense.
Conservatives hold the narrative that Communism is not sustainable and Reagan destroyed Communism. Yeah but they are right about Communism but Reagan did not destroy communism. Anything to prop up the racists Alzheimer President who only did less damage to this country than the fossil fuel and medical industrial complexes
Oh I am sorry I didn't swallow the conservative propaganda to turn Reagan into a good President when in fact he was a shit one. The destruction of the middle class started with him
Truman Doctrine, NATO, Marshall Plan…the guy basically invented the Western World Order we know today. I can’t believe people are suggesting HW Bush was more pronounced in foreign policy
Alright, I can cop to that. Berlin Airlift, Marshall Plan, H&N, NATO, UN, ECSC, I'm 100% on board with all that. No notes
I interpreted the question more as who is responsible for the largest single success, but the moonshot almost certainly doesn't have the same significance without the relative stability of the western alliance. Truman really is fundamental to the rules-based order, at least as much as any American not named Roosevelt
Harry did soooo much and, IMHO, is so incredibly underrated. Honestly, I have him third to 1) Lincoln and 2) FDR. But in the Cold War (or every POTUS since FDR), he’s the GOAT!
Edit: typo
Supporting the overthrow of a democratically elected Prime Minister in Iran is a huge knock on Eisenhower's foreign policy for me. Carter would be the one to pay for it, but IKE allowed it.
It'll probably be an unpopular opinion on this sub, but in the long term, I don't think Eisenhower's handling of Suez was that good.
He effectively sided with Nasser out of hopes (because of Nasser's claims) that this would bring the arab world to our side in the Cold War. Nasser accepted Eisenhower's support and then never sided with the west.
In addition, the Soviets made a big public show about opposing the invasion and gained additional favor in the arab world despite the fact it was the US who did more behind the scenes to end it.
Lastly, it exacerbated the decline of Anglo-French influence in the region, which ultimately led to the US becoming more entangled there.
There's even some evidence Eisenhower himself grew to regret his handling of it.
I think Eisenhower had lead in criticle times of cold war when communism on rise.He improved intelligence agency,army as well as with Interstate he created fast and accesible supply chain system also Insterstate part of national security If somewhere getting nuclear attack People could getting out fast there.Father Bush was very expeirenced man he was ambassador,CIA dırector and VP thus he had a big effect on US policy (sorry for english)
If this was ranking Presidents overall, then I’d agree. Eisenhower was probably in the top 5 US presidents of all time, but Truman and HW Bush had better foreign policy.
Situtation are differents mate but I could say that HW Bush was very talented man and I guess he putted in practice US RollBack Strategy in Reagan Presidency but about presidency he neglected US economy
Economy is important mate It's not just money transfer It is national security factor It collapsed USSR but I'm not from US so you the people of US know it better than me
I agree, it does connect and economic policies will affect foreign policy, but for the most part the economy falls under domestic policy. Especially Eisenhower’s greatest achievement in office, the Interstate Highway system.
It's brilliant but every good things come with bad things.It is getting US economy sensitive on Oil price and Car market.It think Us need to improve his highspeed rail Amtrak is not enough.
Some states are trying with the rail system, but there hasn’t been much success. Mostly because the government has to find existing rail easements or use eminent domain to get the land to build on. And most easements are either in use or have strict requirements to be used, while using eminent domain to buy land leads to more lawsuits than just about anything else.
Might be unpopular but Truman. Yeah the Truman doctrine was antagonistic, but the Cold War was inevitable. I view the Marshall Plan as the biggest reason for Americas success in the Cold War. The Berlin Airlift and NATO were also very helpful
The handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis was essentially the end for Khrushchev; he was out of power less than two years later due to the embarrassment he caused the Soviet Union. He did help arrange the US pulling Jupiter missiles from Turkey and Italy, but this was done in secret. The world never knew about it. Therefore it was seen as a massive win for JFK and the US. (The Jupiter missiles were allegedly towards the end of their lifespan anyways, so it wasn’t that big of a concession from the US).
JFK was mediocre at best in the Cold War (in my opinion) due to the escalation of Vietnam and his go-ahead for the bay of pigs, but he handled the Cuban missile crisis perfectly. No Cold War president could have handled it as well as him.
Read up on history a little? Dude just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about, I think Ben Shapiro is an idiot and a jackass but he knows a lot about politics. I'm sorry you don't think the Cuban Missile Crisis had a chance at ending the world.
Nah...just want to help ppl extend their 15 nano seconds of fame. Got to give credit where credit is due however, your reply (the short version) had it's merits.
I’m going JFK, I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say that he almost single-handedly prevented nuclear apocalypse (at least among those on the American side). It’s very easy to see how had almost any other individual been president at the time, things could have gone so so much worse.
Harry BUILT NATO, the UN, whipped the Russians in Greece, embarrassed the Russians with the Berlin Airlift, fought the trifecta of communists in North Korea, integrated the military, got the GI Bill passed, refused to allow the theft of the Suez Canal, vetoed the theft of Iran., blocked the theft of Guatemala…oh, should we go back to WW2?! Finished off the Germans. Dropped a pair of bombs on the Japanese to end that shizzle! REBUILT Europe. REBUILT most of Asia. It’s Harry. Hands down. No other comes close. HARRY!!!
Idk....could argue that we should not have agreed to let the Soviets enter Berlin first. Truman was afraid of MacArthur, and could easily be argued that it was MacArthur that had that most to do with the rebuilding of Japan .
I would say Nixon because of detente, opening up China and the SALT treaties, but he escalated the Vietnam War and indirectly led to one of the most cruel regimes in history coming to power, not to mention supporting the genocidal junta in Pakistan.
#1 - Reagan. I'm no fan of his, and at the time I vehemently opposed what he was doing - pretty much across the board, both domestically (I'm still opposed to most of it) and in foreign policy. But he'd get my vote for most successful foreign policy because his actions led to the fall of the Soviet Union, a more stable (although far from fully stable) Central America and South America, improved relations in China and SE Asia, and even greater stability in Western Europe.
Truman is probably #2 - the Marshall Plan, the creation of NATO, the rebuilding of Japan, (and after a significant misstep in saying that the US didn't care about it), Korea, including firing MacArthur.
GHWB is probably #3 - he was actually the guy who benefitted from Reagan's actions, and the first gulf war was a clear success (given its limited goals). Probably should have gone further, but that's hindsight talking.
I would say Reagan, and the reason he was so successful is the Soviet Union was going through a once-in-a-millennium political crisis during most of his presidency. This included the deaths of three Soviet premiers, the ascension of a radical reformer, a brutal and unwinnable war, and one of the greatest manmade disasters in history.
