A Brief Look at Combat Memoirs, Part 2

Welcome back to part 2 of my rundown of combat memoirs that I've happened to have read.

Lima-6: A Marine Company Commander in Vietnam by R. D. Camp. Pacifica Military History, 1989.

Unfortunately I won't be able to too into depth about this book because I don't have it anymore and I last read it about six years ago. Lima-6 is written by R. D. Camp who commanded a company of US Marines in Vietnam from June 1967 to January 1968. I do remember how the book detailed Camp's efforts to gain the trust of his men; as such a lot of attention is given to the camaraderie between the troops. One moment that stands out for me is when Camp first experiences the death of one of his men. Apart from that I really don't remember much. Lima-6 isn't a bad book but still if you want one about leadership in combat then you're probably better off looking elsewhere.

Mad Minutes and Vietnam Months: A Soldier's Memoir by Micheal Clodfelter. Pinnacle Books, 1988.

I believe that this was one of the first soldier's memoirs I ever read and to this day I still think it's one of the best. Mad Minutes and Vietnam Months – in reference to how life in war is made up of long stretches of boredom broken up by brief moments of action and terror – recalls Michael Clodfelter's experience in the US army in Vietnam from July 1965 to December 1966. He originally enlisted as an artilleryman but volunteered to extend his tour of duty with the infantry, hungry for some action in the service of Uncle Sam. But the jungle's dangers, the hostile populace, and the overall course of the war gradually made him reconsider his prior gung-ho attitude. His time in the army abruptly came to an end after a wound from a punji stake booby trap. Clodfelter's account shows how much patriotism and machismo played a role in how GIs behaved during war. It's also interesting getting to know the troopers he served with. His squadmates run the gamut from cowards to klutzes, from patriots to bloodthirsty killers, from career soldiers to kids, and not all of them get along very well. If you're looking for one book about one soldier's experiences in Vietnam then check out Mad Minutes. It's got everything; it's like Platoon (1986), just without the GIs murdering eachother.

Soldat: Reflections of a German Soldier, 1936-1949 by Siegfried Knappe. Dell Publishing, 1992.

In Soldat Siegried Knappe covers his entire military career in the German army from 1936 straight to the conclusion of the Second World War. He served as an artillery officer across various fronts including Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, the USSR, and Italy and as Germany's forces retreated back into the Reich Knappe found himself stationed in Berlin's Fuhrerbunker until the bitter end. Captured by the Soviet army, he then spent five years in captivity before returning home and then moving to the USA (as far away from communism as possible). Since the book covers a significant chunk of Knappe's young adulthood you get some nice insight into what it was like to live, grow up, and start a family in Nazi Germany. You also get a good sense of what army life was like back then. While not an especially political individual, Knappe initially had great pride in the achievements his country made in such a short timespan but as the war ground on he grew disillusioned with the inefficient and corrupt Nazi regime. There are a couple drawbacks though; as this is an officer's memoir there isn't all that much combat to be found in these pages. Also the book seems to have a bit of emotional detachment, almost like reading a textbook at times. But still, for those looking for some insight to the German experience of WWII, Soldat has you covered.

Helmet for My Pillow: From Parris Island to the Pacific by Robert Leckie. Random House, 1957.

Well, this was disappointing. If you've seen by Band of Brothers vs. The Pacific article (from January 2016) then you can probably tell that I'm a big fan of The Pacific which was partially based on this memoir by Robert Leckie, one of the miniseries' main characters. Regrettably, the miniseries makes Leckie's wartime experience look more tense and exciting than this book gets across. While there are a are a couple decent battle scenes – as well as a few tense patrols – most of this book revolves around Leckie and his pals getting drunk, stealing things, and getting in trouble. Helmet for My Pillow is written in a very illustrative, almost poetic, kind of way that contrasts with the brutish life and harsh living conditions. On the other hand, it sometimes comes off as pretentious and boring. At least the book is a short one. I'd recommend this one to die-hard Pacific fans only.

With the Old Breed At Peleliu and Okinawa by Eugene Sledge. Ballantine Books, 1981.

However, you don't have to be a fan of The Pacific in order to appreciate the other memoir that it's based on. I'd say that Eugene Sledge's With the Old Breed is probably the best war book I've ever read. Its level of detail is staggering and it unapologetically paints a brutal picture of what combat was like in the Pacific Islands in the Second World War. From notes he kept in his pocket Bible, Sledge lets readers in on the dirty and unsanitary conditions US Marines had to contend with. He also describes the intense hatred both sides had for eachother, which facilitated a loss of compassion and subsequent acts of brutality. In contrast to Helmet for My Pillow, With the Old Breed is written in a very plain, straightforward language that gets across the indignities and fears of the war's participants. As you read it yourself you'll instantly admire the people described within – most of them, anyways – and sympathize with their challenges and heartbreaks. With the Old Breed is a powerful read that I highly recommend to anyone interested in this genre of literature.

Jarhead: A Marine's Chronicle of the Gulf War and Other Battles by Anthony Swofford. Pocket Books, 2003.

Here's a book of which I've just finished my second read through. Jarhead is scout sniper Anthony Swofford's graphic, no-holds-barred account of his time in the US Marines during the boring and interminable Operation Desert Shield and then finally – but all too briefly – Operation Desert Storm. The central focus of the book concerns the Marines' expectations of a war like their forefathers and their subsequent near-existential disappointment at seeing very little actual combat. This disappointment is compounded by the military culture the author grew up in and that fact that the Marine Corps trained him to be a ruthless killer. But the ground war against Iraq ended so swiftly and uneventfully that all the waiting, isolation, and training seems to have gone to waste. Pretty much the only Iraqis Swofford ever saw were either dead or in the process of surrendering; in fact Swofford didn't ever get to fire his rifle in combat. The author seems aware of how boring such a campaign might be to a reader so to compensate Swofford's book randomly jumps around talking about other stuff from his life both before and after the war, most of which involve drunkenness, fighting, and sex (or any combination thereof). While there are some tense scenes with some haunting imagery – the burning oil wells and the bombed-out columns of retreating vehicles come to mind – Jarhead is a very up-and-down read for me. It's worth reading once but I don't think I need to read it again.

A Brief Look at Combat Memoirs, Part 1

Remembrance Day is coming up soon (or Veterans Day for my American readers). As such let's turn our gaze to the past once again, shall we? Ever since I was a kid I read a lot of history books. (I lead an exciting life. What can I say?) One subgenre of history that I read a lot of is combat memoirs. Also known as war memoirs or soldier memoirs, combat memoirs are books about war written by the guys who fought it. I find that the first-hand experiences of individuals – ordinary, everyday people – provides the most engrossing viewpoint of historical events. In short, they're enthralling and hard to put down. So for this article I thought it might be fun to look at some combat memoirs that I've read over the years, sorted alphabetically by author.

Shoot to Kill: From 2 Para to the SAS by Michael Asher. Cassel Military Paperbacks, 1990.

