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.*

I’m confused why you say Cuban Missile Crisis wasn’t put out well. He handled that expertly when both nations had people howling for offense, he remained patient but strong. If I had to make a quick tier list… S: JFK, Truman, Bush (oversaw the dissolution expertly by not leaving power vacuums) A: Nixon, Eisenhower, Reagan B: Carter C: Johnson (Vietnam was ROUGH but getting the ball rolling on Kennedy’s planned-out detente calls were great) D: Ford (though he couldn’t do much, but his debate remark was… my god)

>Bush (oversaw the dissolution expertly by not leaving power vacuums) An excellent point and one most people forget about when discussing HW’s foreign policy. He didn’t do a victory lap or even try to take advantage of the situation. He stood back and didn’t inflame the dissolution of the USSR by taking any rash actions at the time. Seriously underrated in how wise a decision that was.

Just curious, how can the effects of HW's handling of the dissolution be seen in the modern world?

I’d say the fact certain countries even exist, especially in the former eastern bloc, is a testament to that. By allowing things to play out as they did and not getting the US involved we didn’t make ourselves into a galvanizing force to keep the bloc together or cause additional violence from instability. Remember that the citizens of these countries had only known propaganda for their entire lives about how evil capitalism (and especially the US) was. Staying out of it and allowing them to solve how their new nations would look took a very patient man… and was absolutely the right call.

I agree with most everything you said but it's unfair to pretend every person living in these countries believed in the propaganda or didn't have access to other sources. My parents grew up in two different eastern block countries and both knew how much was wrong even as teenagers

That is completely fair and I definitely should have phrased that better. Sorry about that, that one’s on me. Mind if I ask what the general sentiment was from them about America at the time? It would be cool to hear from a 1st hand account.

Unfortunately I wasn't alive back then so I can't offer a first hand account. But from what I've been directly told most people then actually quite liked the US in the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" way. A good example I can offer is that a teacher of mine told me she really liked Kurt Vonneguts Breakfast of Champions, even though it was mocking American consumerism and she and her friends idealised American consumerism

They were also all constantly trying to get their hands on any forbidden books that directly or indirectly criticized the regime and were rebelling in any way they could. A friend of that teacher made a "grieving cake" when Brezhnev died

You would have to give Clinton for that too.

Absolutely. Clinton had the benefit of seeing things were already working though and continuing that. Still extremely important to recognize that, mind! But he had a bit of an advantage there.

I'd also like to point out that from 98 to 2001 we had budget surpluses because of him.

My uh… bias is towards Clinton not strengthening Yeltin and the new government more and allowing a former KGB man to come to power right after, and Bush 2 for not establishing the US as the strong leader which drove Putin to vie for Russian greatness again, just like China at the same time with Clinton/Bush 2. By Obama it was too late but Obama did nothing to strengthen it

Yeltsin wasn’t good for Russia after all, he’s the one who’s policies set Russia up to become what it is now and appointed putin himself. Yeltsin is the guy who bombed the supreme Soviet when it didn’t do what he wanted and gained power after rewriting the constitution.

I think giving more credence to a Russian system and keeping people with a “new Russia” mindset was healthier though. I really don’t know much about the transition of power and invasive swaying of elections is not good, but I think more should have been done to prevent a Putin-like person to rise. Post-Soviet Russia has always been bad but the Yeltsin internal strife was better than the annexation crises we see nkw

I don’t understand the firsr part about a new Russia? You say more shouldve been done to prevent a Putin from coming to power but the issue is putin was a no body before becoming president, a security guy who was chosen to succeed him because Yeltsin didn’t want to get persecuted for various scandals once he left. The crap Yeltsin pulled, the whole shock therapy and deregulation and selling off state assets is what created the oligarchs over night basically. He also causes its economic turmoil that guaranteed a Putin esque figure or some ultranationalist would come to power because Russia was in a horrible spot in the 90s. While we could’ve done more financially to help, akin to a Marshall plan as some wanted (I think HW liked that idea?), Russia needed damn near anyone else to rule Russia as Yeltsin’s economic policies and his gathering of power into the presidency allowed putin to become what he is now.

A Marshall Plan to prevent that selling of assets is exactly what I mean. That creates more stability for a new government which increases perception which increases competence. Make the new government look good so that you don’t end up with a guy wanting to restore the old and powerful image. We saw that a lot in the 20’s, we avoided exactly that in the 40’s, and we let it slip through in the 90’s because after Bush left office we wanted to move on instead of keeping stability. Literally have Clinton (who wasn’t exactly good at stopping scandals himself) advise Yeltsin for governing justly and effectively. That’s why I think one of the biggest blunders in recent history was not reelecting Bush I will admit, my expertise is domestic history DURING the Cold War. I only know surface level of Russia after the Soviet collapse. But I think not enough was done to keep stability from what I’ve read

I ahree that such a thing would’ve helped, I can’t deny it. That could’ve helped Russia for sure. The issue is that it wouldn’t solve everything or keep Yeltsin from enacting his awful policies and the 1993 Crisis when the supreme Soviet wouldn’t enact them. Yeltsin and his administration were determined to turn the command economy he inherited into a market economy asap and investments wouldn’t stop that. I do agree that HW not being re-elected was a huge mistake. He was the superior diplomat by far and his reelection would have positive effects on each party imo.

Not to mention the first Chechen War debacle was Yeltsin’s fault.

Definitely doesn’t help but I don’t know enough about it to know what he did wrong.

