Who Was the Most Controversial U.S. President?

[Pengwuino]

Any good US presidents? Or are you all just anti-US?

The poll is about who the worst out of 5 particular are

 

[Anttech]

Or just have done nothing. Japan's navy was gone and its forces shattered. Maybe they weren't a threat anymore?

I actually aggree that Truman had no option, if he didnt drop 'em Japan wouldn't have given up.. And a LOT more blood would have been spilt on both sides... So it was the lesser of two evils

Any good US presidents? Or are you all just anti-US?

yeh Clinton... haha

 

[Pengwuino]

Oh god is this thread going to turn into another one of those Japan/nuke threads.

Just go ask Germany how Soviet occupation felt, end of discussion.

 

[Anttech]

Just go ask Germany how Soviet occupation felt, end of discussion.

because Japan were communists and were going to invade china and create the People Republic of China...

 

[Pengwuino]

because Japan were communists and were going to invade china and create the People Republic of China...

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying the Soviet Union didn't declare war on Japan and wasn't attempting to move troops into it?

 

[Anttech]

Well if are linking Truman to dropping the bomb on Japan and stopping stalin taking Japan, then it won't make sence... I find that link hard to believe

 

[Pengwuino]

Well if are linking Truman to dropping the bomb on Japan and stopping stalin taking Japan, then it won't make sence... I find that link hard to believe

I don't see how anyone can miss the link. The soviets were going to invade, US wanted the spoils of war, nuke = immediate end to hostilities which allowed the US to bring in people before the soviets could. Otherwise, the soviets could come in, "meet the allies", and you have the same thing that happened in Germany. Obvious link.

Now as to whether this makes him a good president or not, there is no link. Good military/diplomatic strategy... but it was 1 decision out of an entire presidency worth of stuff. Maybe that is what you're talking about.

 

[Anttech]

I don't see how anyone can miss the link. The soviets were going to invade, US wanted the spoils of war, nuke = immediate end to hostilities which allowed the US to bring in people before the soviets could. Otherwise, the soviets could come in, "meet the allies", and you have the same thing that happened in Germany. Obvious link.

I never made that Link... The reason I believe that Truman dropped the bomb is because he knew he would win, but the Japanese wouldn't have surrendered easy. He calculated that it would take Millions of Allied and Japanese lifes to stop the conflict. Dropping the Bombs ensured that far less life’s would be lost... Imagine the carnage (on both sides)if the allies stormed the beaches

 

[Pengwuino]

I never made that Link... The reason I believe that Truman dropped the bomb is because he knew he would win, but the Japanese wouldn't have surrendered easy. He calculated that it would take Millions of Allied and Japanese lifes to stop the conflict. Dropping the Bombs ensured that far less life’s would be lost... Imagine the carnage (on both sides)if the allies stormed the beaches

Oh of course, I just didn't want to bring that up because in previous discussions, there was a looooooot of people who got pissed off at that kind of reasoning. None of them brought up any actual factual information to support it except for one guy who went "according to one little known and rarely-publicized guy from Canada (or something), Japan was going to surrender within a few days". Never found out who this guy was but that was his reasoning that supposedly trumped all historians views.

 

[cronxeh]

Oh god is this thread going to turn into another one of those Japan/nuke threads.

Just go ask Germany how Soviet occupation felt, end of discussion.

I don't think this sort of thing should ever be forgotten, especially considering it was done twice on two separate days

 

[loseyourname]

Harding was, by far, the worst president of the 20th century. He wasn't responsible for anything historic except for the Teapot Dome scandal, but that's just pure luck. The guy makes Bush look like the president of Mensa.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Most historians regard Harding as the worst President in the nation's history.

http://www.americanpresident.org/history/warrenharding/

I have no idea how they came by this piece of intelligence.

 

[Townsend]

Ulysses S. Grant was President when Yellow Stone National Park was established.

That's strange...someone needs to edit wiki then.

Taft fought for prosecution of trusts, further strengthened the Interstate Commerce Commission, established Yellowstone National park, established a postal savings bank and a parcel post system, expanded the civil service and sponsored the enactment of two amendments to the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Taft

But thanks for the correction

 

[loseyourname]

http://www.americanpresident.org/history/warrenharding/

I have no idea how they came by this piece of intelligence.

Perhaps we can use smurf's system to evaluate Harding:

Pros

• Nice guy

Cons

• Gambled away the White House China
• Admitted he was in over his head after being elected
• Had numerous appointees convicted of defrauding the US government
• Teapot Dome
• Was such a bad speaker that every president since has employed a professional speech writer
• Had two known extramarital affairs while in office
• Was probably the president who first allowed big oil to control US foreign policy
• Was responsible for the rise of both Coolidge and Hoover
• Was probably poisoned by his own wife

Score

-8

 

[BobG]

Having to resign because of Watergate pretty much clinches the worst spot for Nixon. If he hadn't been so paranoid (or at least surrounded by an unbalanced campaign staff), he would have won re-election easily and would have ranked towards the top of any list of presidents.

Of the choices given, Taft would be lowest in effectiveness.

Truman (and continued by Eisenhower) helped Europe recover from WWII. Johnson turned all those platitudes voiced by Kennedy into reality. Wilson wasn't successful in his League of Nations efforts, but I think his efforts did lay the groundwork for the United Nations to somewhat work.

Taft was thoroughly forgettable (as Ford and Carter will be).

 

[Skyhunter]

That's strange...someone needs to edit wiki then.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Taft

But thanks for the correction

Maybe that is the problem, someone already did.