Shoot to Kill details the young adulthood of Michael Asher throughout the 1970's. As a high school graduate he enlisted in the Parachute Regiment. After making it through the gruelling training process he was posted to Northern Ireland during the height of The Troubles. Once his time with 2 Para was up he qualified for the SAS and completed his training there. But soon after he quit the SAS due to some personal difficulties and joined the Royal Ulster Constabulary in a Special Patrol Group. After one year Asher quit the RUC as well, realizing that a life surrounded by violence was wearing on his soul and that the conflict in Ulster simply wasn't his war to fight. I found Shoot to Kill a fascinating read. I like learning about the experiences of people involved in The Troubles – how daily life in a developed Western country existed alongside domestic terrorism and lawlessness – and it's told from the viewpoint of a young man struggling with his self-confidence and sense of identity. And yet you can tell how his training and development amongst the elite of Britain's armed forces gave Asher such a sense of empowerment and pride. Anyone who likes books about boot camp and training should check out Shoot to Kill. The only downside is that there's not much SAS action in it. Otherwise, Asher's memoirs is a fine read.

One Soldier's War in Chechnya by Arkady Babchenko. Portobello Books, 2007.

This freakin' book, man. This might just be the most depressing book I've ever read (and I've read The Jungle for crying out loud!) I knew that things in post-Soviet Russia and Chechnya were bad but still this book was a real eye-opener. Taking place in both Chechen Wars (mid-1990's and early 2000's), One Soldier's War depicts the army of what was once the world's second most powerful nation as little more than an undisciplined horde of barbarians, thieves, and drunkards. No wonder the Russians lost the first war: they were beating eachother up as much as they were the Chechen rebels! The infamously brutal Russian practice of dedovshchina is on full display and life for the average soldier didn't get much easier after boot camp. Being constantly surrounded by danger, corruption, and abuse made it easy for grunts to feel depressed, worthless, and hopeless. Regrettably, the book's veracity does often come into question amongst those who have read it. In the preface Babchenko states that while “everything in [the book] is true” some events told within have been “shifted in time”, he personally didn't witness every event, and that in a few cases he “combined two or three persons into one character”. Real or fake, One Soldier's War is still a powerful read that's hard to put down. But I warn you, it's not for the faint of heart.

Nam: The Vietnam War in the Words of the Men and Women who Fought There by Mark Baker. Berkley Books, 1981.

I know, technically Nam isn't a combat memoir but I figured oral history is close enough. An oral history book such as this one is a collection of interviews from people who took part in or witnessed historical events. Nam's sources range from troopers to pilots, nurses to doctors, pacifists to patriots, killers to POWs: all of them Americans who were involved in the Vietnam War. These accounts – ranging in length from a couple paragraphs to a dozen pages – encompass a wide range of tones, viewpoints, and experiences. Pretty much everything from enlistment (or in some cases conscription) to homecoming is covered. However, as was the case with One Soldier's War in Chechnya, I couldn't help but question how truthful it all was since these are the memories of scores of unidentified people. Nevertheless, if you want a general overview of what the Vietnam War was like for the boots-on-the-ground average American participant, Nam is a fine place to start.

Storming the Falklands: My War and After by Tony Banks. Abacus, 2012.

As was the case with Nam, it might be a little misleading to call Storming the Falklands a combat memoir. A more accurate classification would be “an autobiography starring the Falklands War”. Tony Banks was an average working class youth in the rough-and-tumble Scottish town of Dundee who joined the army and served with 2 Para during the war in the South Atlantic. His experience there was nasty, brutish, and short. A significant portion of the book deals with his life after the war, about how he lived with this sense of anger, frustration, and a single-minded drive for success that still didn't satisfy him even after becoming a millionaire. About 18 years after the war Banks broke down and realized that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. The book ends with him coming to terms with his experiences, travelling to some familiar places. In spite of – or possibly because of – it being so different from other combat books I've read I found Storming the Falklands to be a riveting read. Most other combat memoirs come to an end once the war is over or once the author comes home, but Tony Banks reminds us that even after the fighting our veterans need our support.

Poilu: The World War I Notebooks of Corporal Louis Barthas, Barrelmaker, 1914-18 by Louis Barthas. Yale University Press, 2014 (English translation).

Originally published in French in 1978, Poilu is the collection of notebooks kept by Louis Barthas who more-or-less spent the entire First World War on and around the front lines. By the time the war began Barthas, a reservist, was not only a zealous socialist who hated militarism but also was in his late-30's which is pretty old by soldiering standards. As a result pretty much every page of Poilu is filled to the margins with criticism, sarcasm, and complaining about everything from incompetent officers and wasteful tactics to the lousy weather and pitiful sleeping quarters. Sometimes it's humorous while other times it's serious and tragic. With everything Barthas went through it's a miracle he was never wounded, although as the war went on he certainly became exhausted and worn out. War from the viewpoint of a mature artisan in early 20^th century France frequently takes on a religious perspective and attention is always drawn when the author comes across another soldier from his hometown of Peyriac-Minervois. However with so many place names and with so many people to keep track of the book can be a bit dense at times. Also the author's political beliefs often manifest in an overbearing self-righteousness: does he think that only socialists value human life? Do only socialists dislike war? Regardless, Poilu is still an interesting look into the French trooper's day-to-day life more than one hundred years ago.

LRRP Team Leader by John Burford. Ivy Books, 1994.

One subgenre of combat memoirs I find fascinating is that of the elite soldier or special forces soldier. In the Vietnam War the US Army made use of Long Range Reconnaissance Patrols (LRRPs, pronounced as “lurps”) that would be deployed in small teams deep into enemy territory. Their missions included things such as observing enemy outposts/movements, rescuing downed pilots, staging ambushes, and calling in airstrikes. Burford's book LRRP Team Leader is a short book that sheds light on how LRRPs operated with such a high level of professionalism and calmness in the face of danger. In spite of the high level of tactics involved the book never gets too technical on the reader. In fact it gets pretty personal by the end, as Burford's uncomfortable homecoming ends up with him becoming estranged from his family. In short, if you like books about professional soldiers or counterinsurgency then LRRP Team Leader is a book you'll want to check out.

That's all for this time, but come back soon for Part 2. Thanks for reading.

US Presidents Ranked Worst to Best, Part 2

Last week we looked at the worst. Now let's look at the White House's better half. These are the top 22 best Presidents of the United States.

