Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter against that Contracting Party, the other Contracting Party will at once give the Contracting Party engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power.
As has already been pointed out: you claimed that Britain told " Poland dates and times they would be there". The text you quote makes no mention at all of dates or times.
Look at this part,
Should the Contracting Parties be engaged in hostilities in consequence of the application of the present Agreement, they will not conclude an armistice or treaty of peace except by mutual agreement.
What's your point? The government of Poland did agree to the armistice (if you can call Germany's unconditional surrender that) and the peace treaty.
Here we go again Harry and his lies. Must be nice when you can pick and choose, which statistics I will use to prove my point?
Me and my lies? What about your own lies?
Polish pilots participating in the Battle of Britain had hundreds of hours of flying time, had been well trained before the war, they had well developed fighting tactics and were flying in loose formations. Most of all they were fighter pilots flying fighter planes, while British and Polish volunteer pilots who flew few missions to aid Warsaw Uprising from Italy (suicide missions in my opinion), were bomber pilots flying heavy bomber planes.
Firstly, they were not volunteers. They were bomber pilots who had in the main been flying combat missions for several years and so had logged thousand of hours of combat flying time. And that they flew much more dangerous missions which had virtually no chance of success in order to directly support Poland says a certain something.
Flying deep into occupied territories without escort and overloaded with supplies. The route taken was heavily defended by the enemy.
As a matter of historical fact, more planes were lost to Russian fire than to Nazi fire.
And why not mention the reason that there was no fighter escort? Might it be because the only airforce with fighters with that range was the USAAF and they decided not to bother risking their American arses? Obviously you can’t mention that, can’t dare to criticise the Americans and so shoot down your theory that the Brits are to blame for everything!
It is all the fault of the Soviets you see; after all they refused to grant us the right to use their air fields.
Which western leader wanted to just send planes anyway, even though Stalin had refused to let the bases be used? And which western leader said that “I do not consider it advantageous for me to join you in the proposed message to Uncle Joe”? Churchill wanted to just send planes anyway, Roosevelt wanted to appease Stalin. But again you can not mention that can you.
The Soviet refusal regarding the use of the air fields by the Allies for the purpose of providing aid to AK orchestrating the Warsaw uprising was the first time that global politics was being played between Soviets and western Allies to test whether or not the western Allies would keep their part of the bargain reached at Yalta conference.
Liar. The Yalta conference was in 1945. The Warsaw Uprising was in 1944. Why do you even bother telling such pointless lies?
It’s precisely this that prevented Allies from providing much needed support.
Well, that and the fact that the western airforce best equipped to resupply Warsaw made a grand total of one resupply mission.
I note that no Pole (Plastic or otherwise) has even a word to say about the despicable betrayal of Poland’s ally in 1921 and the disgraceful treatment Poles then meted out on their former allies. What a surprise.