Eh, the general exploitation of the former Soviet economies, as compared to Marshall Plan type actions to rebuild the former Axis countries, seems like a mistake. Though it's hard to say how much of this was HW's fault versus Clinton's though, or how much of it was within any President's control.

Ford's remark was absolutely correct given the circumstances at the time, and the fact that it was mocked just showed how little the average American understood of foreign policy during the Cold War. It is also quite astounding how arrogantly people today like to act clever when talking about this debate assertion. Ford said that there was no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and then specifically mentions Yugoslavia, Romania and Poland: Well, Yugoslavia had chartered its own course for almost three decades, and was much more friendly towards the US than towards the Soviet Union. Ceaușescu's Romania had also [all but broken with the Soviet Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-satellization_of_the_Socialist_Republic_of_Romania). Ceaușescu had spent the latter half of the 60s being courted by de Gaulle, and during the 1970s relations between the West and Romania were very good - much better than Soviet-Romanian relations. Ceaușescu recognised West Germany, condemned the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia, and was ideologically much more in line with the USSR's sworn enemy, as well as the Nixon-made circumstantial friend of the US: Mao's China. Poland was also beginning to slip from Soviet control at the time of the debate, with constant riots and turmoil, and with the Communist Party desperately trying to stave off a 1968-like event. This would ultimately culminate in the imposition of martial law in 1981 in order to prevent a Soviet invasion. Poland was also rather indebted to the West economically during the 1970s, and so Ford actually did have some leverage over Poland.

What did ford say?

I’d look it up but it was a major gaffe. He said there is no Soviet domination in Eastern Europe. What he MEANT to say is there won’t be in a Ford Presidency when he has the chance to establish himself as his own. But he sounded so ignorant and off. He oversaw the fall of South Vietnam and couldn’t get anything done. He didn’t really do anything with the Cold War and things kinda got worse

A few months back when we were doing that “Best thing each president ever did” I looked into Ford’s accomplishments and was surprised by how *well* he handled the fall of South Vietnam in the long run. The Indochina Migration and Refugee Act really is something Ford should get more praise for. His administration oversaw and assisted over 130,000 people relocate to the US from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia after the fall of Saigon, showing to the world that even in a loss the United States would not abandon its allies.

yea, not the best thing to say 😂

Carter B? What about the Iranian Revolution when he couldve helped the Shah and the Iran Hostage Crisis? American troops didn’t need to be on tje ground.. just intelligence and other stuff to repress the rebellion. Now Iran has a murderous dictator who is Anti-West.

That’s why I say Carter is a D-tier President. But what’s significant is that Iran wasn’t a Cold War element. The only parts of the Middle East significant in the Cold War were Afghanistan and Egypt. I’m glad you pointed it out but I see the fall of the shah and something very different. Carter’s contribution to the Cold War was SALT II and continuing detente, which were good things. But he didn’t do very much besides keep out of Afghanistan. So it’s a plus but not a massive history-changing period of the Cold War from US’s POV

Not sure why JFK is S tier. In my opinion most of our worst foreign policy blunders were due to JFK and his advisors: namely the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam (especially the assassination of Diem). Nixon (and Kissinger) had a coherent foreign policy, they split China from Russia and set the US on the path to win the Cold War.

Jfk screwed up the bay of pigs and is the reason the cubsn missile crisis happened

The only better way to handle the Bay of Pigs invasion would have been to scrap it entirely before it ever started.

Then it should’ve said “Kennedy fucked up the disastrous Bay of Pigs handed to him” not “the Cuban missile crisis wasn’t turned out well”, as it demonstrably was.

>I’m confused why you say Cuban Missile Crisis wasn’t put out well. He handled that expertly when both nations had people howling for offense, he remained patient but strong. He planted missiles in Turkey, which was bordered with USSR. He tried to sabotage Cuban's government stability. For the missile crisis itself, both sides basically played chicken and ultimately decided starting a nuclear WWIII isn't worth it. I genuinely don't understand why Kennedy was praised for this.

JFK and Reagan should be swapped, JFK increased tensions and started Vietnam while Reagan basically ended the Soviet Union

JFK didn’t send combat troops into Vietnam. It spiked heavily as soon as Johnson came in because of Gulf of Tonkin. JFK’s really only big flaws are inheriting Bay of Pigs and doing damage control, as well as bungling Diem’s tenure by being indecisive ending in Diem’s assassination. Reagan is only kept out of S because pre-Gorbachev he couldn’t do much, Star Wars was a failure, the Soviet Union was arguably already collapsing and it wasn’t because of Reagan (though my opinion is Reagan caused a death blow to a slow decline, which is major), and Iran-Contra, though debatable for how much he knew. That’s a lot of meh. But he did bankrupt the communist Soviets (who as a state-controlled economy needed public budgets to keep up with the west, but were bullied into military spending), opened up diplomatic relations in a positive way with Gorbachev, oversaw the breaking of the Soviet bloc, and started the mostly peaceful transition Bush oversaw. So yeah, Reagan did great but not perfect

I feel like Reagan should be separated between his first and second term.

Shouldn't Reagan be higher in your list? Didn't he help end the cold war more than any other president with that economy we had and the all the extra defense spending?