22. Rutherford Hayes (1877-81)

• pros: upheld the gold standard, upheld the Monroe Doctrine, put down the Great Railroad Strike, civil service reform (based on merit)
• cons: ended Reconstruction, failed to protect black rights, didn't try for a second term

21. Ulysses Grant (1869-77)

• pros: established Department of Justice, implemented the gold standard, Enforcement Acts, outlawed the Ku Klux Klan, 15^th Amendment, Treaty of Washington, Peace Policy with Native Americans
• cons: Great Sioux War, mishandled the panic of 1873, corruption, scandals

20. Frankiln Roosevelt (1933-45)

• pros: ended prohibition, Good Neighbour Policy in Latin America, arsenal of democracy, Lend-Lease, Second World War, US world leadership
• cons: increased national debt nine-fold, beginning of big-government interventionism, expanded bureaucracy, possibly prolonged the Great Depression, Japanese internment

19. Harry Truman (1945-53)

• pros: oversaw the end of WWII, helped found United Nations, helped found NATO, Berlin Airlift, Korean War, desegregated the armed forces. Anticommunist
• cons: only world leader to use nuclear weapons on human targets, McCarthyism

18. Chester Arthur (1881-85)

• pros: civil service reform, naval reform
• cons: ???

17. James Garfield (1881)

• pros: civil service reform, universal education
• cons: died in office, only served six months

16. Donald Trump (2017-present)

• pros: tax reform, economic growth, travel ban from extremist countries. Won Chinese support in isolating North Korea, forced the DPRK to the negotiating table, got American prisoners released
• cons: airstrikes on Syria, omnibus spending bill, partial reversal of Cuban thaw

15. George H. W. Bush (1989-93)

• pros: ended US intervention in Nicaragua, pushed for German reunification, Gulf War, NAFTA, Points of Light, Clean Air Act
• cons: invaded Panama, broke his “no new taxes” promise, Savings & Loan bailout, deficits

14. Andrew Jackson (1829-37)

• pros: fully paid off national debt (only time in US history), US exploring expedition, upheld republican values
• cons: patronage, Indian Removal Act. His disestablishment of the Second Bank of the United States was partially to blame for the Panic of 1837

13. Grover Cleveland (1885-89, 1893-97)

• pros: anti-spoils system, modernized the military, anti-imperialist, preserved the gold supply, handled the Venezuelan Crisis well. Anti-corruption, small-government non-interventionist
• cons: his silver coinage policies were divisive, couldn't get a grip on labour unrest and the Panic of 1893

12. Ronald Reagan (1981-89)

• pros: Reaganomics, tax cuts, free trade agreements, INF Treaty, broke air traffic controllers strike, restored national pride/confidence
• cons: tripled the national debt, massively increased military spending, War on Drugs, bombed Libya, Iran-Contra Scandal, aided Mujahideen. Intervention in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Grenada

11. James Madison (1809-17)

• pros: reestablished the national bank, effective tax reform. The War of 1812 was very popular, united the American people, and broke Native resistance in the west...
• cons: even though the War of 1812 ended in a military stalemate mostly thanks to a mismanaged US army. Raised tariffs

10. Calvin Coolidge (1923-29)

• pros: tax cuts, national debt shrinks, dismissed corrupt officials from Harding's administration, left the Federal Reserve alone, withdrew US forces from Dominican Republic, Dawes Plan, granted citizenship to Native Americans, built highways
• cons: slow response to Great Mississippi Flood, vetoed the McNary-Haugen Farm Relief Bill

9. James Polk (1845-49)

• pros: annexed Texas and Oregon territory, Mexican-American War, Walker Tariff reduced tariff rates, established the US Naval Academy
• cons: ???

8. William McKinley (1897-1901)

• pros: Gold Standard Act, ended the Panic of 1893, Spanish-American War, Cuban independence, annexed Hawaii
• cons: Platt Amendment, Philippine-American War, weak response to growing racial tension/violence

7. John Kennedy (1961-63)

• pros: good handling of Cuban Missile Crisis, Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, established the Apollo Program. Supported civil rights and equality, abolished poll taxes
• cons: Bay of Pigs invasion, deficits

6. James Monroe (1817-25)

• pros: Monroe Doctrine, Treaty of 1818 granted harbour/fishing rights in Pacific, joint occupation of Oregon territory, acquired Florida, built canals, went on national tours
• cons: inadequate response to Panic of 1819, Missouri Compromise was divisive and unpopular

5. Dwight Eisenhower (1953-61)

• pros: founded NASA, ended McCarthyism, built highways, Civil Rights Acts (1957, 1960), integrated public schools, “ended” Korean War, reduced spending, balanced budgets. Left office warning people about military-industrial complex...
• cons: even though he was largely responsible for the rise of the military-industrial complex. U-2 Crisis; undertook coups in Iran, Guatemala.

4. Theodore Roosevelt (1901-09)

• pros: Square Deal, trust-busting, peaceful labour relations, conservation, began the Panama Canal, helped broker and end to the Russo-Japanese war, established the Food and Drug Administration
• cons: Roosevelt Corollary used to justify interventionism in Central America (i.e. Big Stick Diplomacy)

3. Thomas Jefferson (1801-09)

• pros: Louisiana Purchase doubled USA's size, lowered taxes and spending decreased national debt, maintained neutrality during Napoleonic Wars, prohibited slave imports, Lewis and Clark Expedition, First Barbary War
• cons: bad relations with the British, embargoes against Britain did more harm to USA

2. Abraham Lincoln (1861-65)

• pros: peacefully handled the Trent Affair, US Civil War, selected his own generals, Emancipation Proclamation, 13^th Amendment, moderate stance on Reconstruction, National Banking Act, Pacific Railway Acts
• cons: introduced federal income tax, Ex parte Merryman suspends habeas corpus

1. George Washington (1789-97)

• pros: maintained peace with Great Britain, suppressed the Whiskey Rebellion, established the national bank and other financial institutions, restored the nation's credit, re-established the US Navy, maintained neutrality during French Revolutionary Wars, Treaty of San Lorenzo, won the Northwest Indian War...
• cons: even though the war effort was disorganized and resulted in high casualties

US Presidents Ranked Worst to Best, Part 1

Happy President's Day... in May. Yes, my long awaited rankings of all United States Presidents is finally here. Sorry about that; the research took way longer than I thought. But that just means that this article will be very accurate and super-informative, right? As was the case with the PM rankings, I briefly spell out my reasoning for the rankings and while I'm not a history major I did study some American history in university so I do (mostly) know what I'm talking about. But first, a warning. As was also the case with my Canadian Prime Ministers rankings, a list ranking a nation's heads of government is inevitably going to be extremely political. This is all just a matter of opinion, so don't throw a temper tantrum if I didn't put your favourite prez very high or anything like that. So here we go, from worst to best!

