Nothing really changes in the outcome of WW2.
Massive butterflies for anyone born after the point of divergence, though.
i recall reading somewhere that the actions of churchill actually caused ww2 to last longer.
That implies that the decision to seize the Ottoman battleships being built in Britain was a uniquely Churchillian one. It wasn't. In fact as far as I can tell it was standard practice at the time - we did the same with Chile's unfinished warships, and Chile was in no danger of coming into the war against us.Dunno about that, but I've often read that regarding WW1. I'll go ahead and claim that the fact the Ottomans entered at all was entirely his fault. Other than that, he pushed for Gallipoli instead of Kitchener's planned attack on Alexandretta, which would have crippled the Ottomans just fine.
I recon Cooper would have a shot at PM position.
i recall reading somewhere that the actions of churchill actually caused ww2 to last longer.
What if Winston Churchill (for some reason) had died in early 1930s?
In other words,the history can change for a single man?
Indeed, Churchill was the lone voice of reason in a political establishment baying for a surrender. And besides, from June 1941, The Nazis had little chance of winning the war anyway. All Britain had to do was hold out.Yes, otherwise Germany would have won faster.
Indeed, Churchill was the lone voice of reason in a political establishment baying for a surrender. And besides, from June 1941, The Nazis had little chance of winning the war anyway. All Britain had to do was hold out.