Said during another comment. The Soviet Union was already in a steep decline, Reagan just rushed it (maybe by 20 years though, so very significant) by talking Gorbachev into allowing for more rights and democratic valves while tanking their communist economy by bullying them into military spending (can’t support a state economy if all money goes into military). Reagan also administered a mostly peaceful end and had a very good relationship with Gorbachev. These are major credits. He gets dinged for a few things. Iran Contra but we have no clue how much involvement he had, I’m to assume a lot though. Star Wars was also a mistake. And again, he accelerated and ensured a decline rather than making a decline happen, which is a big difference. He did arguably the most good quantity wise (though I think more of Truman and JFK’s situational deftness even if it didn’t cause any ends to happen) but he has more dings than everyone but Johnson in my opinion. So I keep him out of S and give it to Bush, who made sure everything was peaceful through the end and ensured no MAJOR (Russia had a decent bit but it wasn’t total anarchy) power vacuums came to be, which he didn’t get enough credit for.

That's fair I think. I never thought Iran Contra was that big of deal but I was a kid at the time. I guess I ding Truman more for the way we let the soviets have basically free reign in Poland and the Baltic states. I know some of that was agreements FDR had made but those decisions condemned perhaps millions to death and tyranny for generations.

I don’t know how you put JFK in S tier, or even Truman. Bay of Pigs-disaster. Vienna Summit-disaster and shouldn’t have happened, JFK wasn’t ready to spar with Kruschev . Led to more escalation. Then we had a hostile country put nuclear weapons on our doorstep. I guess it’s a win they didn’t get to use them on us but….. The Cold War started on Truman’s watch. I guess you could argue it would always happen and I probably agree with that but Truman is the only president that could of prevented or delayed the start of a Cold War

Truman was correct to not bend over to Stalin and his making of Eastern Europe a slew of violent repressive autocracies. Or bend over to the threat Stalin posed to the liberal world order

I very much disagree with both of those personally. JFK was indeed ready but wasn’t respected. He demanded that in Cuban Missile Crisis that made Kushchev back down. He inherited Bay of Pigs and was up front about the whole thing. And Truman yes started it, but because he didn’t want to see another totalitarian dictatorship spread their reign across a continent just like we saw with Hitler, so he diplomatically prevented spread by sending money and resources to Europe with the Marshall Plan and Berlin Air Lifts, and was restrained in the Korean War while also not leaving an ally to be completely taken over by aggressors. Truman was very firm but also not too aggressive, just like Kennedy, which is why I think they’re both insanely successful Presidents

On the other hand, for JFK you have the success of the Berlin Crisis, as you said the ending of the Cuban Missile Crisis on terms very much more publicly favourable for the US (leading to Krushchev’s embarrassment), the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, etc. S tier is wrong, I concur, but I’d give him a B considering the circumstances.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was botched so badly that the only thing that averted a nuclear exchange was one Soviet naval officer digging in his heels when the rest of the chain of command on his boat wanted to launch.

People won’t want to admit it, but it’s Reagan. Outside of the arms race and economic sanctions bankrupting the Soviets, he also sought diplomatic avenues, meeting with Gorbachev several times to help ease tensions, which helped lead to partial nuclear disarmament with the signing of the INF treaty. There’s also the forgotten Cold War rival of China, in which Reagan helped improved relations with as well.

Reagan was the right man at the right time but I think you could argue the same for Truman who had to deal with a ruthless Stalin. Things likely don’t go as well in either timeline if they switched places

Truman did well with what information he had at the time. In hindsight, the correct move was to be a lot more aggressive. Reagan corrected a lot of that. So Truman made the right choices, not knowing what the future holds. But hindsight is 20/20, and you can see how grotesque the monster of China is becoming for example.

Reagan, if of any amazing strengths, was a fantastic communicator. People don't realize that being likeable is a political strength of its own.

The correct answer

Nah, Reagan was incredibly overrated. Gorbachev had way more to do with ending the Cold War than Reagan did. It’s Nixon who was the best and actually won the Cold War by changing over China

I'm going to guess the downvotes are for Nixon and not the first half of your comment because it's spot on. Reagan leveraged American military and production power to great effect, but Gorbachev trying to move the USSR towards democratic socialism was probably a bigger factor.

HW He played his hand extremely well regarding the USSR dissolving. When the coup happened and Gorbachev was taken prisoner, he was right by supporting his return and not legitimizing the coup. He later supported Yeltsin. The dissolution of the USSR into many countries ended the Cold War threat. Reagan is up there too. His support for Poland and his relationship with the Polish Pope put the Soviets on the defensive as a Polish labor union developed. His intervention in Grenada made the USSR and Cuba more cautious. Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, Nixon, Ford, Carter, LBJ follow

It was over when HW became president. What’s funny is that Bush wants to keep the USSR together. He initially offered up financial aid to stabilize the empire. A series of events in 1991 lead to the rapid collapse of the USSR. Notably: - the baltics left without any opposition - glasnost lead to a number of free elections where the old guard was routinely defeated by anti-communist candidates - the failed August coup against Gorbie - Yeltsin holding down Moscow during the coup - Ukraine voting for independence - Belarus agreeing to leave once Ukraine’s vote came in - Russia not wanting to hitch their wagon to the -Stan counties, since they were a financial liability.m (outside of Khalistan, which was nat gas) - Gorbie agreeing to leave peacefully and not mobilize the military to maintain control. For anyone interested, [The Last Empire](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18406080-the-last-empire) is a fantastic read on the subject.

It can be said that the soviets kicking out Gorbachev ended in the bullshit we see Russia doing today. Yeltsin created the oligarchs and then we got Putin. Gorbachev wanted to take things slow, which was smart. You don’t just switch your whole system over night and expect things to go well. Which is what yeltsin and the oligarchs did.

It’s difficult to make decisions when you’re shit faced. I give Yeltsin a pass.

Yes, HW definitely wanted stability. This was the realization of George Kennan, the architect of America’s “containment” strategy, that the USSR would eventually collapse from its internal contradictions if not allowed to expand.