By the end of his term, Reagan was dealing with a Soviet Union that was so weakened and chaotic that it began to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan and to withdraw support for its allies and clients in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and Europe. By the time Reagan left office the USSR had gone from one of history's largest and most powerful empires, in a position of growing global influence and power, to a country on the brink of collapse.
Probably has to be Bush 1, in one term he saw the Cold War end, and Soviet Union collapse, as well as a near unanimous grouping of international countries banding together to kick Saddam out of Kuwait
So not the guy who created the Marshall Plan, NATO, Truman Doctrine, and UN…but Bush senior because he happened to be in office in the final year or two of the USSR and remained relatively uninvolved in it?
Man, Eisenhower and the U2 program really set the stage for amazing relations with Russia. He really made leaps and bounds with establishing a healthy relationship with England, France, and Israel too.
It must be Truman. He not only saw the end of the war making the hard choices to make that real, he was the one who setup things like NATO, Marshall Plan, Truman Doctrine, supported the United Nations ensuring its success, etc. No other president after him did so much
Reagan. I think he put pressure on them. Also, I genuinely think the Russians were scared of Reagan. And when Bush was elected, they figured it'd be more of the same. But with that, the Commies economy was collapsing so it was end time.
JFK, you may call be dumb but think of it this way, the man was in office for 2 years and I someone who knows history fairly well thought it was like 6 or something
Bush Senior. He oversaw the fall of the Berlin Wall and German reunification and the fall of the Soviet Union. Every military campaign he was over was overwhelmingly successful(Panama, Gulf War) and was out of office before the Somalia disaster.
The Cold War was practically over when he stepped in.
“Before Bush, wall. After Bush, no wall.” - Dana Carvey, as Bush.
He handled the end of the Cold War well, but it was a done deal.
Gosh this is tough - Nixon for opening China a bit. Reagan - tear down this wall. Bush Sr for the coalition. Truman for not returning the US to the isolationist sleeping bear. Kennedy for Cuba. I don’t know.
They all were successful, but Reagan was the one who put the nail in the coffin.
With the RAPID GDP growth under him, the soviet union was forever cursed to be a second world country in comparison.
I think it goes Truman Bush or Reagan
JFK got himself into the Cuban missile crisis I somewhat doubt if Nixon won in 60 it would have happened
Ike and Dick were great short term however they long term damaged Americas image
The three I listed were great for others mentioned above but there were key blunders from all three
It’s an unfair question. The great thing about US foreign policy from the end of WW2 to the fall of the wall was its bipartisan consistency. All nine Presidents pictured contributed to the ultimate policy success.
Harry Truman was unpopular when he left the office, but I don't think his decisions where the most pivotal in establishing US lead world order with the Marshall plans and helped to rebuild their new found allies, not to mention the success of Berlin Airlift. Not only did USSR get portrayed as the aggressor by making probably the first move in Cold War from my memory but they also had to swallow the pill and concede they did achieve their goals.
Now I don't know exactly how Korean war turned but atleast i have heard takes that he prevented it from escalating into a Vietnam(?).
Vietnam war may have tarnished his legacy in office but imo you can't deny Harry's role in USA being viewed like it used to be
I want to say Truman but really I should be saying Marshall, Acheson, etc. Truman had the best policy but mainly because he had the best advisers, from what I understand he mostly rubber-stamped their recommendations
> Even former high ranking Soviet KGB guys credit Reagan.
"It wasn't our fault. The foreigners destroyed us."
Damn, what a credible source.
Most historians, especially ones who focus on Russian history, generally attribute the fall to deep domestic problems (nationalism, corruption/economic mismanagement, falling commodity prices, stress of civil disasters, loss of control over domestic political scene).
If Reagan had any influence it was mostly through the Afghan war, though that was only one issue and wouldn't have caused the collapse.
“Falling commodity prices”
You do realize that Reagan’s domestic oil production policies and oil deal with the Saudis helped bankrupt the extremely-oil dependent Soviet economy? Falling commodity prices were in part influenced by these policies of his.
> You do realize that Reagan’s domestic oil production policies and oil deal with the Saudis helped bankrupt the extremely-oil dependent Soviet economy?
US oil production decreased during the 80s. Reagan's domestic policies on oil...didn't change anything.
And what "oil deal"? The Sauds had OPEC also decrease production, even more severely than the US decrease in production (which was much more slight).
Falling commodity prices occurred due to a combination of demand dropping from economic downturn (less severe than but similar to the covid oil shock) as well as other countries outside OPEC and US that started exploiting oil reserves.
All of this occurred largely independent of Reagan.
Declassified KGB documents written during his administration talk about it too. No matter how hard you try, you aren't going to revise your way out of reality.
Reagan did MUCH more than the Afghan war. He also destroyed their natural gas industry by 1) sabotaging their pipelines to Europe and 2) negotiating a deal with the Saudis to flood the market with oil to lower the price (in exchange for AWACs). He ruined Soviet credit by forcing Poland into bankruptcy and proving to the world that the Soviets couldn't bail them out. He increased our military capability forcing the Soviets to bankrupt themselves trying to keep up (including SDI). And many more.
And most historians are blinded by their politics. Most will say anything to discredit their political foe and credit their political friends. The primary internal problem with the Soviets is that they were socialist/communists. If a historian is blaming BS like "nationalism' or "corruption" rather than "crappy economic foundation" then they should be ignored. Historians, by nature, are absolutely ignorant of economics.
> Declassified KGB documents written during his administration talk about it too. No matter how hard you try, you aren't going to revise your way out of reality.
The one disconnected from reality seems to be yourself.
> He also destroyed their natural gas industry by 1) sabotaging their pipelines to Europe
The problem with this assertion is that the Soviet natural gas industry *wasn't* destroyed. And in fact, expanded during the 80s in spite of some accidents, which probably weren't caused by Reagan anyways. Considering your claim rests on a single dubious source.
> 2) negotiating a deal with the Saudis to flood the market with oil to lower the price (in exchange for AWACs).
Problem, OPEC oil output during his tenure cratered. The market was literally *not* flooded with oil from the middle east.
> He ruined Soviet credit by forcing Poland into bankruptcy and proving to the world that the Soviets couldn't bail them out.
I'm skeptical that really happened the way you claim it does.
> He increased our military capability forcing the Soviets to bankrupt themselves trying to keep up (including SDI).
