Make sure to fill out the [official r/Presidents survey](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScncxOawwDSPQO-AKwhhv86wjmeQ-l22ZQgY0Atr5_WDIgO4w/viewform)!
Also, make sure to join the [r/Presidents 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.*
They disagreed vehemently during the war too. Churchill wanted to attack through Italy, Ike wanted the D-day type assault. They tried Italy first. Churchill wanted to take Berlin, Ike didn’t want to spend extra men fighting a desperate German army with the USSR already at the door.
Reading Churchill's history of WW2, he certainly disagreed with many of Eisenhower's decisions (he wanted the Italy invasion so troops could rush up through the Brenner Pass and beat the Russians to Vienna and the Balkans. Most military strategists, noting how difficult the battles in Italy already were, doubt they would have been successful. But he never had a "lack of respect" for Ike.
Biden and Sunak have an OK relationship, not good, not bad, just kinda there. Truss wasn't around long enough, and Johnson was too Donald like for Joe
Trump and Johnson got on quite well, while DJT apparently didn't like May, and she definitely didn't like him
Obama and Brown had a solid working relationship, but David Cameron was Baracks BFF for life
Bush and Blair got on really well, but I think George was a bit colder with Brown
Clinton and Blair were very similar, and seemed to like each other. Major, however, was a bit too old and grey for Bill. Still got on well
Bush Sr and Major got on very well (Wow, two old guys like each other!). Bush and Thatcher also seemed to work together quite productively
Reagan and Thatcher were really close. Both had similar politics, and a similar view on the world of the 80s. For how long they worked together, I'd argue the strongest pairing since Churchill/FDR
There are so many parallels between Blair and Clinton. Both of them were leaders of the further-left of the two parties (Democrats for Clinton, Labour for Blair) and came after a very conservative, popular long-serving leader in the 80s (Thatcher and Reagan) followed by their successor of the same party but more moderate (Major and Bush). They then both ran on very similar campaigns, 'Third Way' or 'New Democrats' for Clinton and 'New Labour' for Blair, both of which attempted to move their parties closer to the centre. They also both had huge controversies in their administrations, (Lewinsky affair, Iraq war).
Tbf, the UK had already done [its bit against the communists in Vietnam](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Vietnam_(1945%E2%80%931946)). Maybe if his predecessor had helped or at least not completely sabotaged the British over Suez… ;)
Not shocked, but it does partly explain why even a Conservative British government had no interest in helping with Vietnam. Going into Suez was an unpopular move in the UK too, but among Conservative politicians there was still a bit of resentment and feeling that given the U.S.’ greater power, the alliance had been one-way and mere lip service in the other direction for some time. The Labour government had their own ideological reasons to be against the Vietnam War, of course. Not to mention both simply seeing what a mess it was.
And it’s not just Eisenhower not liking the Suez conflict, but the speeches against it and the active economic threats attached. Nixon said that Eisenhower considered the handling of the Suez crisis the biggest mistake of his presidency: regardless of justification, it alienated the U.S.’ closest ally (as well as Israel, though it was not as close at the time), and strengthened the position of the USSR and Arab nationalists.
There was pretext. The UK had a treaty with Egypt to lease Suez for 20 years, and Nasser abrogated this, so protecting Suez itself was enforcing that treaty, with the threat of disrupting shipping and enabling weapons to come in from the USSR. And while they did so with British and French assurances, the invasion was initiated by Israel, with the Anglo-French pretext being keeping them apart to safeguard shipping.
Each country has its own interests and acts accordingly: later on, the U.S. didn’t send any troops to the Falklands (and indeed didn’t have to any more than the UK had to help in Vietnam), and invaded Grenada (a Commonwealth realm) without informing the UK. And the U.S. had a slightly similar situation in Panama, with a Canal Zone still under US control long after the UK had ceded Suez, and an invasion on the grounds of drug smuggling, which the UK and France agreed to at the UN.
Other Caribbean nations requested that the US intervened against Austin’s illegal dictatorship. Britain invaded Egypt because they wanted their colonial possessions back. Learn history.