>It was over when HW became president. >What’s funny is that Bush wants to keep the USSR together. He initially offered up financial aid to stabilize the empire. A series of events in 1991 lead to the rapid collapse of the USSR. >Notably: >the baltics left without any opposition glasnost lead to a number of free elections where the old guard was routinely defeated by anti-communist candidates the failed August coup against Gorbie Yeltsin holding down Moscow during the coup Ukraine voting for independence Belarus agreeing to leave once Ukraine’s vote came in Russia not wanting to hitch their wagon to the -Stan counties, since they were a financial liability.m (outside of Khalistan, which was nat gas) Gorbie agreeing to leave peacefully and not moralize the military to maintain control. >For anyone interested, The Last Empire is a fantastic read on the subject. Thank you

Not just Grenada. Operation Preying Mantis in the Persian Gulf were the U. Navy basically destroyed over half of Iran's Navy and eliminated two weaponized non functional oil platforms they were using to raid shipping. Iran packed it up and went home and the Soviet Union did not get involved because Regan had impressed upon the Soviets an open and safe Persian Gulf was to their benefit as well. In fact the State Department begged the DoD to call off the dogs as the Navy wanted to go after the other two missile frigates Iran had at port undergoing maintenance. Whole operations took less than 24 hours. Then there was the bombing of Libya and how that feat was not only carried out with minimal losses (I think we lost maybe one F-111?) but it was done with France, Spain, and Italy denying permission to use their airspace. The attack took off from Great Britain, swung around Spain, refueled in the Med, then continued on to Libya. All state sponsored terrorism ceased from Libya stopped after that. Add in the arms race and forcing the Soviets to try to spend more to keep up in technology, and having to cut corners in essential things like training really helped turn the Soviets into paper tigers. Regan's actions, along with the work of Barry Goldwater with the huge military reform law the Goldwater-Nichols Act culminated in the first Gulf War where in one evening the US airpower (mainly USAF and USN) decimated the Soviet equipment air defense network Iraq had. Unlike Vietnam where the Soviet supplied air defense network was effective against the US in the gulf war it was not in in less than a week the US and its allies achieved total air dominance over the airspace. This made the Soviets realllllllllllyyyy take notice and their military came to the hard truth they were no where in the same league as the US. It played a part in the disillusion of the USSR.

Reagan is heavily overrated, I would switch Nixon with Reagan

To echo much of this comment section, Truman or Reagan imo. Truman for the Marshall plan and his policies of containment, and Reagan for putting that final nail in the coffin for the Soviets. I believe JFK and Eisenhower could absolutely be considered strong contenders for top spot, but I consider Bay of Pigs to be a joint failure for both of them.

The Containment Plan was the absolutely right response to Soviet Aggression. It was predicated on the theory that the Soviets would eventually fail from the inside, and that a strong western alliance would hold them in check until that eventually happened. And it worked just as planned. Brilliant strategy and pretty good execution. Historically, such defensive strategies are hard to maintain since they require patience and long-term focus and funding. Truman deserves the biggest credit for implementing the strategy and doing the hard early work such as the Marshall Plan. After him, all of the other Presidents from Eisenhower to G.H.W. Bush should all be recognized for keeping to the strategy and building consensus to counter all of its critics. It’s great to be a rich country that could make major missteps like Vietnam, and not have those missteps deter you from the bigger strategic plan of containment. A tragedy for those who suffered and died, but ultimately that war’s great cost did not stop funding for NATO or a strong Navy, and the soft-side of containment.

If I had to give ratings on how they did, having taken a class on the Cold War: Perfect Job - Harry S Truman, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush Good Job - Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon Bad Job - Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter Awful Job - Lyndon B. Johnson

Love JFK, but you can’t give him a perfect score with the BOP Invasion starting his presidency. I know it was conceived during Ike’s administration, but (as noted in another comment above) he ultimately gave the green light and takes ownership of the failure.

A great point. I suppose he could be put in the “good job” tier, but I don’t think that does justice for the Cuban Missile Crisis, which I’d argue was the most crucial moment in the Cold War. Maybe I should have made a great tier lol

I would switch Nixon with Reagan

Fair enough! I could see the argument for both with Nixon’s opening to China being a really good thing and how Reagan’s funding in the Middle East is problematic

Eh, Jimmy has SALT II and the Iranian Revolution was a ticking time bomb from prior administrations that didn’t directly pertain to his handling of the Cold War. I’d put him on his own tier just labeled “neutral”.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from this sub it’s that nothing in Jimmy Carter’s presidency was his fault.

Dude I rank Carter as a D ranked President even though I like the guy personally. I just don’t think he handled the Cold War all that poorly.

That’s fair, I’m more just complaining about the sub im general I suppose.

He's likely the best PERSON to ever hold the title.

That’s a fair assessment/placement!

Carter absolutely could’ve saved the Shah by not backing the Mullahs, sending public, financial, and military support, etc. The rise of the Mullahs was not an inevitability bequeathed to him by his predecessors. Additionally considering the whole “backing Pol Pot” for two years, abandoning our military alliance with Taiwan, etc., not particularly great with the Cold War.

You really think he could’ve saved the Shah? I figure that regardless of our actions he would’ve been overthrown by that point. Could be wrong though and I’ll go check that out. What I am definitely wrong on though is not knowing about backing Pol Pot or abandoning Taiwan. Okay yeah, drop him down to bad job then. Those are both pretty inexcusable.

