Except it wasn't unlawful.
Yes, it was. Let me be abundantly plain with you - it was a government installed by a foreign, alien power. A change in law of a country imposed by a foreign power to suit that foreign powers own ends is not lawful, nor is it the law. That is the rational of sovereignty - a country makes its own laws. Unless there was some legal authority that was created by the native Polish government (the government in exile or it predecessor)
which provided to the effect that a foreign alien power had jurisdiction to install such foreign government and/or change the law to that end, in these particular circumstances, then it was unlawful. It matters not that foreigners said that the govt in exile was illegitimate and therefore able to be swept aside, because that is what sovereignty is all about.
The Polish state had more or less ceased to exist, and certainly the Colonel's government in London was not legitimate or lawful by any stretch of the imagination.
The government had not though. The government in exile was the native Polish government, as flawed as it may have seemed to some. There was no organic and native Polish authority for the proposition that the Govt in Exile was not lawful, simply because no such finding had been made by any judicial body with jurisdiction to do so.
And as I keep saying, their actions were in accordance with the legally implemented 1921 Constitution. Of course, it was amended to suit them, but it was all done legally in terms of constitutional theory.
I'm well aware that you keep saying it, but merely saying it is not proof of the fact that remains to be proven. You are engaging in the subtle tactic of proof by verbosity. Once again - set out the placitum of either Constitution which supports your claim either prima facie or by virtue of such placitum being the head of power under which another piece of legislation was enacted.
Article "X" provides that in the event of "A" occurring, the government of the Soviet may, without reservation or limitation, install, or assist in the installation of, any form of government of any makeup whatsoever, with such government to have absolute and unchallenged authority over Poland,
Article "Z" of the Constitution is the head of power under which "Y" Act was created, with such Act (a) not being in conflict with the said Constitution; and, (b), prescribing that in the event of "A" occurring, the government of the Soviet may, without reservation or limitation, install, or assist in the installation of, any form of government of any makeup whatsoever, with such government to have absolute and unchallenged authority over Poland, pursuant to Section "W" of said Act.
I appreciate that it is convenient to base your opinion on what the Soviets said was lawful, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way.
Of course, it was amended to suit them, but it was all done legally in terms of constitutional theory.
And therein lies your petard. The Soviets and/or their puppet regime had no authority or jurisdiction to amend anything whatsoever. Again, this is what being a sovereign nation is all about. You are misconceived if you believe that in theory everything was "lawful", because the application of law to the facts is not about theory, but about actually applying laws to facts. I've asked you to do this, but you haven't, and you refuse to.
I've already explained to you how Polish constitutional theory works. The Lublin government derived its authority from the 1921 Constitution and the country functioned according to that document from 1944 to 1952. Every act on paper during that time conformed to the Constitution, and the laws passed were in accordance with it.
You've done no such thing. You've made bald assertions based on nothing it seems but
an old Communist trick of gaining legitimacy on paper.
It was no such thing.
This body organised the 1947 election, and thus gave legitimacy to the Communist government. In terms of pure law and theory, this process was legal.
I repeat, a foreign power cannot legitimise its takeover of another country by creating the matrix to which such purported legitimacy is derived. This is pure fallacy of circular cause and consequence.
And can you provide any proof that the process wasn't in accordance with the 1921 Constitution?
You misconceive my capacity and intent if you think I would be dumb enough to engage you in sipping from Russell's teapot.
If it wasn't legitimate, how could they try people today in court under the laws passed from 1945-1989?
Fallacy of affirming the consequent.
If you don't even know the principles of sovereignty, how can you talk about the subject?
This comment suggests to me you cannot either support your proposition or indeed do not know yourself what sovereignty means. I asked you to be specific and set out particulars of this supposed 'claim' of the Lublin Govt and how it accorded with your postulated concept of universaly understood sovereignty. You failed to do either, but chose to tell me that I don't know what sovereignty means and essentially 'go read a book'.
This is an excellent way to add persuasiveness to a shakey position - you've sold me.