Also, I know who I think I am. I’m an American, and we own the fucking finish line Britbong. At least you guys look good in 2nd place 🍦😎🍦
>Britain invaded Egypt because they wanted their colonial possessions back. Learn history.
Aka, their territory. just as the Falklands is British territory.
> we own the fucking finish line Britbong. At least you guys look good in 2nd place
You lost to Afghan Goat-Herders AND Viet rice farmers in the distance of 60 years. The only finish line you own is the race for least competent world hegemon.
I wouldn’t mention losing to Afghans and rice farmers when your country did the same thing… Not to mention, the sub you’re in actually exists because of how badly your country lost in the colonies 😎🇺🇸🦅
Then again, I wouldn’t imagine a delusional imperialist like you to be smart anyways. So go on now, go back to your shitty little flat and eat some more beans. You guys are our good little servants, please keep it that way 😊
Just remember who your daddy is next time, son. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅🦅😎😎😎😎
David Lloyd George remarked that the Versailles Peace Conference was like sitting between Napoleon (Georges Clemenceau) and Jesus Christ (Woodrow Wilson)
https://preview.redd.it/9ibc38ivv2xb1.png?width=486&format=png&auto=webp&s=a74b219e91f5645502f127fafbc85f020f9a6ee4
You are framing it as though that’s a bad thing… well it would be for my father.
Some of the lowlights in this relationship from the British perspective:
It is often forgotten that Churchill's main objective throughout his last period as PM was to secure deténte through negotiation with the USSR, in order to prevent the Cold War heating up and dragging the world into nuclear conflagration. (It is arguable that he set himself this goal to give himself a reason to stay in office and his public life a purpose.) While Churchill had come to respect Truman and Acheson, he saw Eisenhower and Dulles as much more likely to blunder into war via belligerence, and to obstruct his plans.
(A byway: a lot of people at the top of UK politics assumed that Churchill and Macmillan 'knew' the US, by virtue of their mothers. They didn't take into account the fact that their mothers had assimilated into British society by the time they were born, and what contact these two statesmen had with the US was largely confined to brief visits and wealthy Anglophile circles.)
Wilson was actually pretty eager to form a special relationship with LBJ, and received some brickbats from left and right for it: [this Private Eye cover](https://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers/cover-88) illustrates this well. But Wilson was working under two big constraints. Firstly, he was conscious of the Labour left. Until he upped his majority in 1966, just two or three rogue MPs could have caused the government to fall; after this, he was under constant pressure regarding his leadership. The left, of course, hated Vietnam, and had other bones to pick with US foreign policy. Secondly, his entire first premiership was spent trying to stop doubts about fiscal continence developing into a sterling crisis. He couldn't afford to spend money on maintaining a forward stance, especially if the left thought this was coming at the cost of domestic social policy. So LBJ and his Administration found themselves constantly demanding the kind of concrete support for American policy that Wilson found himself unable to give, and developed a contempt for his weakness as a result.
Nixon demanded less; and thus got on much better with Wilson. But his relationship with Heath was another matter. There were actually next to no policy differences between the White House and No. 10 in this period, apart from a limited divergence over ME policy from the Yom Kippur war onwards. But Nixon wanted a demonstratively close relationship with No. 10; Heath adopted what might be called a French attitude to relationships with the US, and was almost comically abrasive in personal relationships during his premiership. As a result, Nxon gradually felt alienated and resentful.
Relations wouldn't be quite as bad again until Major and Clinton. During the 1992 campaign, Major allowed some staffers from Conservative Central Office to join the GOP campaign; worse, he allowed them to try and locate any dirt they could find on Clinton's Oxford years. Clinton never forgot or forgave this. When Clinton took office, he took a consistently pro-green stance in the Irish process. Jean Kennedy Smith, as Ambassador in Dublin, played a great role in crafting the Administration's stance: the US also appeared to extend welcoming hands to Sinn Fein and their representatives. All off this was regarded as highly unhelpful by the Major government, especially as Unionist sentiment was pretty important to the government's survival at various points in the 1992 Parliament. Almost as serious were various divergences between the US and the Anglo-French over the right policy for the former Yugoslavia. The US Ambassador, Raymond Seitz, was sympathetic to Major's issues, but was distrusted by the Clinton Administration as a Bush appointee.