44. James Buchanan (1857-61)

• pros: ???
• cons: no grip on (Democratic) party control, no response to the slavery/abolitionist dilemma, no response to the secessionist movement, largely responsible for the Civil War

43. Andrew Johnson (1865-69)

• pros: purchase of Alaska
• cons: clashes with Congress resulted in impeachment, opposed 14^th Amendment. His mishandling of Reconstruction resulted in the Black Codes and disenfranchisement for many African-Americans

42. Herbert Hoover (1929-33)

• pros: Reconstruction Finance Corporation
• cons: enforced prohibition, opposed anti-lynching laws. Infamously mishandled the Great Depression with his tax increases, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, and his violent response to the Bonus Army

41. Franklin Pierce (1853-57)

• pros: Gadsden Purchase, trade treaties, reformed gov. departments to be more efficient and accountable
• cons: use of patronage appointments alienated his (D) party, Kansas-Nebraska Act leads to violence, was unable to resolve the slavery/abolitionist tensions

40. William Henry Harrison (1841)

• pros: ???
• cons: died after just 30 days in office

39. Zachary Taylor (1849-50)

• pros: Clayton-Bowler Treaty
• cons: died after 16 months in office, avoided the slavery/abolitionist debate

38. Richard Nixon (1969-74)

• pros: withdrew US from Vietnam War (temporary peace), returned POWs, Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, SALT I, established relations with China, enforced integration in Southern schools
• cons: expanded the Vietnam War into Laos and Cambodia, took US currency off the gold standard, imposed price controls, saw unemployment and inflation rise, supported Chilean coup, Watergate Scandal. Only president to resign

37. Lyndon Johnson (1963-69)

• pros: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act Clean Air Act
• cons: escalated Vietnam War, intervention in Dominican Civil War, urban riots, Immigration and Nationality Act. His War on Poverty, Great Society, and social welfare measures were extremely expensive and were arguably not very successful

36. George W. Bush (2001-09)

• pros: tax cuts, PEPFAR, No Child Left Behind Act. Handled 9/11 well
• cons: doubled the national debt, started the Iraq War, slow to respond to Hurricane Katrina, 2008 bailout, dismissal of US attorneys, torture in Guantanamo Bay detention camp. His Patriot Act initiated mass surveillance and loss of liberty for Americans.

35. Barack Obama (2009-17)

• pros: Cuban Thaw, ended the Iraq War, the assassination of Osama bin Laden, defeated ISIS in Iraq, first non-white US president
• cons: almost doubled the national debt, less transparent government that continued mass surveillance, automated drone warfare in Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Helped destabilize Syria and Libya. Medicare, Recovery Act, deteriorating race relations. Cult of personality?

34. Martin Van Buren (1837-41)

• pros: peacefully concluded the Caroline affair, kept the peace with Great Britain (and Canada)
• cons: Indian removal policies killed many, was ineffective in dealing with the Panic of 1837

33. Millard Fillmore (1850-53)

• pros: Perry Expedition, stood up to the French over Hawaii
• cons: Fugitive Slave Act

32. John Adams (1797-1801)

• pros: achieved peace with France
• cons: undeclared Quasi-War with France, raised taxes led to rebellion, Alien and Sedition Acts infringe on personal liberties

31. Gerald Ford (1974-77)

• pros: Helsinki Accords
• cons: pardoned Nixon, increased national debt

30. John Tyler (1841-45)

• pros: annexed Texas, Webster-Ashburton Treaty
• cons: his excessive use of vetoes let to a cabinet revolt

29. William Howard Taft (1909-13)

• pros: trust-busting, introduced popular elections for US senators (17^th amendment)
• cons: Dollar Diplomacy, the Banana Wars. Both the Payne-Aldrich Tariff and the Pinchot-Ballinger Affair split the Republican party

28. Jimmy Carter (1977-81)

• pros: Camp David Accord, Torrijos-Carter Treaty, SALT II. Partially responsible for inflation slowing down
• cons: Also partially responsible for 1980 recession, increased national debt. Mariel boatlift, supplied aid the the Mujahideen, couldn't handle the Iran hostage crisis

27. Warren Harding (1921-23)

• pros: Fordney-McCumber Tariff, Washington Naval Conference, established the Bureau of the Budget. Revenue Act of 1921 lowered taxes
• cons: his presidency was plagued with corruption, scandals, and affairs

26. Bill Clinton (1993-2001)

• pros: balanced budgets, welfare reform, Camp David Summit, NATO intervention in Bosnia
• cons: NATO intervention on Kosovo War kills hundred of civilians, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act leads to less accountability/transparency on Wall Street. Whitewater Scandal, sexual misconduct. Lewinsky scandal, perjury, impeachment.

25. Benjamin Harrison (1889-93)

• pros: Sherman Anti-Trust Act, national forest reserves, modernized the US Navy, good handling of the Baltimore Crisis
• cons: needlessly raised tariffs led to huge budget surpluses, initiated silver coinage which then drained the nation's gold supply. Dawes Act ended up depriving Natives of their lands. Massacre at Wounded Knee

24. Woodrow Wilson (1913-21)

• pros: Federal Trade Commission Act, Federal Farm Loan Act, lowered tariffs. First World War, 14 Points for Peace, advocated for a League of Nations
• cons: Revenue Act (income tax), Federal Reserve Act (Federal Reserve System), Sedition Act (limited freedom of speech), segregated federal offices. Interventionism in Mexico, Central America

23. John Quincy Adams (1825-29)

• pros: paid down national debt, border negotiations, several recprocity treaties
• cons: trade issues with Great Britain, Tariff of Abominations was deeply unpopular, frequently blocked by congress

That about rounds up the bottom 22. Join me next time for the top 22!

Ranking Canada's Prime Ministers, Worst to Best

It's been a long time since I tried my hand at a historical article. This'll be fun.

So one month ago the United States celebrated President's Day and as usual the New York Times put out its rankings of all US presidents. Donald Trump was ranked last. While ridiculous (he's only been in office one year!), this hardly comes as a surprise. You know, mainstream media and all. This got me thinking what my own rankings would be if I were to undertake it myself. And that's exactly what I did.

But what kind of patriot would I be if I didn't include my own country in this fun little exercise? That's why this week I'm presenting my rankings of all 23 of Canada's Prime Ministers from worst to best. Here's the guidelines. Each person on this list is judged only on the actions they undertook during their premiership. (For example, Lester Pearson's Nobel Peace Prize won't be taken into consideration because he was only Secretary of State for External Affairs at the time.) For each PM I'll present the reasons why I gave them the rank I did. As you might expect, the short term PM's all ended up at the end of the list, from the 15-23 range.

As one might expect, a list like this is going to be very political and so of course this is all just a matter of opinion. (Having said that, I did study Canadian history in university so I think I know what I'm talking about.) Anyways, disagree if you like.

23. John Turner (1984, Liberal)

• Pros: ???
• Cons: his 79 day-long term was characterized by patronage appointments which he was called out on. His leadership was weak and indecisive.

    22. Joe Clark (1979-80, Progressive Conservative)

• Pros: ???
• Cons: served 9 months. Defeated in motion of no confidence on his first budget.

    21. John Abbott (1891-92, Conservative)

• Pros: Revised the criminal code
• Cons: served for 17 months. Only took office because John A. MacDonald died and somebody had to take his place. Hated his job. Retired due to ill health.

