this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2026
131 points (98.5% liked)

World News

57754 readers
2081 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] laz@pawb.social 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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).

[–] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

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.