Wasn’t there a change in leadership from Chamberlain to Churchill during WW2 which allowed the British to better counter Naziism?
Edit: y’all are reading too much into this. OP said: “History has proven repeatedly that a change in leadership during war tends to end poorly.” Which is factually inaccurate as a statement.
That wasn’t really into the war though. It was barely at the start and it was done without an election. I think that’s very important context for the example, not really the same thing as what OP was referring to.
Sorry, but this is becoming a history discussion now.
Chamberlain getting removed was after Britain’s failed attempt to stop the Nazi invasion of Norway. Boots on the ground and everything. They were very much into the war.
Either way, OP made the claim about what history can show, it’s their responsibility to back it up. We’re the ones attaching recent context to Ukraine because of the post, but OPs claim said historically.
And there are many examples when changing of leadership actually helped during war (again, not referencing recent context).
You are avoiding all the context. There were no invading troops in the UK. As others have said, there was apparently no election, which means subversive groups can’t rely on populism to get in power. He also said “repeatedly tends to go poorly,” not “always ends poorly.” Your one counter-example does nothing to disprove his statement.
Again, it’s not about me disproving OPs claim because 1) people making the claim need to back it up, and 2) it’s still factually incorrect on both accounts (repeatedly or always).
There were no invading troops in the UK. As others have said, there was apparently no election, which means subversive groups can’t rely on populism to get in power.
If we’re being that specific and the audience assuming context (invading + elections), then historically there is no record for OP to make the generalized statement of it being repeatedly bad. So it’s either a general statement or very specific to this context (which others claim but only OP can tell us) and neither of those work even.
I get that people want to defend Ukraine, I’m not disputing that. I’m literally saying that someone is referencing history incorrectly.
They weren’t partpy occupied during that time and not really fighting German troops on the ground. It’s a completely different situation in Ukraine right now.
The title is somewhat true. History has proven repeatedly that a change in leadership during war tends to end poorly.
Wasn’t there a change in leadership from Chamberlain to Churchill during WW2 which allowed the British to better counter Naziism?
Edit: y’all are reading too much into this. OP said: “History has proven repeatedly that a change in leadership during war tends to end poorly.” Which is factually inaccurate as a statement.
Chamberlain resigned, leaving Churchill to take over. There was no election.
I’m not a historian, I don’t know who is correct.
That send, “tends to” does not mean always, so giving a single counter example doesn’t mean the original statement is incorrect.
That wasn’t really into the war though. It was barely at the start and it was done without an election. I think that’s very important context for the example, not really the same thing as what OP was referring to.
Sorry, but this is becoming a history discussion now.
Chamberlain getting removed was after Britain’s failed attempt to stop the Nazi invasion of Norway. Boots on the ground and everything. They were very much into the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_campaign
Either way, OP made the claim about what history can show, it’s their responsibility to back it up. We’re the ones attaching recent context to Ukraine because of the post, but OPs claim said historically.
And there are many examples when changing of leadership actually helped during war (again, not referencing recent context).
You are avoiding all the context. There were no invading troops in the UK. As others have said, there was apparently no election, which means subversive groups can’t rely on populism to get in power. He also said “repeatedly tends to go poorly,” not “always ends poorly.” Your one counter-example does nothing to disprove his statement.
Again, it’s not about me disproving OPs claim because 1) people making the claim need to back it up, and 2) it’s still factually incorrect on both accounts (repeatedly or always).
If we’re being that specific and the audience assuming context (invading + elections), then historically there is no record for OP to make the generalized statement of it being repeatedly bad. So it’s either a general statement or very specific to this context (which others claim but only OP can tell us) and neither of those work even.
I get that people want to defend Ukraine, I’m not disputing that. I’m literally saying that someone is referencing history incorrectly.
They weren’t partpy occupied during that time and not really fighting German troops on the ground. It’s a completely different situation in Ukraine right now.
Getting rid of a gullible idiot for a hardass is very different from potentially removing an effective leader for a possible Russian patsy.