    20. Mackenzie Bowell (1894-96, Conservative)

• Pros: ???
• Cons: served for 17 months. Couldn't handle Manitoba Schools Question, which led to a cabinet revolt. Indecisive.

19. Justin Trudeau (2015-present, Liberal)

• Pros: ???
• Cons: no budget plan whatsoever, pro-multiculturalism, political correctness ad nauseam, openly praised dictatorships of China and Cuba, sees former ISIS combatants as citizens

18. Kim Campbell (1993, Progressive Conservative)

• Pros: first and only female PM of Canada; reduced size of cabinet and parliament committees
• Cons: only served for 4 months, quickly squandered her early popularity

17. Charles Tupper (1896, Conservative)

• Pros: ???
• Cons: his 68-day term is shortest in Canadian history. Took office after parliament had already dissolved, which didn't give him much of a chance. Failed to offer a solution to the Manitoba schools question

16. Arthur Meighen (1920-21, 1926, Conservative)

• Pros: ???
• Cons: served a total of 21 months

15. John Thompson (1892-1894, Conservative)

• Pros: helped settle the Bering Sea seal dispute, reformed the criminal code, was anti-annexationist (as all good Canadians should be)
• Cons: failed to resolve the Manitoba Schools Question, failed to bring Newfoundland into Confederation

14. Paul Martin (2003-06, Liberal)

• Pros: heavily involved in the G20
• Cons: also involved in the Sponsorship Scandal

13. Richard Bennett (1930-35, Conservative)

• Pros: workaholic, created CRBC (precursor to CBC), founded the Bank of Canada, donated millions of dollars of his own personal wealth to starving families
• Cons: had the misfortune of taking office at the beginning of the Great Depression. He dealt with it through ineffective and unpopular half-measures, such as the Relief Camps (which resulted in strikes and riots). His half-hearted attempt at replicating FDR's New Deal was seen as too little too late

12. Pierre Trudeau (1968-79, 1980-84, Liberal)

• Pros: tenacious nationalist, repatriated the constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Handled the October Crisis well, effectively dissolving the FLQ
• Cons: cult of personality? Multiculturalism, massively grew the national debt, doled out lots of patronage positions, was never able to get a handle on unemployment and inflation. National Energy Program and other policies alienate Western Canadians. Constitutional disputes alienate Quebecois

11. Alexander Mackenzie (1873-78, Liberal)

• Pros: established the Supreme Court, introduced the secret ballot, created the office of Auditor General, promoted honesty/integrity within government
• Cons: made little progress on the national railway, didn't handle 1873 Depression well, free trade deal with USA was unpopular

10. William Lyon Mackenzie King (1921-26, 1926-30, 1935-48, Liberal)

• Pros: longest-serving prime minister, garnered broad support, workaholic, Chanak Crisis. Conducted Second World War, Canada becomes “arsenal of democracy”, ends war as a “middle power”, joins UN
• Cons: nationalized Bank of Canada, big-government interventionism, beginnings of welfare state, refused to accept Jewish refugees from Europe. Improper use of War Measures Act, Japanese internment/disenfranchisement, Conscription crisis. Occultist who communed with spirits on policy issues

9. Lester Pearson (1963-68, Liberal)

• Pros: new national flag, abolished capital punishment, Autopact with the USA, kept Canada out of the Vietnam War
• Cons: established the Canada Pension Plan, universal healthcare, expanded immigration from 3^rd world

8. Jean Cretien (1993-2003, Liberal)

• Pros: privatized the CNR, eliminated budget deficits, lowered the national debt, cut taxes, reformed national bureaucracy. Handled the 1995 Quebec Referendum well. Committed Canada to the Afghanistan War but kept it out of the Iraq War
• Cons: opened floodgates to 3^rd world immigration and multiculturalism, “Shawinigan Handshake”, Sponsorship Scandal. Broken election promises

7. John Diefenbaker (1957-63, Progressive Conservative)

• Pros: Bill of Rights, restored the vote to status Indians, commitment to NORAD, opposed apartheid in South Africa
• Cons: Bomarc Missiles Question, mishandled the Cuban Missile Crisis, Coyne Affair

6. Brian Mulroney (1984-93, Progressive Conservative)

• Pros: cancelled National Energy Program, privatized crown corporations, reduced government spending, free trade with USA, opposed US intervention in Central America, enacted environmental protection laws, added national parks
• Cons: under-funded the armed forces, added to the national debt, Airbus Affair. Finances were complicated by early 1990's recession. Alienated Quebec with clumsy attempts at constitutional reform during Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords

5. Stephen Harper (2006-15, Conservative)

• Pros: Federal Accountability Act, Softwood Lumber Agreement, increased funding to veterans affairs. Helped Canada weather the late-2000's recession better than most Western nations with such policies as the Economic Action Plan
• Cons: Quebecois Nation Motion, decreased government transparency, sold arms to Saudi Arabia, made a mountain out of a molehill with the Niqab issue

4. Robert Borden (1911-20, Conservative, Unionist)

• Pros: conducted the First World War, leading Canada to greater nationhood in the process with Canada's delegation to the Treaty of Versailles and membership in the League of Nations. Granted women the right to vote
• Cons: introduced income tax, Wartime Elections Act disenfranchised many. Created the War Measures Act and used it to intern/disenfranchise Ukranian-Canadians. Conscription crisis alienated Quebec. Used violence to put down Winnipeg General Strike

3. Louis St. Laurent (1948-57, Liberal)

• Pro: with its “middle power” status Canada maintains active foreign policy with joining NATO, participating in Korean War, helping resolve Suez Crisis. Massive public works projects such as Trans-Canada Highway, Trans-Canada Pipeline, St. Lawrence Seaway. Added Newfoundland & Labrador to confederation. Anti-communist without infringing on liberty. Fiscally conservative (at least in the short-term), decreased the government debt
• Cons: introduced equalization payments, expanded social welfare programs

2. Wilfrid Laurier (1896-1911, Liberal)

• Pros: winner of 4 majority governments, made reciprocity with USA work, upholder of individual liberty. Added Alberta and Saskatchewan to confederation. Came up with peaceful compromises on contentious issues like the Manitoba Schools Question and Canada's involvement in the Boer War. Founded the Royal Canadian Navy. Maintained national unity during period of great changes
• Cons: naval compromise was unpopular, took away suffrage for status Indians

1. John A. MacDonald (1867-73, 1878-91, Conservative)

• Pros: Country's first prime minister. Winner of 6 majority governments, popular with both English- and French-speaking Canadians. Incorporated Rupert's Land into Canadian territory. Added Northwest Territories, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, and British Columbia to confederation. Put down Red River Rebellion and Northwest Rebellion. Established Northwest Mounted Police (now RCMP), built national railway, fostered a national identity. Nation-building with National Policy
• Cons: alcoholic, Pacific Scandal. Execution of Louis Riel in 1885 alienated French-Canadians

That about does it. Check back again soon when I rank all US presidents.

