Is this a random question? If so, I think that countries on the losing side of the war have already lost to the opponent for the reason they were fighting for. Is that not punishment enough? On top of that most countries that go to war could be 3rd world countries and probably can't afford to lose anything else or can afford to go to war. Respond to my answer if it were not quite what you were looking for so that I can give feedback on what you were looking for. Because your question didn't provide much to go on. :) im open to suggestions and corrections.
Weather will be the primary reason. Despite its huge size. the real habitable area is probably less than 10% of its geographical size. Even Southern Ontario is deemed by many I know to be "too cold to live". 90% of Ontario and Quebec are simply inhabitable. I also personally think the entire Manitoba and Saskachewan are not suitable for human habitation unless we can create a way to simply hibernate during the 6 month winter (why there are so few people in Montana and North Dakota?) The fact that Montreal are thrive as a vibrant metropolis is already sort of a miracle and we don't see many such large cities with such severe weather. The only other case I can think of is probably Moscow.
Richard Nixon was not a member of the committee.
Out of the choices given, the one NOT true about Napoleon Bonaparte was that he established democratic governments in the countries he conquered. The correct answer is C.
The first secretary of war is b
