A bit ASB, but Churchill fulfills his promise of fighting if the Germans invade Britain. He dies in the ruins of Parliament, still firing his gun.
If it's DeGaulle, there may be doubt over the 'friendly' part!DeGaulle insists on riding on the leading French tank into Paris …. Gets blown up by friendly allied fire
French soldiers almost turn on their allied counterparts
Churchill was not head of state, merely King George VI's Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury and parliamentary leader of the Conservative Party .Churchill literally almost got blown up by German artillery because he crossed the Rhine River in 1945 when fighting was still going on.
Guess that also rules out Stalin getting oofed at Moscow as Mikhail Kalinin was the nominal head of state of the USSR.Re Churchill, I doubt that he getting killed would count, given that technically, the UK's head of State, is the reigning monarch, not the PM. So, I suppose that the incident of the 13th of September of 1940, 'd be likely the one with the better probabilities to fit the OP request.
But shattering to morale if he is KIA in medieval times that’s how most battles were decidedI do wonder what morale effect having your head of state participating from the front (probably in an attack helicopter or fighter jet) would have on an army in the modern era---especially if that head of state was actually good at fighting. A lot of warrior caste types would respect that immensely.
The main difference with Britain it that Stalin, beyond of whatever 'd say the Soviet law, it's that at difference of the British PM, he was an totalitarian dictator....Guess that also rules out Stalin getting oofed at Moscow as Mikhail Kalinin was the nominal head of state of the USSR.
+20 war support, rally around the flag effect for their successor.I have to ask why. What does this gain a nation from having a leader at the front? Unless they were a general or admiral before being elected to leadership they wouldn't likely have any skill in leading soldiers. Modern war is incredibly complicated and isn't something that you can pick up in an afternoon or even a couple of years. Try to imagine it in a small scale. Give someone who has never done your job before your position and see how well they do.
And here's the letterDuring the run-up to D-Day, Churchill started insisting that he'd go along to watch the landings from one of the warships involved. He was only dissuaded from this when George VI said that if that would be safe enough for the PM to do then it should be safe enough for the monarch as well and he'd accompany Churchill. It's probable that this was a bluff, to get Churchill to back down, but if that had been a serious intention on George's part instead then potentially we could have lost both of them in the same incident.
(N.B. In his younger years, George had served in the Royal Navy: He was at Jutland, as a Midshipman, commanding -- IIRC -- one of the turrets on Jellicoe's flagship.)
Kemal didn't get into power until after the warKemal mustafa did he lead his troops in the Turkish Greek war ? If so it’s possible
I think many of us were going with "leader visiting the front to inspect the troops and raise morale going horribly wrong" for resolving the prompt.I have to ask why. What does this gain a nation from having a leader at the front? Unless they were a general or admiral before being elected to leadership they wouldn't likely have any skill in leading soldiers. Modern war is incredibly complicated and isn't something that you can pick up in an afternoon or even a couple of years. Try to imagine it in a small scale. Give someone who has never done your job before your position and see how well they do.
I think that the in battle part means said leader has to actually fight instead of random artillery round or someone tripping and accidentally shooting the leader or something like that. The OP's prompt seems to lean in that direction.I think many of us were going with "leader visiting the front to inspect the troops and raise morale going horribly wrong" for resolving the prompt.
President Volodimir of the Ukraine came pretty close apparently....Nowadays modern leaders are comfortable with sitting in comfortable posts and mansions while the men who rally to their cause have to face grueling and deadly conditions. What would it take for someone in a position of government to be convinced to fight and kill alongside his soldiers? Doesn't have to be limited to kings btw.
I don't think mentioning current events right now is a good idea.President Volodimir of the Ukraine came pretty close apparently....
I’d say nothing precivil warCould Napoleon I dying in battle count? Or is that too early for "industrialized era"?
Yes I’m guilty of that .. sorryI think many of us were going with "leader visiting the front to inspect the troops and raise morale going horribly wrong" for resolving the prompt.