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.
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.
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.
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.
If Russia could successfully hack the voting machines, stuff the ballot boxes, or otherwise cheat in the election, they could elect someone who would surrender and give up Ukrainian sovereignty and security. Or at least divide the nation enough to weaken it severely at a point when Ukraine is winning the war.
Ukraine was relatively balanced with Ukrainian and Russian candidates having a fair chance. That changed when crimea was occupied. Russia where then surprised when the most pro russian territory don't send there votes and the country votes for a pro Ukraine president. Fighting in the Donbas made the issues even worse for them.
The best thing Putin could do to insure a favourable election is stop, give the occupied regions back and see what happens.
The more you look at the history of this conflict the bigger blunder it appears to be. Yet again Russia has been toppled by a conflict it could have totally avoided.
For a bunch of kgb master mind strategists they sure cant strategise for shit lmao
That does not even come close to solving the problem
Do you truly believe that is the only way Russia could possibly interfere in the election?
Do you believe Russian would simply skip propaganda campaigns? Or do you approve of that?
Do you think the Ukrainians in occupied territories would be able to vote freely and fairly?
There are dozens of issues with holding an election while occupied, and you've thought about 1 of them
Ukraine doesn't use voting machines.
It is not sensible to have an election right now.
How does one hold an election during a war exactly??
should say when being invaded. facist type leaders love to go to war and then say that is why there should be no elections or not a good time to change things.
“It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy... I love the Republic. The power you give me I will lay down when this crisis has abated. And as my first act with this new authority, I will create a Grand Army of the Republic to counter the increasing threats of the Separatists.”
Well, it’s a reference that you’re apparently missing. I suppose I could make a more direct, nuanced comment, but I’ve learned that this circlejerk of a community has no patience for substance or actual discourse.
I’m taking a broadly anti-fascist stance and merely reacting to the anti-democratic sentiment of both Ukraine’s statements and the commentary that is prevalent in this thread. As a supporter of Ukraine generally, I’ve heard and largely dismissed the ‘fascist’ critique I’ve heard from Russia bots over the years. Not being intimately familiar with all the nuances of Ukraine culture snd history, i based this mostly on a ‘give them the benefit of doubt’ approach given that they’re the victims in this conflict.
All of that being said, if the start acting like fascists, they don’t get a hall pass just because they’re victims.
I figured that out by your posting time and other comments on your profile, cant hide what you are, scum.
By any chance, do you know how long putin is in power? More than 14 years? :O no! That sounds very facist, this cant be true!
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
The title is somewhat true. History has proven repeatedly that a change in leadership during war tends to end poorly.
save