Top 10 Biggest Military Winners of Modern History

So remember way back in December of last year when I published the “Top 10 Biggest Military Losers of Modern History” list? Well, I figured it'd be fun to write a companion list to that spotlighting the most successful wartime nations. My feelings about war only making losers out of societies (i.e. there are no winners) still stands, so for this list I'm ranking it based less on lives lost/territory won and more on the nation's consistency of strategic/tactical victory. Maybe that's why I've found this list so much harder to compose than the top 10 losers list. As with last time, only conflicts taking place after 1800 will be counted. And as always, this list is simply my take on things: disagree, if you wish.

Honourable Mentions: Vietnam, South Korea, and Russia/USSR even though they were on the top 10 losers list. What can I say? Russians: they win big, they lose big.

10 – Cuba

After twice failing to expel their Spanish overlords (in 1878 and 1880) the Cuban people finally achieved independence in 1898 with American help. After half a century of several uprisings and US interventions, Cuba's government – then headed by the corrupt Bautista regime – came under the control of Fidel Castro's revolutionaries in 1959, taking much of the world by surprise. In 1961, a combined force of American CIAgents and Cuban exiles invaded at the Bay of Pigs, hoping to initiate an uprising against Castro. This invasion failed and became a major embarrassment to US foreign policy. Since then, the Cuban military has attempted both to export their model of popular uprising and to intervene in revolutionary struggles around the world, sometimes successfully (Nicaragua, Angola, Ogaden War) and sometimes unsuccessfully (Congo, Bolivia, Ethiopia).

9 – Prussia

I guess I'm cheating a little bit here by ignoring Prussia's history after 1871, but the Prussians played a huge role in how modern armies and strategies are formed and maintained. Prussia was on the losing side of the War of the Fourth Coalition against Napoleon, resulting in the loss of one-third of its territory and its subjugation to the French. But after defeating Napoleon's France with the Sixth and Seventh Coalitions by 1815, Prussia was granted a huge amount of territory in Westphalia, Saxony, and the Rhineland (which included the industrial centres of the Ruhr). Over the next half-century, the Kingdom of Prussia's political and economic influence swelled to make it the dominant German state of the 19^th century. After losing the First Schleswig War (1848-52) to Denmark, Prussia rallied back with three astounding victories against Denmark (1864), Austria (1866), and finally France (1870-1). It was after the war against France that the German states became united under Prussian leadership to become the German Empire, which lasted until 1918.

8 – India

In the early 19^th century, India was more-or-less run by the British East India Company. It was under Company Rule that India scored numerous victories against the Persians, the Sikhs, and the Chinese while suffering few losses. But following the Indian Mutiny of 1857, the British army dissolved the Mughal and Maratha Empires, bringing all of India under the direct governance of the crown. And so for the next 89 years, the rampaging Indians took part in a spectacular stream of conflicts putting down rebellions, expelling raiders, and expanding their territory. India also served in a multitude of colonial wars for their British masters, including both World Wars, the Russian Civil War, and the Turkish War of Independence. Since gaining their own independence in 1947, India has participated in several limited/regional conflicts with mixed success. For example, India lost to China in 1962 but won against Pakistan in 1971.

7 – Australia and New Zealand

Yeah, I know anyone from Australia or New Zealand reading this (like that'll ever happen) is going to be pissed that I've lunked both countries together, but their war records are so similar – and admittedly, I'm not terribly familiar with either nation's history in particular – that I can't separate them. In fact, both countries' troops served together in the combined ANZAC Corps of the First and Second World Wars. Not only that, but most of their wars were victories. Both countries served their British masters in the Second Boer War, the Boxer Rebellion, and both World Wars. After achieving full independence, both nations were involved in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and the Afghanistan War. The only major difference I can see between the two is that Australia took part in the Iraq War while New Zealand did not. I guess the Australians are the more bloodthirsty of the two.

6 – The United States

Everyone today knows about the seemingly worldwide US hegemony of the mid/late 20^th century, but their international exploits have not always been successful or well-received. Both World Wars were unquestionable wins, and many Americans today dubiously claim that the victories were entirely of their country's doing. The Korean War was technically a stalemate, but I'm willing to count it as a win because the US war aim of preserving the government of the Republic of Korea was achieved. Conversely, the Vietnam War was a loss because the US's goal of preserving the Republic of Vietnam's government was not achieved. The US saw successes against Grenada, Panama, Iraq (twice), Somalia, and Yugoslavia. And yet immediately after this time, US forces became bogged down in lengthy wars against insurgents in places like Iraq and Afghanistan (twice). However, I do think the USA's military success in the Americas are exceptionally impressive and deserve much more attention. Through the various Indian Wars (which lasted until 1924), Washington DC extended its sovereignty from sea to sea. American territory was massively expanded with very few setbacks (those being the War of 1812 and Red Cloud's War). Moreover, the defeat of Spain in 1898 not only awarded the US with the Philippines and Guam, but more importantly it gave the United States free reign over the republics of Central America and the Caribbean. It was in these countries between 1898 and 1934, US forces staged no fewer than 29 interventions, coups, and occupations in what are now known as the Banana Wars. Oh yeah, there was also that US Civil War; Americans were on both sides so that means the Americans won! And lost. If nothing else, the United States does deserve credit for maintaining one of the largest, best financed, and most advanced militaries in world history.

5 – Canada

Aw yeah, girl! You knew Canada had to be on this list somewhere. So since confederation, Canada had to defend its own turf from the Fenian Raids (from the US) and the Northwest Rebellion (1885). As a loyal member of the British Empire, the Dominion of Canada participated in the Sudan Campaign, the Second Boer War, and the First World War. After attaining independence in 1934, Canada's armed forces fought in the Second World War, Korean War, Gulf War, Bosnian War, Kosovo War, and the Afghanistan War: all of them victories. In fact, I think the only loss that Canada's army ever suffered was during the Russian Civil War, and that was probably because our troops didn't really get to do anything and were denied the opportunity to wreak the havoc they so dearly craved.

4 – The United Kingdom

No nation in modern history has been involved in more wars than the UK. For the past 200+ years, Britain's armed forces have been one of the most powerful in the world, thanks to its historically outstanding navy and its experienced, professional army. After losing the Wars of the 3^rd, 4^th, and 5^th Coalition against Napoleon's France, victory finally came in 1815 with the 6^th and 7^th. During the 19^th century, the British Empire expanded – often by conquest – to become the largest empire in world history. By the early 20^th century, the Union Flag was flying over such places as India, Sudan, Egypt, and South Africa: “from Cairo to Cape Town” as was often said. Some wars were fought within the context of colonial competition; i.e. showing off to the other European empires. These sometimes went well (the Crimean War, the Opium Wars), sometimes not so much (First Anglo-Afghan War, the First Boer War). The UK was one the key victors of both World Wars, and despite the Empire reaching its territorial zenith in 1922 the seeds of decline had already been sown. The country was more-or-less bankrupt and the war efforts of the colonies/dominions gave rise to nationalist movements everywhere. British forces notably withdrew from places like Ireland, Palestine, and Egypt just to name a few. Most withdrawals went OK, but the Aden Emergency was a disastrous exception. Other conflicts during the post-war period included the Korean War (a stalemate/win, depending on how you see it), the Suez War (a costly win), the Cyprus Emergency (a costly win), the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War, and the Iraq War. Postwar British forces have had exceptional success in counterinsurgency operations in places like Dhofar, Malaya, and Kenya. During both the Troubles in Northern Ireland (1968-98) and the Falklands War (1982), Britain successfully defended her territories from terrorists and invaders. Despite recent problems with financing and under-staffing, the British armed forces retains its enviable reputation as an impeccably trained and professional fighting machine.