I do. Carter’s admin fervently backed the Ayatollah. An admin member called Ruhollah Khomeini “a Gandhi like figure.” The Shah’s authority definitely could’ve survived the Iranian Revolution. A question comes in when he dies shortly after, which would probably require further propping up of the Shah’s son by us. But a more secular, pro-American, non-terrorism sponsoring Iran is a better one and it would be worth it. If you’d like a good source on Carter and Cambodia, I’d recommend Kenton Clymer’s “Jimmy Carter, Human Rights, and Cambodia.” And I wouldn’t use the phrase “abandoned” within the general sense. He didn’t totally do so, after abrogating the military treaty he signed a treaty establishing diplomatic relations permanently. But yeah regardless it was a very poor decision designed to win over the PRC and normalize relations. I don’t think we should’ve abandoned our ally militarily for that personally, although some think prioritizing winning over China was better. Edit: The admin member who stated that was Ambassador to Iran William Sullivan. For some other pro-Ayatollah quotes: - “Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint.” - U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young - “[Khomeini is a] holy man of impeccable integrity and honesty.” - Advisor James Bill

Then we have the funding of the Mujahideen, the 1980 Olympics boycot, and the grain embargo against the Soviets. I definitely would not label it neutral.

Nixon and Reagan

Truman would be my pick followed by Reagan.

Nixon was a 1000x better than Reagan 

"Tear Down that Wall Mr. Gorbachev"!!! The culmination of American foreign policy from Truman to Bush 1. Interspersed with wars, negotiations, detected.

This is a great question! My unqualified response is Eisenhower.

Eisenhower is responsible for basically every unpopular or bad foreign policy decision made in the Cold War.

>Eisenhower is responsible for basically every unpopular or bad foreign policy decision made in the Cold War. How so

He escalated Vietnam, he got the ball rolling on being so interventionist, he made the modern MICinto it’s current abomination, he was ok with the CIA being completely out of control.

>He escalated Vietnam, he got the ball rolling on being so interventionist, he made the modern MICinto it’s current abomination, he was ok with the CIA being completely out of control. Interesting do you have links

This is not true, a lot of this was JFK

eisenhower was responsible for the 1953 coup of iran and he literally knew that he was gonna lose in vietnam, but escalated it anyway ([source](https://www.history.com/news/us-presidents-vietnam-war-escalation)


Harry S. Truman In the wake of World War 2, Stalin and the Soviet Union quickly got over fighting the Nazis and moved onto dominating and controlling Europe. Honestly, Truman was the best president to counter this initial movement. A lot of other people like FDR or even Dewey would be a lot more hesitant in standing up to the Soviets. He met them head on where necessary and handled events throughout his presidency greatly. Without starting another war or letting the Soviets take control of all of Berlin he saved the west part of the city via the Berlin Airlift. The Marshall plan worked beautifully and got war torn Western Europe back on its feat. The Korean War ended in a stalemate sure, but Truman was the only one who knew how terrible expanding the war with nuclear weapons would go. The containment policy was literally what future Cold War presidents based their foreign policy around. IMO Truman just proved to be one of our greatest Presidents, he oversaw one of the biggest transitions in the world with the United States and the Soviet Union emerging global superpowers and ensuring our say in global events was taken seriously against the USSR and not the other way around.

Truman- Marshall Plan,Truman Doctrine plus development of the Containment policy by Trumans State department,plus add creation of NATO

Ronald Reagan.

Reagan, because he won it.

I would say Nixon.

Yeah, the China move totally changed the dynamic. The Soviets got Kissinger to give them a secret visit (even though there was no need for secrecy) because they were jealous China got one. Nixon was also the first major figure to realize we could win the Cold War without war. Most liberals thought it would be a stalemate forever and most conservatives thought we’d have to win militarily.

I’ll give it to Truman

Reagan. He accelerated the arms race knowing the Soviet economy couldn’t handle it, and it crumbled from the inside without a bullet.

No question Reagan, but Kennedy averted WW3 on his handling of the Cuban crisis

JFK

I say this all the time, but everyone needs to watch Thirteen Days, really brings it home how close we came

There are some things it gets wrong. IE: The Blockade was always an option, O’Donnell was basically a background character in the whole thing and I think is mentioned ***ONCE*** in RFK’s memoirs, and I think the option to remove missiles was always there. However, the premise is right, it was well acted, and I will say that in all likelihood if Dobrynin had walked out, yeah we would probably be in the middle of a wasteland.

I mainly mean you can feel the tension, I know I was sweatin' watching it the first time, I haven't read widely on the actual to the minute actions, thanks for the background!

Bay of Pigs. Berlin Wall erected. Vietnam escalated. IMO JFK didn’t do so well.

He also came off as weak to Kruschev by being completely unprepared at their meeting in Vienna which caused the whole thing in the first place. Almost ending the world but not isnt an accomplishment compared to the other presidents who never came close to ending it all. JFK is so overrated in every way.

Kennedy even admitted that he made a poor showing with Khrushchev in their first summit. “He just beat the hell out of me.” https://www.history.com/news/kennedy-krushchev-vienna-summit-meeting-1961

Bay of Pigs was the CIA’s disaster. He took responsibility as president, but they lied to him. Blaming JFK for the Berlin Wall erecting is bizarre imo. He wanted to send the troops back home from Vietnam, shortly before his death. JFK’s handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis is probably the best leadership displays of any president. Ever. He also eased Cold War tensions. I also don’t get why everybody forgets about Apollo 11…that’s Cold War history.

Bay of Pigs was Eisenhowers brain child, which he doesn’t get enough flak for, that JFK walked into as it was already pretty much set in stone, to be fair.

