HAHAHA so that's what they teach you in england???
English historians tend to look at what documents actually say, not what they want those documents to say (as historians from a certain nation tend to do).
If Churchill and Roosevelt did, and from what I read they did seem to be hoodwinked by Stalin for a time, then they don't deserve to be called "great politicians" or "leaders".
Make your mind up: either they mistakenly trusted Stalin (not that they were in a position to do anything even if they didn't trust him) or they betrayed Poland (and then made sure the agreement they signed made no mention of that); they can not have been mistaken and betrayed Poland.
You are a misplaced person, Harry. Wrong place, wrong time, You'd make a prominent Pravda correspondent. Too late, and you have to live with it.
I do love the way that I point out that you're lying through your teeth and quote the documentation that shows you are and the only way you can react is personal insults: it really shows how pathetic your lies are.
why was a new provisional government needed at all, when the fully legitimate one was alive and kicking, and had a long and successful history of cooperation with the Allies.
Given that the govt-in-exile was a self-appointed continuation of the openly anti-semitic military junta that ruled Poland in 1939, it had no more claim to be legitimate than any other government of Poland.
he was a wolf in sheep's clothing nonetheless, and forgetting about that seems like a major political blunder to me.
I'll end with another of the questions which Poles never answer: what could Britain have done to stop Poland coming under Soviet domination after the war?