3 – Israel

The day after declaring its independence in May 1948, Israel was forced to defend itself against a huge coalition of Arab nations. But this coalition was poorly coordinated and was defeated easily. The young nation quickly organized itself as a tightly regimented society, ready to respond in the event of a crisis by mobilizing its substantial reserves. The go-to strategy that emerged was one of a quick and devastating attack (led by air power and fast-moving armour) to eliminate any Arab threat. Israel swiftly defeated Egypt in the Suez War of 1956, but was made to give up its gains. Twice more – in 1967 and 1973 – Israel duked it out with Arab coalitions, and twice more Israel won, albeit at a progressively higher cost each successive time. During these wars, Israel's borders had expanded to include all territories of the former (British) Mandatory Palestine, including the land allotted to the Palestinian Arabs under United Nations resolutions. This nearly 50-years-long occupation has been the source of an incredible amount of unrest – with the two Intifadas from the Palestinians and the multiple crackdowns/supressions from the IDF – which Israeli troops typically win. Elsewhere, Israel's forces have been involved in wars in Lebanon (1982, 2006) with mixed success. Still, when it comes to conventional war nobody does it better than Israel.

2 – Ireland

For decades Irishmen had volunteered for the British military in such conflicts as the Napoleonic Wars and the First World War. But the Irish War of Independence in 1919-22 resulted in most of Ireland becoming its own republic. Immediately after this, the new country was engulfed by a brief civil war. The most well-known Irish conflict of the 20^th century was the Troubles, in which Irish republican terrorists and Ulster loyalist terrorists slugged it out over the political status of Northern Ireland while security forces from both the UK and Republic of Ireland tried keeping things under control. After nearly 30 years of turmoil, both sides called it a stalemate. In the meantime, Irish forces had participated in UN operations in Somalia and East Timor. The republic has yet to lose its first war.

1 – Brazil

Brazil is one of those countries that, as far as I can tell, has never lost a war. Ever since winning independence from Portugal in 1824 Brazil has put down numerous rebellions, participated in both World Wars, and fought in a multitude of regional wars against countries like Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay: and always on the winning side. No wonder they have such a big country.

Top 10 Biggest Military Losers of Modern History

You may not have known this, but I'm a pretty big fan of modern history. From growing up with history books and studying it in university, I love learning about past cultures and ideas, and I am especially intrigued by the history of armed conflict. Scarcely a week goes by where I don't read a book or watch a movie about some past struggle. What I find curious, though, is that you'll often see the great debate about “which civilization has won the most wars throughout history”, when hardly anyone ever asks about who has lost the most. So that's what I'm here to discuss today.

Now before we begin, I'd just like to make clear that when it comes to war there are no winners, only losers; it's just that some states lose more than others. So for this reason, my list here takes human and material losses into account as well as the level of tactical/strategic victory achieved versus the sheer number of conflicts outright lost. This list will focus only on wars (not including internal coups or rebellions) fought after 1800, for two reasons: first is that most of today's countries didn't exist back then and, second, because this is the era of history I'm most familiar with. And as always, this is just a matter of opinion, so feel free to disagree.

Dishonourable mentions: Bulgaria, Finland, Germany, Iraq, Italy, Syria

10 – Hungary

In 1848, Hungarian nationalists started a revolution to gain independence from the Austrian Empire. After nearly succeeding, they were crushed once the Russians decided to lend Austria their aid. Later, Hungary became a semi-autonomous kingdom within the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It was in this state that Hungary sided with the Central Powers of the First World War. After losing in November 1918, the empire was broken up. The newly independent state of Hungary was defeated the following year in a brief war against Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Serbia. Hungary sided with the Axis forces during the Second World War and participated in the invasion of the USSR. It didn't go well; the Soviet Army turned the tide, Hungary suffered heavy casualties, Hungary's government tried to surrender, the Nazis then staged a coup, set up a puppet government, and occupied the country. The Soviets invaded Hungary, laid siege to Budapest, and conquered it in February 1945. In 1956 the Hungarians rebelled against continued Soviet domination, but the uprising was violently crushed. The nation remained under occupation until 1991.

9 – Austria

Between 1792 and 1809, Austria lost no less than four wars to the French who twice occupied Vienna. Austria finally beat France in 1814. But the French – with some Sardinian and Italian help – got their revenge by defeating Austria in 1859 in the Franco-Austrian War. Defeat again came at the hands of the Prussians during the Austro-Prussian War of 1866. After arguably initiating the First World War, Austria-Hungary took the side of the Central Powers. It suffered total defeat in November 1918, losing much of its territory. After being annexed by Nazi Germany in 1938, the Austrians fought as part of the Third Reich during the Second World War. The nation lost once again and was under Allied occupation until 1955. Since then Austria has remained strictly neutral in international affairs. And really, who can blame them?

8 – France

Although Napoleon's France conquered and commanded much of Western and Central Europe in the early 19^th century, the First French Empire met its end at Waterloo in 1815. Under imperial ambitions, the Second French Empire, under the leadership of Napoleon III, invaded Mexico in 1861. Unable to cope with the Mexicans' guerrilla warfare tactics, the French withdrew in 1867. Not long after – in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1 – an alliance of German states swiftly crushed and humiliated the French army and occupied the country's northern half. Although France was on the winning side of the First World War, the victory's human, material, and economic cost was so devastating that most Frenchmen today consider it a loss. During the Second World War, the German blitzkrieg forced the Third French Republic to surrender after only a month and a half of combat. The northern half of the country was again occupied, while the southern half was ruled by a collaborationist regime, which was also later occupied. Despite the bravery of various resistance groups, France was not fully liberated until the summer of 1944 when the Western allies invaded and drove the Germans out. Following WWII, France then lost two major colonies after losing long and bloody campaigns: Indochina (1946-54) and Algeria (1954-62).