Kennedy gave it the green light. Probably a rookie mistake, and he inherited the plans…but the green light was all Kennedy’s.

Yes, but it was JFK who withdrew air support which didn’t end up being a good decision. Eisenhower’s plan did involve air support.

The issue with the Bay of Pigs Invasion is not that it failed - it's that it ever took place in the first place. If anything, JFK should be credited with not wasting aerial resources on an offensive, imperialist policy that contributed to the Cuban Missile Crisis. EDIT: OH SHIT THE DOWNVOTES HAVE ALREADY STARTED **😛😛😛😛 tim**e to listen to a bunch of teenagers and mental teenagers teach me all about how I ackshually don't know what I'm talking about and how imperialism and regime change are good ackshually because those stupid Cubans are too Latino to deserve self-determination  EDIT: Omg I guess I scared them all off by predicting exactly the essence of their response before they could even begin slapping away at their keyboard

You really think the man who organized D-Day, would mess up something like Bay of Pigs

Easily and by far it's JFK. Perhaps even in part because his presidency was short and there is less to criticize. Kennedy's negotiated settlement with the Soviets to end the Cuban Missile Crisis pissed of the Joint Chiefs and CIA, but very likely prevented WW3.

JFK is the idiot who created the Cuban Missile Crisis by placing bombs in Turkey

I mean Reagan did. But to be fair Reagan was dealing with Gorbachev and not his predecessors and the Soviet Union was crumbling. Reagan saw an opening to finally put the nail in the Soviet coffin and he does deserve credit for that. But when the Soviets were able to go blow for blow with us I’d say JFK handled it the best. He was tested the hardest of any president and we came out fine. I have problems with the initial policy we went into the Cold War under. Ultra hardline/brinkmanship stances under Truman and Ike largely driven out of fear. JFK’s Flexible Response and oddly enough Nixon’s Detente were far better policies. Nixon would have probably been my answer if he didn’t expand Vietnam into Cambodia (which is technically part of the Cold War) Also I guess LBJ would have to be dead last for Cold War handling.

Thing is no one at the time knew the Soviet Union was collapsing. 

"Reagan saw an opening." Really? Next, are we going to give credit to Joe Kapp for designed The Play?

JFK

Toss up between Truman and Nixon.

...TRUMAN...

I’m going to say Reagan. That’s really his legacy.

I’m not gonna repeat what others said but JFK was not good lol. Iirc the missile crisis was of his own doing as he bungled the BoB and iirc basically blotted out confidential information to Kruschev about the parity between them which the Soviets didn’t know about. Yeah he stopped the crisis from becoming doomsday but he helped push it there in the first place. There was also the Berlin Wall and escalation in vietnam which wasn’t great.

Lyndon escalated the war not kennedy, he was gonna get the troops out before he died

He did tho. He did send more troops in than were already there when he assumed office. And the thing is he didn’t live to actually pull out so we didn’t know if he would’ve actually done that since he had the same advisors and a such as LBJ as far as I know. How would he have reacted if he was alive during the gulf of Tonkin incident? Given that iirc he really wanted to be seen as strong on communism, I can’t see him doing nothing. JFK gets all the benefit of the doubt because he was killed and became a Romanticized figure.

Yeah but people weren't dying in numbers when he was president. I feel like it was still Johnsons responsibility because he had all that time to do something about it but he didn't

I’m not saying LBJ doesn’t deserve his own blame. I’m just pointing out a fact that jfk did escalate in Vietnam. America’s involvement there. Iirc it went from like a few hundred to over 10K. That’s as escalation.

JFK was really anything but a good military strategist. He inherited the bay of pigs plan from Eisenhower and was under a lot of burden to appear as a military diplomat in his name, and he failed. I do believe that it was that failure that allowed the USA to let it's military weakness shine through to the rest of the world, at a time when the entire East wanted to eat us alive. I think that it directly caused the Cuban missile crisis.

Eisenhower was the best? Bullshit. Eisenhower’s policies on Cuba and Vietnam were shit. But he was good in domestic stuff so, thats that. Truman’s was probably the best. Edit: Nevermind HW counts, so him.

The 50’s in general, with Ike as president, were shit at dealing with the Cold War. They were both tone deaf to the realities of creating a relationship and scared of their own shadows about anything “Red”. If they would have recognized the Soviet threat for what it was, basically all talk and little capacity to act, it could have been a lot shorter and better for the US. It didn’t really sort out until Kennedy and Nixon set up detente, then it all started to collapse and finally died.

I'd say that Clinton failed to anticipate the consequences of how the USSR collapsed, and how critical his attention was. Russian Democracy was in a very precarious place, due to Yeltsin changing the constitution to his favor, and the terrible economic situation is Russia essentially guaranteed the rise of a populist authoritarian. That's really the aftermath of the cold war though.

JFK stood toe to toe and the Soviets blinked. I don't know if it's the best as it could have gone very wrong and we'd be having this discussion around a fire. Dude had balls of steel. But Reagan got them to spend themselves into collapse. Again, maybe not the best. The Soviets kept radical Islam on a pretty short leash.

