FDR is my choice but I would listen to arguments that Stalin was more powerful. I don’t think any pre-WW II presidents make the cut so if it’s not FDR then Eisenhower would be next as the first post Stalin president. His biggest rival is krushchev or Mao.
Why are you skipping Truman?
Truman was my guess because I think he was the only one to have exclusive control of nuclear weapons.
Ugh. This is going to devolve into piddling angry arguments over what “most powerful” means.
Anyway, I would start with FDR as well. There’s no case to be made for Stalin. He had absolute control over the USSR but little to none outside of it. Contrarily, the US could dictate virtually anything to anybody and get away with it. Churchill gradually came to realize that Britain didn’t have the resources to force compliance and were in fact totally reliant on the US to win the war.
Every president since has held the title, IMO. The military and economic might of the US dwarfed that of every other country. No other leader had sway over more than a tiny fraction with less overall power. The US enters into treaties, alliances, and organizations and dominates them. They either comply or are worthless. That’s power.
Yeah, FDR had him beat by a wide margin in the electoral vote.
Ike was the first post-Stalin president. I’d hear arguments that Truman surpasses Stalin when the atomic bombs are used.
Well, sure; but what’s the FDR argument that excludes Truman even without taking that into account? Whatever points you think FDR gets for trying to get Germany and Japan to acquiesce, wouldn’t Truman get those same points in your reckoning when he steps in and starts trying likewise, and then get more points when they actually fall in line?
I don’t get it. Stalin controlled the USSR and Eastern Europe. The US controlled every other place in the world. The Soviet nuclear arsenal never at any point during or after Stalin equaled that of the US. They were never used because every Russian leader understood that. What metric can you be using to refute this?
I said in my first post that my vote is for FDR. If someone considers Stalin more powerful than FDR then the next choice for me would be DDE because Stalin was still in power during Truman’s terms.
I think FDR was more powerful but a case can be made for Stalin. He certainly had more control of the USSR and it was largely Russia who defeated the Germans. Communism was being exported around the world and China was about to fall.
That said the economic might of the US gives FDR the nod. During the war the US out-produced all the other combatants combined. It was the US dollar that protected Europe from the massive Soviet army as much as the military. The nuclear program created a short window for the Marshall plan to take effect.
But Truman was also president “during the war”. I don’t see why you’d give economic-might points to FDR for being president “during the war” without giving those same points to Truman for being president “during the war”.
It was Lyndon B. Johnson. He attained the height of presidential power, a virtual emperor who controlled the congress. He had far more weapons available than any president before him and under the great pressure to use them.
“FDR gets for trying to get Germany and Japan to acquiesce” When was this? I recall Churchill being flaberasted when FDR publicly remanded “Unconditional surrender”.
I don’t much care how we phrase it: you could say that FDR tried to get them to surrender, or that he tried to get them to concede, or yield, or succumb — or, y’know, acquiesce, or whatever. My point is, FDR tried, and Germany and Japan kept not doing that; and Truman tried, and Germany and Japan kept not doing that, and I don’t see why FDR would get more points than Truman for that; and then Germany and Japan surrendered or conceded or yielded or succumbed or acquiesced or whatever, and I don’t see why FDR would get more points than Truman for that.
Thanks, I misuderstood your meaning.
Truman.
FDR had all the force of the US military, but never had the bomb.
Truman had all the force of the US military, plus he was the only leader in the world at the time who had the bomb.
Every president since then has had to operate in a military environment where the USSR and other countries had the bomb.
I’d agree with that, in terms of world influence.
One could interpret this question many other ways. However, that one will be someone else.
How can it not be Truman? He’s the only world leader in History to have a monopoly on nuclear weapons.
<sigh> I’m obviously not getting my point across. I’m not always the most clear writer, so let me try again.
I believe FDR is the first POTUS that could be reasonably considered the most powerful person in the world; Truman would then be the second POTUS so deemed. However, if someone considered Stalin more powerful than FDR then they would likely consider him more powerful than Truman as well. Since Eisenhower is the first post-Stalin president then he is likely the unanimous choice for first most powerful POTUS.
FWIW, in this 2009 Forbes article, Henry Kissinger ranked the seven most powerful men in all of history. Theodore Roosevelt, the first US president on the list, came in at number six. Number seven was a tie between all the American presidents since 1945.
The article is from 2009, but even back then I think it was obvious the US was becoming less powerful relative to the rest of the world. I think the power of the US presidents peaked with Truman, as many have argued above, and has declined since, at different speeds at different times. IMHO Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, and Nixon were all at about at the same level. Ford a little less so, and Cafter even less, mostly because his tendency towards pacifism meant he wasn’t willing to wield the power he did have. Reagan was a brief reversal of the trend, mostly because Gorbachev was functionally the Soviet equivalent of Jimmy Carter, so he was more powerful by comparison. Bush Sr. and Clinton were up there, but failed to press their advantage. The next level down would be Bush Jr. and Obama, both having less power as China gained more as well as for failing to put together a Gulf War I style coalition to fight the War on Terror. Trump really screwed things up, so he had even less power due to an inability to effectively wield what power he did have. Biden is another reversal, having more power (on the international level) than Trump, but IMHO less so than Bush Jr. and Obama had.