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.
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.
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.
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.