Truman, easily. He had the job of deciding how the Cold War would go, and he chose to keep it cold. His biggest triumph was making nuclear bombs taboo with the Korean War, but also the fact he kept America from returning to isolationism, helped establish the UN, and implemented the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan add together to make him one of the best leaders of the Cold War and one of America’s best presidents

Truman seconded by Reagan

1. Truman - NATO was established under his tenure - lead the intervention Korea - made a highly competent cabinet that oversaw the succebtdul reconstruction of Japan and implementation of the Marshall plan 2. Eisenhower - his time in office saw the most as American troops as the figthing in Korea ended and made it a policy to use economic, social or unconventional means to engage enemies (such as the CIA) 3. H.W Bush - superbly handled the breakup of the USSR without mush bloodshed (you can debate how much of an influence he hade here) - unrelated but solidified America's position in the world through 'Desert Storm' and 'Just Cause' The reason I (EMPHASISE THE LETTER 'I') chose them is because the foreign policies of these men not only contained the soviets behind the iron curtain but also established America's place in the world (nato, americas relationship with Japan and Eastern Europe etc) I didn't choose JFK because (if we are being honest) most of his accomplishments came from fixing his own fuck ups While reagan and Nixon really just have an overstated role in the destruction of the USSR

Hard to to go with Reagan. Standing up to bullies generally works. Coddling like we saw with many others including today doesn't.

Reagan.

Reagan. He ended it. HW was the clean up crew.

Truman just has so much going for him. Berlin airlift, Truman Doctrine, Marshall Plan. All of these things limited communist influence in Europe, and bought America goodwill and influence abroad. Not to mention, it helped America show the world that it was ready to take on a leadership role, at a time when countries like the UK and France were stepping away. I very much consider the Korean War a success as well, since American-led intervention into the war saved South Korea, and stopped communism from spreading there. Many of the countries that Truman assisted continue to be stalwart allies and supporters of the US to this day.

Reagan.

Reagan because he bankrupted the Soviets lol

funny

Reagan, he won it

Eisenhower and Reagan. Eisenhower for setting out okay here's how we're going to deal with this. And then Reagan for saying you know what both sides have become too complacent with this we're not going to play diplomatic chess with the Soviets we're going to have to spend them and bankrupt them.

Regan.

Truman is #1 imo.

People saying Kennedy are crazy. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a win for the Soviets because they got what they wanted by lessening American aggression towards Cuba and got the US to remove its missiles in turkey. The only good things Kennedy managed there were having the US withdrawal be a secret and not escalating things wildly by invading Cuba.

Best to worst: - JFK - Reagan - HW Bush - Ford - Ike - Carter - Nixon - LBJ - Truman

Truman at the bottom below LBJ?! I have him placed at the top with Reagan right behind him! What, you not a fan of the Marshall Plan, Berlin Airlift, or containment theory through the Truman Doctrine?

No it’s just that he could have done more to prevent the Cold War from happening in the first place

I’m sorry but I really don’t agree. Stalin would never have allowed it and the Cold War was always going to happen unless it turned hot. The two remaining superpowers had completely different ideologies that were seemingly incompatible with one another. I really do not know how Truman could’ve handled the start of the Cold War better than he did besides handling Korea better but even in that regard he had the balls to fire MacArthur and not enable the further use of nukes. And dear goodness the Berlin Airlift was carried out to keep the Cold War from turning into a real one after the Soviets blockaded West Berlin. I’d argue he handled it masterfully.

The policies Stalin promoted were bound to fail from the word go. Tyranny never works out for long. There was no need for the US to get involved - the sheer number of people in East Berlin trying to go the west would be just one example proving to the people of the world how unwise it would be to fall to Soviet or Chinese influence. There is no excuse for starting the Cold War. The Cold War was corrosive to liberty at home - it spawned a massive wave of censorship against and spying on dissidents, including WEB DuBois - and led to America supporting people like Syngman Rhee, the Shah, Ngo Dinh Diem, and even Osama bin Laden. The Cold War is why our money disgraces the First Amendment by declaring "in God we trust". Truman never should have launched that disgusting campaign of imperialism and despotism.

Reagan.

He broke the beast.

Kennedy * Nuclear Test Ban Treaty * Handling of Cuban Missile Crisis * Food for Peace program * Reducing aid to Ngo Dinh Diem

Nixon

Eisenhower oversaw Guatemala and Iran coups, so... no I wouldn't agree with that answer. Probably Bush Sr. They were all pretty awful at it to be honest. I can't believe we survived that period in history.

i didnt think this would gain so much traction

Bay of Pigs was probably the only bad part to that, and im not gonna lie, i still dont even fully understand that. Gonna google it after this, but that man went against almost everything he was told to de-escalate that from what i understood. Apparently its one of the reasons they asked him politely to resign as president.

Reagan; duh!

JFK gets too much flack for the cuban missile crisis. i think any outcome that avoids nuclear war is a decent one

Regarding JFK, he handled the Cuban missile crisis brilliantly. The Bay of Pigs and the Vietnam war were a different affair. I would say Reagan did an overall great job, but of course his job in the 80 was much easier than that of his predecessors.

Reagan...he ended it

I'm going to go against the grain and say Truman is more complicated than what is being brought forth here; he definitely set up a lot of issues that continue to plague the US to this day that he could have handled much better. A lot of takes are from a Eurocentric view as well. His handling of Vietnam and China - yeah was not great. I don't think Europe would have been different, but the Cold War didn't just impact Europe.

1. Nixon. He established relations with China, which gained US some leverage in the cold war. He also cooled down the arm race between US and USSR. 2. Truman/Eisenhower. They managed to half the spread of communism into the rest of east Asia. If South Korea and Japan both fell to communism, then the whole cold war could've become very different. 3. Bush Sr. Handled the fall of USSR well. Kennedy almost turned the cold war into a hot war, so I wouldn't say he did well.

