Aside from Amity Shlaes, who seems to have worked backwards from her desired conclusion, I've never heard an argument put forward for Coolidge as among the great presidents. What do you particularly admire?
The Depression was a global affair, larger than one president’s actions, and most of his policies were fairly conventional for his day. He had left office over 6 months before the depression began (and over 2 years before the banking crises that caused most of the misery really kicked in). Since pretty much every leader (including FDR and Hitler) had to figure out how to solve the crises in office using unconventional policies (the then new-fangled Keynesian economic policy), it’s a bit unfair to blame the guy when he wasn’t even in power.
that's a pretty big "besides"
10,000 American citizens imprisoned in conditions worse than a zoo.
Actor George Takei was among the victims, and he's written about his experiences
https://www.npr.org/2024/04/20/1245844347/george-takei-my-lo...
The family behind Kokuho Rose, a popular California sushi rice strain, was affected by this. While they didn't lose the land in the end, it was still stripped of anything of value and left to decay by their neighbors while they were in the camp.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koda_Farms
A Japanese American has also been credited with kicking off the California wine industry, and similarly had his land stolen during that era.
https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20221113-kanaye-nagasawa-...
My list would be: 1. FDR, 2. Carter, 3. Teddy. Carter because he sacrificed his career to fix inflation (Republican attempts to rewrite history notwithstanding), and Teddy because he wasn't merely an excellent man with excellent politics, but also because whenever present-day Republicans try to claim the man without claiming his politics I can turn it into a teachable moment, and putting him on a list with the other two is the perfect bait.
or so Hollywood would have us believe
Do you mean that it would have been won without any US involvement? Or do you mean the US involvement would have proceeded similarly with a different president?
...even backed by crucial US supplies
So Stalin may have played a part in ending WW2, but don't forget his part in starting it.
Whether it be the new deal or non-isolationist policy, his direction led us out of the great depression which started before his presidency and ended before he died.
U.S. should have ignored Soviet-German war. Then finish Commies with nukes.
If they'd done that they'd be down in history as worse than the worst of communism. It was bad enough that they dropped 2 on the Japanese which scores American civilisation a questionable footnote in the history books. "Only people to use a weapon this terrible".
The problem with unprincipled aggression is that, sooner or later, other people match it. The US ended up doing much better by defeating the communists without directly fighting them - one of the few wars the US unambiguously won and why people don't want to learn that lesson is one of the great mysteries. Victories through overwhelming prosperity are both decisive and comfortable.
He hardly ended the depression, economic conditions were poor until WW2 (eg look at the 1937 downturn, well into his tenure).
That being said, back then, I would argue that the situation would have been very different had a lesser person than FDR been elected president, given the kind of political climate it was around the world.
Well, and also every administration and Congress after him for not changing it back.