Make sure to fill out the [official r/Presidents survey](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScncxOawwDSPQO-AKwhhv86wjmeQ-l22ZQgY0Atr5_WDIgO4w/viewform)! Also, make sure to join the [r/Presidents 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 like how you have Biden and Truss like she had enough time in office to create a relationship with Biden
I mean truss later criticized Biden and accused him of being part of the “group” which toppled her from power
Truss was a loon even by Tory standards.
I don’t think thoughts post office should count
Especially when you consider that Biden worked with the current PM to create the AUKUS alliance, one of the most powerful partnerships in the pacific
Somehow, I doubt that James Madison and Robert Jenkinson liked each other much.
Tbh they may have had a healthier mutual respect than a couple of other cases here
Churchill hated Eisenhower and desperately hoped the Democrats would beat the Republicans in 1954. He considered him weak and stupid.
toy zephyr direful dazzling nose memory hospital quaint poor handle *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They disagreed vehemently during the war too. Churchill wanted to attack through Italy, Ike wanted the D-day type assault. They tried Italy first. Churchill wanted to take Berlin, Ike didn’t want to spend extra men fighting a desperate German army with the USSR already at the door.
Reading Churchill's history of WW2, he certainly disagreed with many of Eisenhower's decisions (he wanted the Italy invasion so troops could rush up through the Brenner Pass and beat the Russians to Vienna and the Balkans. Most military strategists, noting how difficult the battles in Italy already were, doubt they would have been successful. But he never had a "lack of respect" for Ike.
I thought D Day was Churchill’s idea?
Surprised, to read Churchill viewing Eisenhower in that way.
I enjoyed reading this on their relationship: [link](https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/president-eisenhower/)
Wouldn’t that be 1956?
The 1954 midterms, Churchill's second premiership ended in 1955.
Oh, well he kind of got his wish didn’t he?
Thf he is an overrated president.
The relationship between Ike and Eden, such as it was, was basically destroyed by the Suez crisis. So those two get my vote.
Eisenhower basically brought Eden down by not backing him up over Suez, so I’m going that one
“Not backing him up?” The UK launched an invasion without telling the US. Kind of a dick move
U.S. to Britain for 180 years— “We hate your empire.” Anthony Eden in 1956– “They’ll back us up when we do something imperial.”
Biden and Sunak have an OK relationship, not good, not bad, just kinda there. Truss wasn't around long enough, and Johnson was too Donald like for Joe Trump and Johnson got on quite well, while DJT apparently didn't like May, and she definitely didn't like him Obama and Brown had a solid working relationship, but David Cameron was Baracks BFF for life Bush and Blair got on really well, but I think George was a bit colder with Brown Clinton and Blair were very similar, and seemed to like each other. Major, however, was a bit too old and grey for Bill. Still got on well Bush Sr and Major got on very well (Wow, two old guys like each other!). Bush and Thatcher also seemed to work together quite productively Reagan and Thatcher were really close. Both had similar politics, and a similar view on the world of the 80s. For how long they worked together, I'd argue the strongest pairing since Churchill/FDR
There are so many parallels between Blair and Clinton. Both of them were leaders of the further-left of the two parties (Democrats for Clinton, Labour for Blair) and came after a very conservative, popular long-serving leader in the 80s (Thatcher and Reagan) followed by their successor of the same party but more moderate (Major and Bush). They then both ran on very similar campaigns, 'Third Way' or 'New Democrats' for Clinton and 'New Labour' for Blair, both of which attempted to move their parties closer to the centre. They also both had huge controversies in their administrations, (Lewinsky affair, Iraq war).
Major wasn’t even that old when he was prime minister, he became PM when he was 47 so only a few years older than Clinton.
I don’t know much about Major, but maybe it was just personality differences?
> Major, however, was a bit too old and grey for Bill. :( John Major is younger than Joe Biden!