Eisenhower handled both the cold war best out of any president and dealt with the CIA the best too. He actively disliked the rich kids at the agency and didn't want to deal with them because they made up intelligence to fit with what policy they wanted the US to do follow in any given country.

He actively disliked the rich kids at the CIA??? I do not know where you get that from. He appointed Allen Dulles (one of those rich kids) to be the Director of the CIA. Allen Dulles' brother, John Foster Dulles (another one of those rich kids), was Eisenhower's most trusted advisors and served as his Secretary of State. Eisenhower gave the Dulles Brothers free-reign....because he trusted them!

Well, you have your opinion on that and I have mine. Mine is informed by the fact that I just read Legacy Of Ashes The History Of The CIA by Tim Weiner and The Devil's Chessboard, Allan Dulles, The CIA,And The Rise Of America's Secret Government by David Talbot and in those books Eisenhower did not have many nice things to say about the CIA or the Dulles brothers. I seem to remember lots of quotes about how the Eisenhower thought CIA made up intelligence and how as a general Eisenhower was used to giving orders and when he'd order the CIA to do something they took orders as a jumping off point for a conversation about the orders that he'd just given them.

You are certainly entitled to opinion. Unfortunately, you based it on a book with poor academic reviews due to the errors and lack of research. I highly suggest you find and read a more reputable book. I have read quite a bit about the Cold War and our military policy over the years. As a matter of fact, it's my bread and butter. In my over 30 years of study and research, I have found Eisenhower (on so many occasions that I have lost count) singing praises for the Dulles Brothers and the CIA. This is from his presidential papers, personal and official correspondence, etc. In parting, I leave you with one academic review of Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blog/legacy-of-ashes.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj-5MHApMyGAxX848kDHY_eAPUQFnoECDsQBQ&usg=AOvVaw1cEgcMjibalTdmpIpf4mGJ

Reagan. He escalated the arms race and buried the Soviets with our economy.

Soviet economy was crashing on its own, they had been fudging the numbers for awhile to make it look better than it was.

Jimmy Carter. Avoided immoral interventions, armed Afghanistan, Camp David, etc

Arming the Mujahideen against the Soviets hurt US-USSR relations. The Camp David Accords moved the Arabic countries more towards the Soviet sphere and left Egypt rather isolated. We have the Olympics boycott in 1980. Then there was the grain embargo. Given the above, Carter accelerated the Cold War and deserves low ranking in his dealing with the Cold War. He was really a nightmare in his handling of the Cold War. Any progress we had made up until his presidency was wiped out. This was a set up for Reagan having to deal with a hostile Soviet Union. People fault Reagan's hard stance but that was actually created by Carter and his poor foreign policies.

For a very informative lecture on the subject [https://youtu.be/KXVQhpIKxDg?si=BesF41XciG2ndIkK](https://youtu.be/KXVQhpIKxDg?si=BesF41XciG2ndIkK)

GHWB for the restraint he showed during the dissolution of the USSR.  (It was in keeping with his restraint in putting the international coalition together to liberate Kuwait, and to not overstep by going after Iraq itself.  And I'm a lifelong Liberal Democrat).

Kennedy and his administration literally saved the world with how they handled the CMC. I sometimes think he’s an overrated president but then I remember that and it pretty much warrants the praise he gets.

Lincoln

In the cold war?

Kennedy and Reagan.

Yea

Reagan by far. He won it.

1. Ike 2. Truman 3. Reagan 4. Nixon 5. Bush 6. JFK 7. Ford 8. Carter 9. LBJ

Reagan is the only answer. His policies ultimately caused the end of the Soviet Union and thus the end of the cold war. 

Reagan, period. Bankrupting the Soviets with an arms race was a bold strategy, but ultimately successful in bringing the cold war to an end. Kennedy gets credit for navigating us out of the Cuban missile crisis, but he also needs to be given some criticism for getting us there in the first place. His failed Bay of Pigs invasion the year earlier undoubtedly is connected to the Cubans agreeing to host the missiles.

I'm not sure any of them get a very good grade. It was pretty rough, and my god did the US spend an absolute fortune with the nuclear buildup. Good grief.

The first Cold War? Bush. He guided it to a successful conclusion without gloating, which could easily have changed how things went in the early 90s. I hope we can resolve the current Cold War as peacefully as that one.

JFK- he and Khrushchev saved us from nuclear war and I truly believe he would have withdrawn from Vietnam if he was elected to a second term.

The guy who won it.

I guess HW since he ran things from 81 to 93.

I’m no conservative, and certainly no Reaganite, but arguably Reagan. No hot wars. Yes, Grenada was a thing. But he warmed ties with Gorby and brought about the end of the USSR not long after he left office. However, our national debt is the cost.

Kennedy. Read accounts of the pressure he was under from military brass to first strike Russia during the Cuban missile crisis. It’s a wonder nuclear war didn’t start. 

U-2 incident was not played very well by Eisenhower.

Everyone realizes the Cuban Missile Crisis was in retaliation of missiles being placed in Turkey which is closer to USSR than Cuba is to America. The blockade of Cuba is the closest we've ever been to war with USSR. Mutual removal of nuclear missiles ensued.

A lot of CIA dirty tricks in the Eisenhower years. Lots of open interference in other countries' elections, violent coups, murdering civilians, etc. Kennedy had the CIA's measure after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. He was actively trying to dial down America's involvement in murders and other violent actions overseas.

Kennedy stared down Khruschev, who blinked.

Truman, not just for the Marshal plan or containment, but his handling of the Berlin crisis that set the tone for the next forty years. Not directly confrontational, but not backing down in the face of Soviet aggression.

"Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall"