The problem the Red Army had in Iran is that they didn't have anywhere near the presence they had in Eastern Europe -Britain had a presence as well. Plus the logistics of trying to hold an untenable position are very different from being RIGHT OVER the border from Belarus and European Russia, along with the fact that there were far fewer troops there than in Eastern Europe.
I get the bitterness over Katyn. But the Soviets were firmly entrenched in Eastern Europe in general and Poland in particular compared to their position in Iran.
4.4.In945 USA had A bomb and B.29 bombers which could not be schoot by any soviet fighter or AA gun.So,what war ? It would be one-side massacre.
Not mention,that soviet army need supply of american trucks and trains to work..Unless USA keep delivering it,they would fail even without A bomb.
You're completely ignoring the fact that the U.S. is and was not a dictatorship. In order for ANY war to be successfully fought to a victory the ongoing support of the American public is needed. The American public was not going to support the U.S. turning on an ally like that. They'd been told for years (accurately, I'd point out) how the Soviets were absorbing losses as opposed to the Western Allies.
So, tell me, how EXACTLY do you propose to get the Americans and the British to sign onto a complete about-face in Europe, keeping in mind that there's still a war with Japan going on, the U.S. has a VERY limited number of atomic weapons and took tons of precautions to ensure they didn't fall into enemy hands (that the Soviets had spies in the program is something they didn't learn until much later), the American people (who again at this point aren quite reluctant to go to war) have just sacrificed everything to defeat the Nazis, and by the way, this would mean even higher casualties once the Red Army gets moving, meaning their husbands, brothers, sons, and fathers are now facing at best a strategic stalemate.
But I'll save you the trouble: There ISN'T a way. The only way the Soviets are going to accede to a Poland they don't control on their borders is if the USSR no longer exists. And in case you've forgotten, the USSR has the same advantage the U.S. does, namely strategic depth and, in effect, the inability to be conquered. And that's leaving aside the fact that the Western Allies (with the exceptions of Churchill and Patton, who everyone else thought were nuts) knew there was no fucking way to do that.
5.Dutch goverment could go to Sumatra then,and told Japan that would supply it with oil.USA could not invade them after all-thet played good boys.
Supporting USA for Dutch was suicidal.And i do not undarstandt why they did so - we poles died in 1939 in the name of honour,but dutch care about money.They should be more practical.
What? Why would they go to Sumatra where they'd be 1) Cut off from everyone in the world who could realistically support and protect them, 2) Under threat from the Japanese, who were allied to the same Germans busy invading their home territory, and 3) Would have had no hope of ever regaining power because they'd alienate their allies.
You're suggesting they behave suicidally because (as far as I can tell) Poland fought on until it was crushed because it had honor and the Dutch didn't?
That's...quite the hot take. Now, not to demean Poland here, but getting slammed on two sides by two of the largest countries in Europe at the time (while their allies were on the far side of one of them) was never going to end well. The Germans had significant numerical and technological advantages, and the Soviets had raw numbers. Poland put up the best fight it could under the circumstances.
And the Dutch were a far smaller country, and while they were obviously much closer to Britain and France, there was no real way for them to fight back considering this was going on at the same time as the invasion of France. It was a giant mess.
Again, I get that you're bitter (and understandably so) about your country being under Soviet occupation for almost 50 years. But at the same time, you need to stop and consider the facts that there was realistically no way for the U.S. to invade, and a huge loss of life for no real gain, because not only would American support for that not exist (in fact it wasn't actually galvanized until after the Berlin Blockade and the invasion of South Korea), but also that the cost would have been a Central Europe (and Poland in particular) absolutely leveled and irradiated, not to mention susceptible to propaganda about unprovoked Western attacks (and they'd blame us for wrecking Poland, not the USSR).
So...no, sadly, there was no good outcome for Poland. Stop blaming the U.S. for something we couldn't actually do. Also, this whole "only fighting for the Soviets" and "The Americans never cared about Poland" crap is actually Communist propaganda. One can criticize FDR for being perhaps too trusting or misunderstanding the political dynamics of the USSR, but to say "he betrayed Poland" is simply something Polish nationalists tend to claim because they either don't understand military or political realities of the time, or because they DO understand but to admit that would mean admitting Poland was still in the crappy situation it had been for the past several hundred years, and that, sadly, it was inevitable another occupying power was going to be calling the shots.