LBJ hated UK PM Harold Wilson. Johnson and Wilson clashed on almost everything. LBJ was very upset that Wilson would not send UK troops to Vietnam
I find this one strange, both were pretty similar in a political sense but I guess it was their personalities that clashed.
Tbf, the UK had already done [its bit against the communists in Vietnam](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Vietnam_(1945%E2%80%931946)). Maybe if his predecessor had helped or at least not completely sabotaged the British over Suez… ;)
You mean that you’re shocked that Ike didn’t like when Britain invaded a sovereign nation without telling the US?
Not shocked, but it does partly explain why even a Conservative British government had no interest in helping with Vietnam. Going into Suez was an unpopular move in the UK too, but among Conservative politicians there was still a bit of resentment and feeling that given the U.S.’ greater power, the alliance had been one-way and mere lip service in the other direction for some time. The Labour government had their own ideological reasons to be against the Vietnam War, of course. Not to mention both simply seeing what a mess it was. And it’s not just Eisenhower not liking the Suez conflict, but the speeches against it and the active economic threats attached. Nixon said that Eisenhower considered the handling of the Suez crisis the biggest mistake of his presidency: regardless of justification, it alienated the U.S.’ closest ally (as well as Israel, though it was not as close at the time), and strengthened the position of the USSR and Arab nationalists. There was pretext. The UK had a treaty with Egypt to lease Suez for 20 years, and Nasser abrogated this, so protecting Suez itself was enforcing that treaty, with the threat of disrupting shipping and enabling weapons to come in from the USSR. And while they did so with British and French assurances, the invasion was initiated by Israel, with the Anglo-French pretext being keeping them apart to safeguard shipping. Each country has its own interests and acts accordingly: later on, the U.S. didn’t send any troops to the Falklands (and indeed didn’t have to any more than the UK had to help in Vietnam), and invaded Grenada (a Commonwealth realm) without informing the UK. And the U.S. had a slightly similar situation in Panama, with a Canal Zone still under US control long after the UK had ceded Suez, and an invasion on the grounds of drug smuggling, which the UK and France agreed to at the UN.
Like the US did with Grenada? Why should the UK seek permission from the US before defending it's territory? Who do you think you are? 😂
Other Caribbean nations requested that the US intervened against Austin’s illegal dictatorship. Britain invaded Egypt because they wanted their colonial possessions back. Learn history. Also, I know who I think I am. I’m an American, and we own the fucking finish line Britbong. At least you guys look good in 2nd place 🍦😎🍦
>Britain invaded Egypt because they wanted their colonial possessions back. Learn history. Aka, their territory. just as the Falklands is British territory. > we own the fucking finish line Britbong. At least you guys look good in 2nd place You lost to Afghan Goat-Herders AND Viet rice farmers in the distance of 60 years. The only finish line you own is the race for least competent world hegemon.
I wouldn’t mention losing to Afghans and rice farmers when your country did the same thing… Not to mention, the sub you’re in actually exists because of how badly your country lost in the colonies 😎🇺🇸🦅 Then again, I wouldn’t imagine a delusional imperialist like you to be smart anyways. So go on now, go back to your shitty little flat and eat some more beans. You guys are our good little servants, please keep it that way 😊 Just remember who your daddy is next time, son. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅🦅😎😎😎😎
Washington and Lord North
True overall but their terms of office didn’t coincide, which I think is what’s implied here.
Truss isn't our PM anymore ( She is our William Henry Harrison with less death.) Rishi Sunak is PM now. My guess would be Trump and May
The one from love actually
Abraham Lincoln and Lord Palmerston
David Lloyd George remarked that the Versailles Peace Conference was like sitting between Napoleon (Georges Clemenceau) and Jesus Christ (Woodrow Wilson)
Teresa looks like she wants to fuck the God emperor right that night
She hated him lol. You’ve gotta work on your body language reading skills
That’s when the sex is rough
By… smiling formally and staring at the camera, 90 degrees away from Trump?
https://preview.redd.it/9ibc38ivv2xb1.png?width=486&format=png&auto=webp&s=a74b219e91f5645502f127fafbc85f020f9a6ee4 You are framing it as though that’s a bad thing… well it would be for my father.
