I didn't phrase it very well. What I meant was, "Is the history of interwar British aviation unalterable? What happened, happened because it was the only way it could have happened?"
I didn't phrase it that well either, but history is written, and the people who made it, made it because that is what they did.
Vickers expressed an interest in Michel Wibault's system of all-metal construction instead of Adolph Rohrbach's system. Yes, that's him of Harrier fame, but another system. The adoption of a system did not result in a long line of aircraft using the system, because a construction system is only part of the complex design process. Knowledge of the system, where applicable, can come in handy when faced with the need. The wing structure employed by Rohrbach, patented by an employee named Baumann, I think, did find a place in a Boeing wing, but didn't change history. Rohrbach's designs were usually built on the cheap, because after his Staaken design, it was on his own dime, and they were usually fairly heavy. He lamented the lack of engine power and reliability of the period, and his designs were planned with access by a mechanic in flight, and enough engines to fly when one failed. It didn't usually work. One of his flying boats left for a trans-Atlantic flight, east to west, with Ernst Udet, Kurt Tank, and a mechanic on board, but engine/propeller failure cut that short. Had Vickers been building his designs, would they have better luck?
Why would Vickers Wellingtons be sent to the Far East in 1939? Who would do such a thing? Not the RAF, the Air Ministry or the Government. People do things that they tend to do. None of the people who existed then seemed so inclined. Maybe I just read too much about trying to find out who's to blame. I read a nice thesis about the Air Ministry and how they were not stupid at all, just ignorant. They didn't know things we know. Who is going to tell them?