7 – Russia/USSR

Russia's military history has been very up and down over the centuries. After defeating Napoleon's armies once and for all in 1815, imperial Russia spent the next century winning a multitude of wars against Turkey, Poland, Persia, Egypt, and China, but also losing in several wars against the French, the British, and (at the time, surprisingly) the Japanese. Russia entered World War One on the side of the Entente Powers, where it proved completely ineffectual. Not only did Russia lose more than two million lives and tons of territory, but the nation was totally bankrupt and on the brink of a Bolshevik revolution. From 1917 to 1922, the nation was engulfed in Civil War; i.e. Russia was on both sides, so no matter what, Russia would lose. Around three million lives were lost, and of course, the bad Russians ended up winning, forming the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The new state tried expanding its union by waging war with neighbouring states in Eastern Europe and Central Asia with mixed success. The Second World War saw the USSR capture the Baltic states, and conquer half of Poland and parts of Finland. But in June 1941, the largest invasion in human history was launched against the USSR. The Eastern Front of WWII was the largest and most destructive military confrontation ever, and by the time it ended with the capture of Berlin in May 1945 around 27 million Soviet citizens had perished. During the Cold War (which the USSR ended up losing in 1991) the Soviet Union asserted its power over its sphere of influence, successfully pacifying uprisings in Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968) and assisting in wars against Western-allied governments such as Korea (1950-3). However, its attempt at propping up the Marxist government of Afghanistan (1979-89) via invasion and occupation was a costly and unpopular mistake. Since 1991, the new Russian Federation has participated in many small regional wars, some successfully (against Moldova, Georgia, and now Ukraine), some not so much (against Chechnya and the Taliban).
Update 10Jan18: I originally mentioned here how Russia's fight against ISIS wasn't going well. But since writing this article history has proven me wrong; it looks as if ISIS is in serious trouble!

6 – Egypt

After three wars against the Ottoman Empire in the 1830's, the Egyptians had finally won their independence. But in 1882, they lost to the British who then ruled the land as a protectorate until after WWII. Egypt took a leading role in the Arab League's war against the new state of Israel in 1948 and suffered an embarrassing defeat. In 1956, Israeli, British, and French troops overpowered the Egyptian army and captured the Suez Canal in just seven days before the UN forced them to withdraw. It wasn't as bad as in 1967 when Israel again attacked and routed the Egyptians during the Six-Day War. During the Yom Kippur War of 1973, the Egyptians and Syrians made some impressive initial gains from their surprise attacks. However, the Israeli Defence Force promptly recovered and soon drove its adversaries back beyond their starting positions. Having lost no less than four wars to the same country in the span of 25 years, Egypt signed a permanent peace treaty with Israel in 1979.

5 – China

China was defeated in both Opium Wars against the British and French in 1839-42 and 1856-60 respectively. With its loss to Japan in the 1894-5 Sino-Japanese War, a severe blow was delivered against the Qing Dynasty. The anti-imperialist Boxer Rebellion of 1899-1901 was handily put down by an invasion force of Japanese, American, and various European troops. In 1931, imperialist Japanese forces overran and annexed Manchuria, and then launched a full-scale invasion of China in 1937, interrupting the civil war that began in 1927. Despite losing major territories and more than 20 million lives, the Chinese fought on. The Japanese withdrew after surrendering to the Allies in summer 1945. Less than a year later the civil war resumed, and since this was a civil war, that means that China was on both sides, thus assuring that the Chinese would lose. And wouldn't you believe, the bad side ended up winning, too: double loss.

4 – Poland

After gradually being partitioned away to other states in the 18^th century, the Poles tried many times in the 19^th century to regain their independence. At first, they cast their lot in with Napoleon's empire, but that didn't work. At the Congress of Vienna, Poland was split between the victorious Prussians and Russians. Subjugation to foreign emperors provoked a number of nationalist uprisings between 1830 and 1905, all of them ruthlessly suppressed. After the First World War, in which the Poles fought on both sides, Poland became an independent state for the first time in 123 years. Through a series of regional/local wars from 1918 to 1920 Poland managed to expand its arbitrarily-drawn borders. However, the Polish military collapsed under the weight of a joint Nazi-Soviet invasion in September 1939, sparking the Second World War. Although Polish armed forces continued to wreak havoc abroad, Poland itself was absolutely devastated by the German occupation. Despite the best efforts of the sizable Polish resistance movement, whole cities were razed and the region became the main stage for the Nazi's Holocaust. By the time the war ended, Poland's population had fallen by nearly 30%, the highest of any nation involved in WWII. Since then Poland has remained a bit more peaceful, focusing more on its commitments to its Warsaw Pact and (now) NATO brethren.

3 – Bolivia

Under the inspiration of the legendary Simon Bolivar from whom the country takes its name, Bolivia won its independence from the Spanish Empire in 1825. And it's pretty much all been downhill since. Three years afterwards, Bolivia was invaded and defeated by Peru. In 1835, the two countries formed the Peru-Bolivian Confederation. It didn't last; the confederacy was broken up after losing to the Chileans and Argentinians in 1839. Later during the War of the Pacific (1879-83), Chile again defeated a Bolivian-Peruvian alliance and was awarded with Bolivia's coastal provinces and other resource-rich territories. From 1932 to 1935, Bolivia fought against Paraguay in the costly Chaco War, which it lost despite having the larger and better equipped army. Having lost more than half of its original territory since independence due to conquest, Bolivia is today the poorest country in South America.

2 – Spain

After six years of guerrilla warfare, the Spaniards finally expelled Napoleon's Grande Armée in 1814, but the war brought about a significant social and economic upheaval of Spanish society. This turbulence resulted in Spain's overseas colonies revolting. From Boliva in 1809 to Equador in 1822, Spain lost war after war trying to keep its grip on its American territories, even going so far as (unsuccessfully) starting new wars to reconquer them. Between 1833 and 1877, Spain underwent three civil wars known as the Carlist Wars; since Spain fought on both sides, that means that Spain lost all three. After losing the Spanish-American war of 1898, Spain lost Cuba and Puerto Rico – its last remaining colonies in America – as well as Guam and the Philippines to the USA. From 1936 to 1939, Spain once again descended into civil war (possibly making it the country with the most civil wars ever!), bringing about severe destruction and numerous atrocities. Since the 1990's Spain has focused more of its attention on its NATO commitments.

1 – Turkey

By the 19^th century, the Ottoman Empire – in which Turkey was the centre – was undergoing an irreversible decline, earning its moniker as the “sick man of Europe”. In the 1800's it lost three wars each to both Russia (in 1812, 1829, and 1878) and Egypt (1832, 1839, and 1840). Also, the Greeks gained their independence by defeating the Ottoman Turks in 1827. After losing a war to Italy in 1912, the Turks found themselves in another war, this time losing to the combined forces of the Balkan League. This defeat cost the Empire nearly all of its remaining European territories. The Ottoman Empire entered the First World War on the side of the Central Powers. Its defeat in 1918 brought about the final dissolution of the empire and the occupation of Turkey. The Turks finally scored some victories from their War of Independence (1923) and the invasion of Cyprus (1974).