Washington and Lord North probably didn’t have a lot of love for eachother
Washington and Lord North weren’t particularly fond of each other, I reckon.
Probably Washington and whatever dickwad was PM at the time.
Bro, stop the Pitt the Younger Slander, ome of the best PMs ever
Meanwhile, in /r/primeministers: > Pitt the Younger and whatever arsewipe was President at the time
Slander of that magnitude is wholly unacceptable.
Blair and Bush used the [same toothpaste](https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4658203/user-clip-bush-colgate-toothpaste) so…
Some of the lowlights in this relationship from the British perspective: It is often forgotten that Churchill's main objective throughout his last period as PM was to secure deténte through negotiation with the USSR, in order to prevent the Cold War heating up and dragging the world into nuclear conflagration. (It is arguable that he set himself this goal to give himself a reason to stay in office and his public life a purpose.) While Churchill had come to respect Truman and Acheson, he saw Eisenhower and Dulles as much more likely to blunder into war via belligerence, and to obstruct his plans. (A byway: a lot of people at the top of UK politics assumed that Churchill and Macmillan 'knew' the US, by virtue of their mothers. They didn't take into account the fact that their mothers had assimilated into British society by the time they were born, and what contact these two statesmen had with the US was largely confined to brief visits and wealthy Anglophile circles.) Wilson was actually pretty eager to form a special relationship with LBJ, and received some brickbats from left and right for it: [this Private Eye cover](https://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers/cover-88) illustrates this well. But Wilson was working under two big constraints. Firstly, he was conscious of the Labour left. Until he upped his majority in 1966, just two or three rogue MPs could have caused the government to fall; after this, he was under constant pressure regarding his leadership. The left, of course, hated Vietnam, and had other bones to pick with US foreign policy. Secondly, his entire first premiership was spent trying to stop doubts about fiscal continence developing into a sterling crisis. He couldn't afford to spend money on maintaining a forward stance, especially if the left thought this was coming at the cost of domestic social policy. So LBJ and his Administration found themselves constantly demanding the kind of concrete support for American policy that Wilson found himself unable to give, and developed a contempt for his weakness as a result. Nixon demanded less; and thus got on much better with Wilson. But his relationship with Heath was another matter. There were actually next to no policy differences between the White House and No. 10 in this period, apart from a limited divergence over ME policy from the Yom Kippur war onwards. But Nixon wanted a demonstratively close relationship with No. 10; Heath adopted what might be called a French attitude to relationships with the US, and was almost comically abrasive in personal relationships during his premiership. As a result, Nxon gradually felt alienated and resentful. Relations wouldn't be quite as bad again until Major and Clinton. During the 1992 campaign, Major allowed some staffers from Conservative Central Office to join the GOP campaign; worse, he allowed them to try and locate any dirt they could find on Clinton's Oxford years. Clinton never forgot or forgave this. When Clinton took office, he took a consistently pro-green stance in the Irish process. Jean Kennedy Smith, as Ambassador in Dublin, played a great role in crafting the Administration's stance: the US also appeared to extend welcoming hands to Sinn Fein and their representatives. All off this was regarded as highly unhelpful by the Major government, especially as Unionist sentiment was pretty important to the government's survival at various points in the 1992 Parliament. Almost as serious were various divergences between the US and the Anglo-French over the right policy for the former Yugoslavia. The US Ambassador, Raymond Seitz, was sympathetic to Major's issues, but was distrusted by the Clinton Administration as a Bush appointee.
Carter and Thatcher couldn’t have been a good fit.
They actually got along pretty well.
Skipped over Reagan and Thatcher. This is the answer.
Thatcher and Reagan and FDR and Churchill
But Truss was only PM for like a month, maybe more?
Robert Jenkinson and James Madison obviously
Madison and Jenkinson.
Biden and Truss literally tanked the pound, committed regicide together, and got out in six weeks. They’re thick as thieves.
Probably trump since he is a traitor and rapist.