I would like to point out that the food blockade as a war crime only happened AFTER WW2 ended. During WW2 it was perfectly legal.
He's the worst plausible option, as in of the half dozen or so senior figures in the Conservative Party who are acceptable to King Edward, he's the one people think was the worst choice. This is because to paraphrase some of his biographers in OTL, Churchill saw himself as a "Man of Destiny", namely someone with the answers and therefore someone who will do something, rather than sit down, shut up and make sure the professionals can do their jobs in peace
See the thing is Churchill knew how to deal with the US though. Like yeah he'd bluster but when FDR would tell him to quit the BS and such he would. If you think the man who'd be willing to parley with the devil himself if the Nazis invaded hell wouldn't do whatever it takes to get the US on his side you chose the wrong man.
Knew how to deal with the OTL US in the OTL circumstances yes, it's been 27 years since the POD for little differences to start adding up
I mean yeah I know there's differences, I just think you're underestimating what Churchill would do to get the US on his side.
I don't think I am. I think you are overestimating what Churchill will do once the US is already on his side to move the needle from begrudging to best friend
So starving people was legal?
Yet the targeted candidates complained about it. Perhaps the Feds didn't want to know.
Apparently Intrepid put this stuff in his book 🤷♂️
Ok I think I see what's going on. I was talking about Churchill doing what it takes to get the US to join as well. Not after they join the war.
1: In times of war during the era yes. It wasn't made a war crime till 1977.
William Stephenson
So after looking it up over the last hour a lot of historians that cover this seem to dispute a lot of the stuff William Stephenson claimed as fact. In fact most other books on the subject seem to take umbrage with at least some part of the book so pardon me if I'm going to take a lot of those claims as likely falseWilliam Stephenson
Britannica - William Stephenson
The Canadian who was the real life James Bond
Intrepid's Last Case chronicles the post-World War II activities of Sir William Stephenson, whose fascinating role in helping to defeat the Nazis was the subject of the worldwide bestseller A Man Called Intrepid. Sir William Stephenson (Intrepid) still stood at the center of events when he and author William Stevenson discussed in the 1980s an investigation into sudden allegations that Intrepid's wartime aide, Dick Ellis, had been both a Soviet mole and a Nazi spy. They concluded that the rumors grew, ironically, from Intrepid's last wartime case involving the first major Soviet intelligence defector of the new atomic age: Igor Gouzenko. Intrepid saved Gouzenko and found him sanctuary inside a Canadian spy school. Gouzenko was about to make more devastating disclosures than those concerning atomic espionage when the case was mysteriously terminated and Intrepid's organization dissolved. Unraveling the implications of Gouzenko's defection and Intrepid's removal from the case, tracing the steps of Dick Ellis and disclosing much new information regarding United States and Canadian postwar intelligence activities, Intrepid's Last Case is a story that for sheer excitement rivals the best spy fiction--and is all the more important because every word is true. Filled with never-before-revealed facts on the Soviet/Western nuclear war dance and a compelling portrayal of the mind of a professional spy, Intrepid's Last Case picks up where the first book ended, at the very roots of the cold war. It describes one of the most widespread cover-ups and bizarre betrayals in intelligence history. This is the incredible Intrepid against the KGB.
Japan invading Australia is basically ASB, a WW2 Gallipoli on the other hand sounds plausible but where exactly would it happen? It would need to happen before the US joins unless that's part of the grumpy co-belligerent Ramscoop was talking about. Maybe TTLs equivalent of a 43 invasion of France or the US does D-Day alone while Churchill goes for the Balkans?
Maybe he tries even harder to get the Americans to invade and retake portions of the British Empire that were lost during the war. Which in OTL America wasn't really that keen on. Or some of his weirder Balkan ideas.
Australia is pretty big though and wasn't that built up especially in the North. I thought that in our WW2, Japan could have taken Darwin in '41 or early '42 and lost it the moment the Australians managed to drive there but that's it. And that's why they focused on cutting Australia off which is where we got the Coral Sea and Guadalcanal. However if Japan actually focused on taking Darwin that would likely stop other battles and award Japan nothing so it would be Japan's Stalingrad. It could very easily end up in some good soldiers cut off and surrounded.
Your logic is sound but the grimdark setting of IJA soldiers dying in the sands of North Australia cut off from resupply and communications as their units are shattered by the Allied routing of whatver ridiculous invasion that may plausibly be launched is something I'd believe our author would do..... I don't think he is going to do it but that he could do it plausibly and with his lovely style if he wanted to c:
"Fuck it, we ball." -Some IJA general, probably.
The Army didn't have 12 divisions to spare. They'd have to pull out of Burma or part of China.