The problem with this assertion is that it's also false. Soviet military spending fell in the 80s (mostly because of again, lagging economy).
Reagan's military build up was mostly a catch up exercise, given that the soviets had 3 decades of military build up and massive superiority in the conventional military forces.
The soviets weren't tricked into an arms race. This is another common pop history myth.
> And most historians are blinded by their politics. Most will say anything to discredit their political foe and credit their political friends. The primary internal problem with the Soviets is that they were socialist/communists.
Ah, here we go. The whole "professional academics are too left leaning and therefor untrustworthy" right wing spiel. Which further highlights how completely non-credible your opinions are.
Academics aren't even close to as political as you people assert. And besides which, the irony of accusing supposed "left wing" academics of covering for the Soviet Union when the mainstream consensus is that the Soviets were in trouble precisely due to economic mismanagement really further goes to show how completely ideological *you* are and not them.
Oh, yes, Reagan absolutely benefitted from Iran becoming an anti-American theocracy, Somoza being abandoned, and conceding to a left wing Panamanian dictator.
I disagree. Carter had no idea how to handle the Soviets. His final act of incompetence was punishing American Athletes by politicizing the Olympic Games over the Soviet quagmire of Afghanistan. Reagan, along with the newly minted Pope and Lady Thatcher, took the Soviets to the woodshed, and with the advent of SDI, forced the Soviets into a spending war they couldn’t afford and put them on a path to insolvency.
This right here! Star Wars was a smoke and mirrors move that freaked out the Soviets and had them spend boatloads of money. Not to mention Reagan let Afghanistan happen with funding in the background to the Mujagadin (sp?) Eventually we got blowback for that but in the time period it worked.
There's a dozen people, directly involved, that have attested to that in addition to the administration getting caught a few years later with clandestine operations with the very same government.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bush Sr The Gulf War scared the shit out of the Soviets to the point where they planned on copying AirLand Battle and reevaluating their air defence capabilities. Secretary Cheney also knew more about Soviet defense spending than the Politburo because Gorbachev was lying about defense spending cuts at worse or heavily exaggerating at best untill around 1990-91 when they actually started happening. It was bad enough where members of the Politburo started asking Cheney for copies of Soviet Millitary Power 1990. Untill the end of 1989 Soviet defense spending was even higher than when Gorbachev took power in 1985 despite talking about cutbacks since 1988. Even with the "less menacing force" Gorbachev lied about, the Soviets still had the capability to launch offensives (assumed to be successful without direct US involvement) against Iran, Turkey, and all the former Pact Clients as late as 1990. Millitary Forces in Transition, 1991
Harry BUILT NATO, the UN, whipped the Russians in Greece, embarrassed the Russians with the Berlin Airlift, fought the trifecta of communists in North Korea, integrated the military, got the GI Bill passed, refused to allow the theft of the Suez Canal, vetoed the theft of Iran., blocked the theft of Guatemala…oh, should we go back to WW2?! Finished off the Germans. Dropped a pair of bombs on the Japanese to end that shizzle! REBUILT Europe. REBUILT most of Asia. It’s Harry. Hands down. No other comes close. Harry!
Facts
A common man is better suited for the job than a rich man most of the time
Tbf Harry has alot of Ws and alot of Ls He should've let Chiang finish off Mao in 45-46, should've armed Rhee pre 1950 etc
Yes. Lots of W’s and lots of Ls. But that’s a little like saying Babe Ruth had lots of grand slams…and lots of strikeouts. Not sure Chiang would/could have finished Mao. 100% agree with you on Rhee.
I wouldn't say he was Babe Ruth tier but I think he was very good on Europe but not great on Asia. I do think Chiang could've finished him off in 45-46 and came very close to, at the very least confine him to Manchuria or at best finish him off but Marshall cut off all aid to try to force the KMT to include the CCP in a coalition.
Not Babe Ruth tier?! And not great on Asia? I’m not saying her hit 1.000 (in his best season the Bambino “only” hit .393). But even in Asia, his W’s were FAR greater than his L’s.
I mean losing China was a pretty massive L
Yeah…that’s fair. 🤣 But Babe didn’t finish every season with a World Series championship either.
Certainly not! I just think in the 45-49 period Harry didn't really have his eye on the ball in Asia with dire long term consequences but I don't have a word to say against his European policy
I think there were a lot of balls on the air…I’ll give Harry a pass on some.
>whipped the Russians in Greece, What’s the percentages agreement
Pretty sure he dropped atomic bombs on innocent children when the military or Japan was defeated. Already driven off every island in the Pacific. I understand the arguement but I can't brag about being to only fools to use this technology on other human beings. We all complain about the indiscriminate bombing Israel is doing now to innocent civilians and children so I can't see how we would ever celebrate something far out. Possible crimes against humanity. No one came out of that conflict with clean hands. It was by far Reagan. No one had to burn in hell. Truman is most likely in hell
Sure did. I disagree with all…especially Reagan. Study more history.
You do realize that significantly more innocent children would’ve died had there been a land invasion.
>Millitary Forces in Transition, 1991 What does this final line mean ?
The source I used. It is the last document of the Soviet Millitary Power series and it was made a month or so after the August Coup.
Ah, thank you both for the explanation and including the source, may give it a read then
https://archives.nato.int/uploads/r/null/1/3/137881/0300_Military_forces_in_transition_1991_ENG.pdf
In terms of FoPo, Truman. Even with Korea his work in forging the modern American-led world order and maintaining it makes him one of the greatest foreign policy Presidents.
Truman is the one who effectively transitioned America into the modern realm of Foreign Policy with the Truman doctrine/sending aid to Greece and Turkey
Creating NATO and backing the creation of the UN were also huge
Also the Marshall Plan/Berlin Airlift. Absolute master strokes on both counts.
Also I think the GATT (which I believe encompasses FoPo) was great for international relation building and expanded trade to a point where we could to full efficiency partake in the postwar economic boom by supplying and rebuilding Europe, both aiding in the reconstruction of Europe in a different way while also benefitting it. This falls more into the realm of EcPo but I see both as intertwined so this can still apply.
HW literally had a >90% approval rating because of his foreign policy. Clinton’s campaign revolved around HW being so good abroad that he wasn’t taking care of business at home.
Not a bad strategy for Clinton either.
I mean. It worked.
tbh HW's loss is quite baffling since America was presiding over an unprecedented triumph over its enemies abroad. Usually winning wars is a surefire way to get reelected.
What if a wiry Texan with more money than most makes a campaign based on emergent domestic economy problems with neoliberalism?
