Respectfully,
I was being sarcastic yes, but sarcasm maybe cynical, not disrespectful.
Said that... saying that in alternative history there are no right or wrong... is wrong per se. Alternative history is not science fiction. Some things are plausible, some are possible, some are plain wrong. What we are trying to point clear issues with the UK background, often sharing data and personal knowledge. I think plenty of us invested in this project because they hoped for a realistic RPG that depicts a plausible WW3 rather than a fanciful story. Otherwise, you can simple say someone from the future opened a portal to allow a new Soviet Army created from radioactive dust to invade UK. And before you say I am too sarcastic... it is not an attack on the writers, it is just a mention of Harry Turtledove book in which South African white supremacist time travel to give AK-47 to the confederate army... that was sci-fi non alternate history (despite him trying to pass it for the latter). Alternate History is Chris Perello in an old Command Magazine discussing the opportunity for Lee to implement is 2nd Day plan at Gettysburg and its possible outcomes. There are rights and wrongs in alternate history.
Funnily enough I had a similar discussion eons ago with a student who was wanted to write an alternate history dissertation. It was a bit over the top, with the classic novel approach of 'this is the bright move and the opponent will not react in any way to spoil it' and me and other teacher finally persuaded him to focus on a more focused work analyzing axis chances of a successful implementation of Operation C3/Herakles (the invasion of Malta). But there are definite dangers of starting with alternate history and ending in science fiction.