The whole article is rife with problems.
"In 1422 he succumbed to the battlefield curse of dysentery and the glittering new empire fell upon the shoulders of his 10-month-old son. A mere seven years after Agincourt, war broke out."
Since Henry V died at a siege seven years after Agincourt, how could war have broken out then? Even the treaty of Troyes didn't create a pause.
Harold Godwinson didn't need a claim to the throne – it was in the gift of the Witenagamot.
Bit of a non-sequitur with the WW2 section. The number of casualties received isn't relevant to whether a country has won a war as Patton, and others before him, made clear. In fact, if that is a measure then the USA and UK are about even, with similar numbers of dead.
Britain's status as _one_ of the prime victors of WW2 is also apparent when the production figures are looked at. For instance, Britain* produced more aircraft than Germany and far more than the Soviet Union.
The comments about Yalta are also misleading.
Oddly, the article perpetuates a different myth – that Britain stood alone through part of 1940 and 1941. This ignores the crucial contribution of the Commonwealth which included several sovereign states.
(On which note, British production figures do include significant numbers from Canada and some lesser amounts from other parts of the Commonwealth).
tackles a 