You’re getting your point across. I just disagree with it.
In terms of conventional weaponry, I would say that it’s not clear if FDR or Uncle Joe was the most powerful. The Red Army was larger than the US Army, but the US had the US Navy, far outclassing the Soviet navy, plus the industrials of the US far outclassed the Soviets, so that the Soviets themselves depended on industrial aid from the US to win the war in the eastern theatre. No clear winner between FDR and Uncle Joe.
But the Bomb was the game changer. FDR never had the bomb. Truman did, and the Soviets didn’t have a successful test until 1949. For those four years, I would say that Truman was the most powerful leader in the world. As I said earlier and Elmer has repeated: a world leader with a monopoly on nuclear weapons was the most powerful leader.
Ike never was in that situation. MAD developed on his watch. He was not as powerful as Truman, because he always had to take into account what the Soviets might do with their nuclear weapons.
No president since Truman has been in that situation, so I would say that in the context of each president’s situation, Harry S will always have been the most powerful.
Don’t forget the US strategic conventional bombing capability in 1945, something of which the Russians had no equivalent force. Even without nuclear weapons, that was a huge amount of power.
Even without nuclear weapons it’s pretty clear to me that the US was more powerful than the Soviet Union in 1945-1949. Nuclear weapons just expanded that gap.
See, we’re getting bogged down in definitions of power. Military power is merely one element of world power. I can understand why some would use it as a metric, as it’s simpler and more easily calculated, but I believe that it is wildly overrated. Power has to be multi-dimensional to be meaningful.
I’m going to go with an unconventional pick and say Bill Clinton.
Presidents like Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower served when there were other strong nations like Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union that could plausibly threaten the United States.
Clinton served during the period between the collapse of the Soviet Union and the resurrection of Russian power under Putin. China was not yet a global power. Europe was still relatively divided. So during Clinton’s presidency the United States stood alone as the world’s only superpower.
The USSR was estimated to have 46,000 warheads in 1986. That number has steadily gone down since then, but they still had a huge number of warheads in the 1990s.
Russia may have been a crippled, failing superpower while Clinton was in power, but he still had to take them into account as a nuclear power
Nuclear weapons are actually pretty insignificant in most political situations. They’re useful for keeping another country from attacking you but that’s pretty much all they do. It’s not like a country can present a one-sided economic agreement to some smaller country and threaten a nuclear attack if they don’t sign it. Nuclear weapons don’t let you project power like that.
A reasonable leader would never threaten to use nukes in a situation like that, but an unreasonable leader very well might.
For your argument to work, you have to believe that Kim Jung Un (to take merely one example) would be a good neighbor if he had control over the Chinese, Russian, or American nuclear arsenals.
The US wasn’t an empire; nevertheless no other country did anything momentous without the US either approving or coming down hard on it. See: Suez Canal Crisis.
Yes, I did read your quote: “The US controlled every other place in the world” - so you were saying that there were no free elections or local governments anywhere, and US praetorians controlled the globe?
True. Which gives Truman an even bigger edge. While other nations were digging out of the rubble his had no economic issues larger than a fleeting spike in unemployment and a quickly remedied housing shortage. Civil unrest in the US (save some labor nastiness around the Taft-Hartley act enacted over Truman’s veto) was on hold for at least half a decade. Truman was also the only world leader immediately after the war with the resources to provide economic aid to other countries (including former enemies), garnering a level of goodwill overseas that no nation has seen since.
I suppose, in theory, some national leader might use nuclear weapons that way. But none ever has and I based my statements on actual history and not implausible speculation.
The reason such speculations are implausible is because there are multiple nations with nuclear weapons. So if one leader of a nation with nuclear weapons tried to impose his rule over a non-nuclear nation through the threat of a nuclear attack, the leaders of other nations with nuclear weapons would intervene.
Suppose, for example, that the United States decided it wanted to expand. So we told Mexico it had to agree to a treaty turning the state of Tamaulipas over to us. And if they didn’t sign, we’d nuke Mexico City.
Mexico doesn’t have the power to resist such a demand. They don’t have nuclear weapons. But if we made such a demand, other nuclear powers like Russia and China would intervene.
According to some on this board Trump as he will overturn the US Constitution and make himself Dictator For Life. No previous President, or anyone in the world, has been able to that until Trump does it in 2024.
The President of the US has less power than the average dictator of a banana republic. What formula do you plug the numbers into to reach an Index of Power?
I recall 50 years ago pondering this question, using as factors the greatest amount of arbitrary power over the greatest number of people. I came up with Nigeria’s Yokubu Gowon. He certainly had more power over more people than Nixon, who wasn’t even being obeyed as Commander in Chief of the armed forces anymore.