 

[Skyhunter]

Perhaps we can use smurf's system to evaluate Harding:

Pros

• Nice guy

Cons

• Gambled away the White House China
• Admitted he was in over his head after being elected
• Had numerous appointees convicted of defrauding the US government
• Teapot Dome
• Was such a bad speaker that every president since has employed a professional speech writer
• Had two known extramarital affairs while in office
• Was probably the president who first allowed big oil to control US foreign policy
• Was responsible for the rise of both Coolidge and Hoover
• Was probably poisoned by his own wife

Score

-8

He was also known as quite a womanizer. In fact one of his bastards is the father of my chiropractor.

I was watching a conference of historians last year on C-SPAN where they were actually revising his standing as worst president in history, using the standard of "harm to the Union" as a measure.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Perhaps we can use smurf's system to evaluate Harding

I meant I don't know how they found out what 'most historians' regard.

 

[russ_watters]

is that a best list or a worst list?

[re: Wilson being in the top 5] Top 5 would be best...

 

[Smurf]

I meant I don't know how they found out what 'most historians' regard.

Maybe most historians use my system.
I mean, from that it's pretty obvious he was a dink.

Edit: Although I don't see how getting poisoned by his wife makes him a bad guy.

 

[Smurf]

That's strange...someone needs to edit wiki then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Taft
But thanks for the correction

:shy: No one said it was perfect...

 

[Pengwuino]

Whoa whoa whoa... who dares say wikipedia is not perfect?
Public opinion as a dictionary can never be wrong

 

[Manchot]

Or just have done nothing. Japan's navy was gone and its forces shattered. Maybe they weren't a threat anymore?

It doesn't matter if they were a threat at that time or not. To simply stop fighting without formally negotiating a surrender would've been a victory for them, because given enough time, they would've been up to full strength again. Would you also suggest that once we had knocked the Nazis back to Germany's borders, we should've stopped attacking? That would've been just plain stupid.

 

[Smurf]

Would you also suggest that once we had knocked the Nazis back to Germany's borders, we should've stopped attacking? That would've been just plain stupid.

That strategy was strongly considered for most of the war. The unconditional surrender policy only took effect after the Africa campaign (i think). No, I don't think it would have really been stupid. A country doesn't regain full capacity to fight war in a few years <- THAT is stupid.

Germany was absolutely crushed: They're industry was smashed by bombing raids, they were using kids in the army for god's sake, their capable manpower was so depleted! Japan wasn't was different, but none of the affects of war are temporary, they were no better off. Besides, the USA had full control of the pacific, Japan was 0 threat to the US what-so-ever.

We can discuss this further in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=85017&page=3" if you like. Don't worry about rezzing it, that's what it's there for.

 

[russ_watters]

The unconditional surrender policy only took effect after the Africa campaign (i think). No, I don't think it would have really been stupid. A country doesn't regain full capacity to fight war in a few years <- THAT is stupid.
Germany was absolutely crushed: They're industry was smashed by bombing raids, they were using kids in the army for god's sake, their capable manpower was so depleted!

What is "a few" years? After being absolutely crushed in WWI, Germany was ready for WWII in about 20 years.

Japan wasn't was different, but none of the affects of war are temporary, they were no better off. Besides, the USA had full control of the pacific, Japan was 0 threat to the US what-so-ever.

Tactical victory is not good enough in most wars (see: Korea). The war can only really end if strategic victory is attained and that means taking down the government of the country involved in the war. Further back in history, that was a natural part of the conquer and empire-building way, but what made 20th century western leaders different is that they had no desire to take over Germany and Japan. That change did not, however, eliminate the necessity to take down the governments of Germany and Japan.

And whatever the politicians wanted at the time, hindsight shows us pretty clearly that the long-term impact of the total victory and subsequent rebuilding attained in WWII worked out much better than what was attained in WWI. The way WWI was ended was a direct cause of WWII and the way WWII ended was the direct cause of the unprecidented 60+... years of peace in the West.

 

[arildno]

Harding was also a really bad ice-skater. "My shoe-laces aren't knotted together! "

 

[wasteofo2]

Who do you think was the worst past US President, and why? I personally nominate Richard Nixon, because, well because he was an idiot in almost everything he did.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?

Man, I'm no Republican or anything, but even if you were just talking about Post-Kennedy Republican Presidents, Nixon shouldn't even be close to the worst one.

For one thing, Nixon opened up China. Brilliant. Furthermore, we started getting out of Vietnam.

Look what Nixon got ousted for. He played political dirty tricks, and was implicated in it.

Gerald Ford, well, he doesn't really count.

Look at Reagan. He sold weapons to terrorists, and funded terrorists all over the world, and because he was a senile old fool, no one held him accountable. Furthermore, he oversaw the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and hardly got us out of it in any decent shape.

Bush Sr. has lots of bastardly deeds up his sleeves, they're all over the place to be found.

The current Bush is conducting probabally the most inexpert war America has conducted since Vietnam. It's almost beyond a doubt that he won Florida's electoral votes illegitimately in 2000, and rather realistic that Ohio's vote was illegitimate in 2004. He's overseeing the biggest defecit in American history, and digging us further and further into it. He noticed a hure problem in social security, then proposed a measure that would only worsen it, and has since given up on what he called a vitally important issue. Because of his war on terrorism, terrorism around the world is actually increasing.

Look at Nixon now. What'd he do? Yeah, he was a scumbag and a liar, but so is everybody else...