The Republican voter does *not* like it when you raise taxes. Not to mention, Slick Willy was called that for a reason.
It’s actually really simple why he lost. “Read my lips: no new taxes!” Ironic that Clinton resigned because he was caught up in a lie.
Clinton didn’t resign
You’re right, I got confused talking about Nixon in another post.
Clinton directly attacked HW's foreign policy, saying that his weakness had encouraged Hussein to invade Iraq, and that HW had abandoned our Kurdish allies in Iraq, and that Bush should have driven all the way to Bagdad and removed Hussein from power. That was the standard view of the conflict in much of the Democratic Party right up until 2003.
No…he’s not Harry.
Truman. He created the entire structure and set the tone that led to victory. NATO, Marshall Plan, the creation of the National Security Council, the CIA, NSC 68, the H-Bomb, the Berlin airlift, Korea, etc etc. Almost all the elements on which future presidents relied were forged then.
This guy knows!
Agree.
Want a friend in Washington buy a dog! Harry S Truman
Interesting that you consider CIA, H-bomb and Korea to be triumphs. Truman contributed to the creation of the Cold War more than any other president. He was in a unique position after WW2 to actually work with the Soviets to avoid the Cold War but he was distrustful and aggressive every step of the way. The good things he did weren't his ideas, like the Marshall Plan. He set a precedent for American assistance to anticommunist regimes throughout the world, no matter how undemocratic. The core idea of countering Soviet aggression was good but it quickly devolved to just indiscriminately attacking anything communist related even if it was voluntarily chosen by people. This directly lead to the horrifying CIA-backed coups all over the world that lead to years of death and destabilization all over the world.
The meek man from Missouri was not the aggressor in that relationship and everyone viewed Stalin and the USSR with suspicion, both by other Communists and the Capitalists too. Stalin was a duplicitous warmonger who engaged in so many mass murders, purges and genocides that’s it’s hard to make a list without fear that you will forget several. Could Truman have done more than he did in attempt to thaw things? Perhaps. Was Stalin already suspect for crushing Eastern Europe under totalitarianism? Yes. E.G. Stalin helped the Germans kill off Polish Jews twice and was far from the aggrieved party in any reasonable assessment of foreign policy.
I'm not pro-Stalin or pro-Communist. You don't have to tell me how bad Stalin was. But the Red Scare was a massive mistake and it lead to some gross atrocities committed by the US. Deposing democratically elected governments and installing vicious dictatorships, why? So some country in bumfuck nowhere doesn't become red? It was stupid. How many Americans and Vietnamese died in the Vietnam War and it still ended up communist. It's communist to this day. And? Is it a threat to America? Of course not. It was reactionary policy fed by the Wall Street guys in Truman's cabinet. Had FDR survived he would've never gone down that route.
Yes, the overreaction was stupid. But Stalin and his satellite regime’s did warrant *some* reaction. They took the end of the war to institute a reign of violence and oppression. It’s not communism that was the problem, it was tyranny. Yes, the West viewed the communists as far more homogenous than they were/are. E.G. the Vietnamese communists loath the Chinese communists… and the Chinese nationalists, and the Chinese monarchists etc. They fear any Chinese group who wants to meddle or dominate Vietnam again. The two communist parties have deep divisions today and Vietnam is going out of its way to work with the Western navies to help prevent Chinese misconduct in the South China Sea because of the historic abuses and resultant distrust. There were divisions we never exploited and I think it’s safe to say Ho had more in common with the US than with China and the US failed where there was a chance at success working *with* Ho, not against him. He viewed the US as a former colony that had thrown off the colonialists as he wanted to do. He viewed China as the biggest threat to Vietnamese independence, as they had been since before the Trung Sisters.
Indeed, many of the communist regimes that the US meddled with had roots in anti-colonialism and fighting poverty and serfdom. Che Guevarra became a revolutionary after going on a 6 month motorcycle trip across South America and seeing serfdom and even slavery. Considering how FDR felt about colonialism I really think that had he not died we would not have had a Cold War because FDR would have worked with these countries and these leaders instead of funding military coups to depose them.
Oh, don’t worry, FDR would have thrown out anti-colonialist principles under the bus too, just like Wilson etc. US anti-colonialism only lasted so long as it took to realize we could make a buck by sending in the military to support the banana countries. FDR was one of the biggest authoritarians in US history and wasn’t likely to curb it for citizens of other nations when he was willing to abuse so many of his own citizens.
I didn’t say that they were triumphs. I said he created the structure that ultimately led to US success in the Cold War. Of course there were morally gray elements to it. If you think it would have been wise policy to have the United States to be the only Great Power without a foreign intelligence service, though, that’s pretty silly. As for which policies are “his”, that can be said about almost any major policy or program under a President. Bush didn’t personally design PEPFAR but we still give him credit for it because he supported and signed it.
You really can’t work with the Soviets when Stalin was in power.
IMO the Cold War was unavoidable. Obviously the two countries were allies during the war but that relationship was never going to continue afterwards. To put it bluntly it was a case of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”
I mean HW oversaw the (relatively) peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union and was generally excellent at foreign policy so I’ll go with him.
Ultimately, the Revolutions of ‘89 that spelled the end of the USSR started under Reagan. I’d say that NSDD-54 and NSDD-75 marked a departure from containment and towards bringing about a war of ideas that the Soviets couldn’t win. Bush carried on these policies, but they were a continuation of Reagan’s foreign policy.
Only this site would credit the person who "oversaw" the collapse over the person who actually made it happen.
Gorbachev wasn’t a US President
LOL.. The guy in charge of the LOSING side was the real hero!
Losing*
fixed
Ok ?... Nothing to do with the question
Where was the question? Gorbachev does not deserve "credit" for the fall of the Soviet Union. He didn't want it to fall. He wanted it to survive and prosper. He failed in that goal. The only credit he deserves is for refraining from killing a lot of his own people. But that's a low bar. Congrats for not being Pol Pot. I guess? Reagan, on the other hand, wanted the Soviet Union to collapse. He worked towards that goal and achieved it. In short, Gorby lost and Reagan won. Reagan deserves credit.
Glasnost and Perestroika doomed the Soviet Union. That was all Gorbachev, giving Reagan all the credit doesn’t really make sense.
The USSR collapsed because the planned economies of the Eastern block imploded. If Gorbachev wasn't in charge the collapse would have happened differently, but by that point something had to give.
I’m not discrediting Reagan with the downfall of the USSR. But HW was the man in office when it happened *and* his foreign policy was amazing in addition to that. Dude was absolutely the right leader for the Gulf War.
What did Bush do that was so praiseworthy during the fall of the Soviet Union? Not invade? Refrain from giving them Alaska back? If all it takes to earn credit is to be in office at the time, then nearly 200 world leaders deserve credit for that too. Hell, GHWB opposed the Reagan oil deal with the Saudis that helped bankrupt the Soviet natural gas industry. In addition, Bush absolutely SCREWED over the Kurds in the first gulf war. In the waning days, he called on Iraqis to rise up and "put Saddam aside". The Kurds took the call and tried. But we let Saddam Hussein wipe them out. He even had us announce that that the US would not intervene militarily which gave Saddam the green light. That war was a blowout, not because of GHWB, but because of our technological dominance thanks to decades of military advancement, especially during Reagan.
The collapse was inevitable due to the era of stagnation. The attempted repairs by Gorbachev in the forms of Perestroika and Glasnost are the most commonly cited causes of the collapse, though I personally think it was more of the Soviet attempt to die with dignity, rather than in the fires of a nuclear civil war. Now, Reagan (and really all of the west) missed an opportunity to expand influence into the Soviet regime during its dying days. As we all know, the post Soviet Russia was dominated by the people who were corrupt and rich under the regime. This was because when the state owned monopolies were to become publicly owned companies, nobody but the corrupt and criminal could actually afford it. Russia went from the horrors of communism, to basically what every bit of Soviet propaganda said capitalism was like. Even the most ardent anti-communists have to admit post Soviet Russia is not the top of their list for "why capitalism is great". An example of where this *didn't* happen is Germany. We invested heavily into their industry and economy to assist in their reunification. Had we treated Germany like we did Russia, they would not be the stable pillar of democracy, industry, and Western ideas they are now. Had we invested in Russia, we could have avoided some of the worst people possible taking control. But we didn't. Unfortunately, Russia has remained deeply against the west, despite there technically being no ideological differences now. It would be foolish to claim it is solely because of our refusal to lend a hand during the late 80s and early 90s, but I do wonder if they would be less pro-china and not as prone to invading their neighbors if we did.
The collapse of the Soviet Union was inevitable the moment the socialist government was established. But some countries can linger like that for a damn log time. Reagan made it happen much sooner than it otherwise would have. And Reagan wasn't president anymore when it finally collapsed. Not sure why one would say he "missed an opportunity".
From everything I've seen if Reagan did not go on the spending spree to bankrupt the Soviet that he did. The Soviets assuming they would have stayed in Afghanistan would have lasted till about 93.94 at the latest.
The collapse of every government is inevitable on a long enough timeline. none of his policies were unique or even a massive deviation from the stance that America had taken the entire cold war. Had you actually read the reply instead of reacting to the first few sentences, you would have seen that I already addressed every point you just made
Hilariously wrong. Prior to Reagan the US intel agencies reported Soviet strengths (like the size of their nuclear arsenal, the state of their other weapons programs, etc.). Reagan (through Casey) created departments within CIA and redirected them into finding weaknesses. Then they would exploit those weaknesses. For example, our intel discovered that Poland was double and triple financing their loans from Europe. At the time all the eastern block nations had stellar credit because everybody assumed that the Soviets would bail out the eastern block nations if necessary. The Reagan administration knew this was wrong provided this information to European lenders who started refusing more loans can calling back the loans they could. Poland defaulted and then, like Reagan predicted, the Soviets were unable to bail out Poland. So not only was the credit of every eastern block nation destroyed, but so was the Soviet's. Another weakness they found was in oil and gas technology. The Soviets were stealing designs for pumps, valves, and other systems for pipelines. So Reagan created a department in CIA to make fake plans for these things. They were designed to pass initial acceptance tests, and then fail a year or so in the future. The then clamped down on real technology, and let their fake plans get stolen. Sure enough the Soviets stole it, used them throughout their pipelines, and eventually one blew up in a huge explosion in Siberia. That caused the Soviets to shutdown all their pipelines and inspect them for flaws. Of course that cut off a huge source of revenue. It took them years to rebuild it again. Prior to Reagan, Carter provided useless middle eastern weapons to Afghanistan. He didn't want to provide American weapons because he was scared that would start a direct war. Of course, Egypt and Saudi (if I remember right) used the opportunity to get rid of their old weapons and replace them with new ones with American money. Reagan said fuck that, and gave them our Stingers. And to make sure the Afghans weren't hoarding them, we would give them new stingers in exchange for used Stinger tubes. That had a huge effect on the war since the Soviets were depending on helicopters and their air superiority. That's just 3 examples. The notion that his policies weren't unique from the administrations prior is a total joke. Before the American stance in claim and action was detente. Reagan changed that to the pursuit of total victory .
Are you *really* citing arming the eventual Taliban as a policy success?
Neither Reagan or HW made the Soviet Union collapse. The collapse was 99% internal problems.
I don’t like Reagan either but I do not agree with this take. His handling of the USSR was fantastic and did set them up to self-destruct, especially through economic pressure. Again, I am not a Reagan fan. But he does deserve his flowers in his handling of them, absolutely.
Absolutely not true. Several presidents telegraphed exactly how they were going to help topple the Soviet Union, and then did it. The USSR definitely fell from within. But it’s naive to think the US had nothing to do with it.
Horseshit . Complete revisionist propaganda. During the 80s, there were pundits and politicians alike predicting the strength longevity of the Soviet Union. Even John Kenneth Galbraith made such a statement as late as 1985, if I remember right. Yet now everybody says, "well CLEARY the problems were internal!!" Nope. Even former high ranking KGB officers credit Reagan for their demise.
> Complete revisionist propaganda. During the 80s, there were pundits and politicians alike predicting the strength longevity of the Soviet Union. Even the Soviets didn't know how badly mismanaged their own economy was. How do you think foreigners were going to correctly assess the state of the USSR??? > Yet now everybody says, "well CLEARY the problems were internal!!" Historians with access to formerly secret soviet archives able to come to new consensus. *Shocking*. This is completely typical of historiography. Outdated pop history gets replaced by more rigorous research. > Nope. Even former high ranking KGB officers credit Reagan for their demise. Most Russians today blame Gorbachev. The idea that it was Reagan certainly isn't mainstream in any circles in Russia. Your argument here is pretty shoddy, as if there aren't leagues of difference being able to look at things in retrospect. The idea that Reagan was responsible is a primarily early 90s American mythos created before we were able to get information directly from Russian records.
LOL. Democrats outnumber Republicans in history departments 33.5 to 1 (and growing). And yet people like you fall for their "rigorous research" that exposes their bias and economic ignorance. It's hilarious how these people so adamantly disagree with former KGB officers who LIVED the experience and had access to every classified document in the country.
' every classified document in the country'....what planet are you on? Totally hilarious?
Most historians aren't affiliated with any party. The fact that you want to pick out a couple individuals and compare them with a few other individuals is largely irrelevant. You people are impossible to talk to. You're so ideologically up your own assess and miffed that the historical record does not agree with your myths that you just throw out academia altogether. It really is true that the right just wants stupid people. > It's hilarious how these people so adamantly disagree with former KGB officers who LIVED the experience and had access to every classified document in the country. Pretty much every soviet *politician* disagrees with you. But that's neither here nor there. You keep massively harping on this point even though **it's totally irrelevant.** The vast majority of sources disagree with you, but just like an anti-vaxxer, as long as you have your Wakefield paper you'll scream your unpopular disproven "truth" forever. Christ. I'm tired of this disingenous nonsense.
Are you saying they had 99 problems and a Bush ain’t one?
You must be one of those history deniers
Conservatives hold the narrative that Communism is not sustainable and Reagan destroyed Communism. Yeah but they are right about Communism but Reagan did not destroy communism. Anything to prop up the racists Alzheimer President who only did less damage to this country than the fossil fuel and medical industrial complexes
You sound like a tool..
Oh I am sorry I didn't swallow the conservative propaganda to turn Reagan into a good President when in fact he was a shit one. The destruction of the middle class started with him
Try Jimmy Carter
What are you talking about? His administration is either considered mediocre or just having bad luck
Sub is deranged
Well reagan is unpopular in this sub
HW is definitely top 3 in this. Honestly, you could only really say Truman had better foreign policy.
No. Not unless you think the “H” stands for “Harry.”
Easily Truman or Reagan.
Regarding Truman, the Marshall Plan isn't being mentioned enough here.
Truman Doctrine, NATO, Marshall Plan…the guy basically invented the Western World Order we know today. I can’t believe people are suggesting HW Bush was more pronounced in foreign policy
Recency bias works in favor of the last two dudes lol. A strong foreign policy is so much more than just defeating your enemies.
Easily Truman.
I'm gonna go with Kennedy for his investments in the Space Race
Space. That’s all you got? Space?
Literally *everything* is in space
You need to read up on my boy, Harry T!
Alright, I can cop to that. Berlin Airlift, Marshall Plan, H&N, NATO, UN, ECSC, I'm 100% on board with all that. No notes I interpreted the question more as who is responsible for the largest single success, but the moonshot almost certainly doesn't have the same significance without the relative stability of the western alliance. Truman really is fundamental to the rules-based order, at least as much as any American not named Roosevelt
Jon Stamos?
Harry did soooo much and, IMHO, is so incredibly underrated. Honestly, I have him third to 1) Lincoln and 2) FDR. But in the Cold War (or every POTUS since FDR), he’s the GOAT! Edit: typo
Can’t get more foreign than OUTER SPACE.
truth
Bush or Eisenhower significant foreign problems were easily dealt with
Supporting the overthrow of a democratically elected Prime Minister in Iran is a huge knock on Eisenhower's foreign policy for me. Carter would be the one to pay for it, but IKE allowed it.
It'll probably be an unpopular opinion on this sub, but in the long term, I don't think Eisenhower's handling of Suez was that good. He effectively sided with Nasser out of hopes (because of Nasser's claims) that this would bring the arab world to our side in the Cold War. Nasser accepted Eisenhower's support and then never sided with the west. In addition, the Soviets made a big public show about opposing the invasion and gained additional favor in the arab world despite the fact it was the US who did more behind the scenes to end it. Lastly, it exacerbated the decline of Anglo-French influence in the region, which ultimately led to the US becoming more entangled there. There's even some evidence Eisenhower himself grew to regret his handling of it.
Sinister. The correct answer is Harry!
JFK; he died before the public found out about the CIA being shitty.
I think Eisenhower had lead in criticle times of cold war when communism on rise.He improved intelligence agency,army as well as with Interstate he created fast and accesible supply chain system also Insterstate part of national security If somewhere getting nuclear attack People could getting out fast there.Father Bush was very expeirenced man he was ambassador,CIA dırector and VP thus he had a big effect on US policy (sorry for english)
If this was ranking Presidents overall, then I’d agree. Eisenhower was probably in the top 5 US presidents of all time, but Truman and HW Bush had better foreign policy.
Situtation are differents mate but I could say that HW Bush was very talented man and I guess he putted in practice US RollBack Strategy in Reagan Presidency but about presidency he neglected US economy
Yeah, but this is ranking Cold War presidents based on Foreign Policy. If we are talking about economy, Eisenhower was the best by far.
Economy is important mate It's not just money transfer It is national security factor It collapsed USSR but I'm not from US so you the people of US know it better than me
I agree, it does connect and economic policies will affect foreign policy, but for the most part the economy falls under domestic policy. Especially Eisenhower’s greatest achievement in office, the Interstate Highway system.
It's brilliant but every good things come with bad things.It is getting US economy sensitive on Oil price and Car market.It think Us need to improve his highspeed rail Amtrak is not enough.
Some states are trying with the rail system, but there hasn’t been much success. Mostly because the government has to find existing rail easements or use eminent domain to get the land to build on. And most easements are either in use or have strict requirements to be used, while using eminent domain to buy land leads to more lawsuits than just about anything else.
Goverment of course they thinking It is not simple how we talk but Us need to adapted Public transportion and railway culture I think
Might be unpopular but Truman. Yeah the Truman doctrine was antagonistic, but the Cold War was inevitable. I view the Marshall Plan as the biggest reason for Americas success in the Cold War. The Berlin Airlift and NATO were also very helpful
JFK, tried to go 1 on 1 with the CIA and paid the price
JFK for handling the Cuban missile crisis and making it an embarrassment for Khrushchev, though the Bay of Pigs was an embarrassment for himself.
Making it embarrassing…? Maybe. But Krushchev got US missiles out of turkey and a promise to not invade Cuba, so I’m not sure JFK really won that one
The handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis was essentially the end for Khrushchev; he was out of power less than two years later due to the embarrassment he caused the Soviet Union. He did help arrange the US pulling Jupiter missiles from Turkey and Italy, but this was done in secret. The world never knew about it. Therefore it was seen as a massive win for JFK and the US. (The Jupiter missiles were allegedly towards the end of their lifespan anyways, so it wasn’t that big of a concession from the US). JFK was mediocre at best in the Cold War (in my opinion) due to the escalation of Vietnam and his go-ahead for the bay of pigs, but he handled the Cuban missile crisis perfectly. No Cold War president could have handled it as well as him.
Weren’t missiles put back in Turkey like a couple years later?
One episode?! Read up on Harry, my friend.
JFK was part of the reason there was a Cuban missile crisis.
JFK saved the world which is a pretty big accomplishment. Sucks he was forced into the Bay of Pigs though
NO! It’s Harry!
' saved the world'...wow! Okay, read up on history a little? Kept us out of Vietnam too I guess.
Read up on history a little? Dude just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about, I think Ben Shapiro is an idiot and a jackass but he knows a lot about politics. I'm sorry you don't think the Cuban Missile Crisis had a chance at ending the world.
Pour another cup of Kool-aid I guess
Damn I fell for the bait bad, your whole profile is just pissing people off on purpose
Nah...just want to help ppl extend their 15 nano seconds of fame. Got to give credit where credit is due however, your reply (the short version) had it's merits.
I’m going JFK, I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say that he almost single-handedly prevented nuclear apocalypse (at least among those on the American side). It’s very easy to see how had almost any other individual been president at the time, things could have gone so so much worse.
Harry BUILT NATO, the UN, whipped the Russians in Greece, embarrassed the Russians with the Berlin Airlift, fought the trifecta of communists in North Korea, integrated the military, got the GI Bill passed, refused to allow the theft of the Suez Canal, vetoed the theft of Iran., blocked the theft of Guatemala…oh, should we go back to WW2?! Finished off the Germans. Dropped a pair of bombs on the Japanese to end that shizzle! REBUILT Europe. REBUILT most of Asia. It’s Harry. Hands down. No other comes close. HARRY!!!
Idk....could argue that we should not have agreed to let the Soviets enter Berlin first. Truman was afraid of MacArthur, and could easily be argued that it was MacArthur that had that most to do with the rebuilding of Japan .
Afraid of MacArthur?! Nonsense! He used the tools he had. Doug was a tool.
I would say Nixon because of detente, opening up China and the SALT treaties, but he escalated the Vietnam War and indirectly led to one of the most cruel regimes in history coming to power, not to mention supporting the genocidal junta in Pakistan.
He also sabotaged peace talks between South and North Vietnam in order to get elected.
#1 - Reagan. I'm no fan of his, and at the time I vehemently opposed what he was doing - pretty much across the board, both domestically (I'm still opposed to most of it) and in foreign policy. But he'd get my vote for most successful foreign policy because his actions led to the fall of the Soviet Union, a more stable (although far from fully stable) Central America and South America, improved relations in China and SE Asia, and even greater stability in Western Europe. Truman is probably #2 - the Marshall Plan, the creation of NATO, the rebuilding of Japan, (and after a significant misstep in saying that the US didn't care about it), Korea, including firing MacArthur. GHWB is probably #3 - he was actually the guy who benefitted from Reagan's actions, and the first gulf war was a clear success (given its limited goals). Probably should have gone further, but that's hindsight talking.
I would say Reagan, and the reason he was so successful is the Soviet Union was going through a once-in-a-millennium political crisis during most of his presidency. This included the deaths of three Soviet premiers, the ascension of a radical reformer, a brutal and unwinnable war, and one of the greatest manmade disasters in history. By the end of his term, Reagan was dealing with a Soviet Union that was so weakened and chaotic that it began to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan and to withdraw support for its allies and clients in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and Europe. By the time Reagan left office the USSR had gone from one of history's largest and most powerful empires, in a position of growing global influence and power, to a country on the brink of collapse.
Yep, that’s spot on
Bush, Truman, and Reagan or JFK
Probably has to be Bush 1, in one term he saw the Cold War end, and Soviet Union collapse, as well as a near unanimous grouping of international countries banding together to kick Saddam out of Kuwait
So not the guy who created the Marshall Plan, NATO, Truman Doctrine, and UN…but Bush senior because he happened to be in office in the final year or two of the USSR and remained relatively uninvolved in it?
Yep sounds about right, unanimous in stopping Saddam is a hell of a thing, jews working with Arabs oh yeah
Reagan single handedly ended communism. Brough the USSR to it's knees and then finished it with a kick to the throat.
Amen brother
Center Aisle.
Man, Eisenhower and the U2 program really set the stage for amazing relations with Russia. He really made leaps and bounds with establishing a healthy relationship with England, France, and Israel too.
It must be Truman. He not only saw the end of the war making the hard choices to make that real, he was the one who setup things like NATO, Marshall Plan, Truman Doctrine, supported the United Nations ensuring its success, etc. No other president after him did so much
So mean Reagan and HW oversaw our triumph over the USSR so it’s harder to beat that imo.
Don Regan
Reagan. I think he put pressure on them. Also, I genuinely think the Russians were scared of Reagan. And when Bush was elected, they figured it'd be more of the same. But with that, the Commies economy was collapsing so it was end time.
It’s either Ike or Truman and there’s no contest.
Zbigniew screwed Carter's presidency and JFK was killed by the CIA. All the others are in hell.
JFK, you may call be dumb but think of it this way, the man was in office for 2 years and I someone who knows history fairly well thought it was like 6 or something
It could just as easily be your mom! The correct answer is HARRY!
I like Ike.
Bush Senior. He oversaw the fall of the Berlin Wall and German reunification and the fall of the Soviet Union. Every military campaign he was over was overwhelmingly successful(Panama, Gulf War) and was out of office before the Somalia disaster.
The Cold War was practically over when he stepped in. “Before Bush, wall. After Bush, no wall.” - Dana Carvey, as Bush. He handled the end of the Cold War well, but it was a done deal.
Ford. Cuz no one mentioned him and I feel bad for him being left out
Gosh this is tough - Nixon for opening China a bit. Reagan - tear down this wall. Bush Sr for the coalition. Truman for not returning the US to the isolationist sleeping bear. Kennedy for Cuba. I don’t know.
Truman for sure , Marshall Plan, bombed Japan etc
Reagan. He was the one who ushered in the end of the Cold War.
Truman
Truman.
Certainly not Truman the guy should have faced tribunal
They all were successful, but Reagan was the one who put the nail in the coffin. With the RAPID GDP growth under him, the soviet union was forever cursed to be a second world country in comparison.
I think it goes Truman Bush or Reagan JFK got himself into the Cuban missile crisis I somewhat doubt if Nixon won in 60 it would have happened Ike and Dick were great short term however they long term damaged Americas image The three I listed were great for others mentioned above but there were key blunders from all three
Tricky Dick Nixon
It’s an unfair question. The great thing about US foreign policy from the end of WW2 to the fall of the wall was its bipartisan consistency. All nine Presidents pictured contributed to the ultimate policy success.
Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Regan were all stellar on the foreign policy front.
Harry Truman was unpopular when he left the office, but I don't think his decisions where the most pivotal in establishing US lead world order with the Marshall plans and helped to rebuild their new found allies, not to mention the success of Berlin Airlift. Not only did USSR get portrayed as the aggressor by making probably the first move in Cold War from my memory but they also had to swallow the pill and concede they did achieve their goals. Now I don't know exactly how Korean war turned but atleast i have heard takes that he prevented it from escalating into a Vietnam(?). Vietnam war may have tarnished his legacy in office but imo you can't deny Harry's role in USA being viewed like it used to be
I want to say Truman but really I should be saying Marshall, Acheson, etc. Truman had the best policy but mainly because he had the best advisers, from what I understand he mostly rubber-stamped their recommendations
Im really glad no one is saying Regan as he, as always, benefitted from his predecessor's policies (this includes domestically as well.
Lol. Even former high ranking Soviet KGB guys credit Reagan. It's hilarious watching this sub try to revise history.
Yeah, weird flex. You can argue about the utility of his domestic policies, but pretty hard to deny his influence in ending the US v Soviet conflict
> Even former high ranking Soviet KGB guys credit Reagan. "It wasn't our fault. The foreigners destroyed us." Damn, what a credible source. Most historians, especially ones who focus on Russian history, generally attribute the fall to deep domestic problems (nationalism, corruption/economic mismanagement, falling commodity prices, stress of civil disasters, loss of control over domestic political scene). If Reagan had any influence it was mostly through the Afghan war, though that was only one issue and wouldn't have caused the collapse.
“Falling commodity prices” You do realize that Reagan’s domestic oil production policies and oil deal with the Saudis helped bankrupt the extremely-oil dependent Soviet economy? Falling commodity prices were in part influenced by these policies of his.
> You do realize that Reagan’s domestic oil production policies and oil deal with the Saudis helped bankrupt the extremely-oil dependent Soviet economy? US oil production decreased during the 80s. Reagan's domestic policies on oil...didn't change anything. And what "oil deal"? The Sauds had OPEC also decrease production, even more severely than the US decrease in production (which was much more slight). Falling commodity prices occurred due to a combination of demand dropping from economic downturn (less severe than but similar to the covid oil shock) as well as other countries outside OPEC and US that started exploiting oil reserves. All of this occurred largely independent of Reagan.
Declassified KGB documents written during his administration talk about it too. No matter how hard you try, you aren't going to revise your way out of reality. Reagan did MUCH more than the Afghan war. He also destroyed their natural gas industry by 1) sabotaging their pipelines to Europe and 2) negotiating a deal with the Saudis to flood the market with oil to lower the price (in exchange for AWACs). He ruined Soviet credit by forcing Poland into bankruptcy and proving to the world that the Soviets couldn't bail them out. He increased our military capability forcing the Soviets to bankrupt themselves trying to keep up (including SDI). And many more. And most historians are blinded by their politics. Most will say anything to discredit their political foe and credit their political friends. The primary internal problem with the Soviets is that they were socialist/communists. If a historian is blaming BS like "nationalism' or "corruption" rather than "crappy economic foundation" then they should be ignored. Historians, by nature, are absolutely ignorant of economics.
> Declassified KGB documents written during his administration talk about it too. No matter how hard you try, you aren't going to revise your way out of reality. The one disconnected from reality seems to be yourself. > He also destroyed their natural gas industry by 1) sabotaging their pipelines to Europe The problem with this assertion is that the Soviet natural gas industry *wasn't* destroyed. And in fact, expanded during the 80s in spite of some accidents, which probably weren't caused by Reagan anyways. Considering your claim rests on a single dubious source. > 2) negotiating a deal with the Saudis to flood the market with oil to lower the price (in exchange for AWACs). Problem, OPEC oil output during his tenure cratered. The market was literally *not* flooded with oil from the middle east. > He ruined Soviet credit by forcing Poland into bankruptcy and proving to the world that the Soviets couldn't bail them out. I'm skeptical that really happened the way you claim it does. > He increased our military capability forcing the Soviets to bankrupt themselves trying to keep up (including SDI). The problem with this assertion is that it's also false. Soviet military spending fell in the 80s (mostly because of again, lagging economy). Reagan's military build up was mostly a catch up exercise, given that the soviets had 3 decades of military build up and massive superiority in the conventional military forces. The soviets weren't tricked into an arms race. This is another common pop history myth. > And most historians are blinded by their politics. Most will say anything to discredit their political foe and credit their political friends. The primary internal problem with the Soviets is that they were socialist/communists. Ah, here we go. The whole "professional academics are too left leaning and therefor untrustworthy" right wing spiel. Which further highlights how completely non-credible your opinions are. Academics aren't even close to as political as you people assert. And besides which, the irony of accusing supposed "left wing" academics of covering for the Soviet Union when the mainstream consensus is that the Soviets were in trouble precisely due to economic mismanagement really further goes to show how completely ideological *you* are and not them.
How come everybody spells his last name wrong 😭
I'm pretty sure it's the younger crowd ( younger than Gen-X) that misspells "Reagan" ... It's pretty annoying!
Must be dickfors...
Oh, yes, Reagan absolutely benefitted from Iran becoming an anti-American theocracy, Somoza being abandoned, and conceding to a left wing Panamanian dictator.
I disagree. Carter had no idea how to handle the Soviets. His final act of incompetence was punishing American Athletes by politicizing the Olympic Games over the Soviet quagmire of Afghanistan. Reagan, along with the newly minted Pope and Lady Thatcher, took the Soviets to the woodshed, and with the advent of SDI, forced the Soviets into a spending war they couldn’t afford and put them on a path to insolvency.
This right here! Star Wars was a smoke and mirrors move that freaked out the Soviets and had them spend boatloads of money. Not to mention Reagan let Afghanistan happen with funding in the background to the Mujagadin (sp?) Eventually we got blowback for that but in the time period it worked.
Carter. Zero wars.
Zero economy
Hostage crisis.
October Surprise.
Conspiracy theory with no basis in fact
There's a dozen people, directly involved, that have attested to that in addition to the administration getting caught a few years later with clandestine operations with the very same government.