The Decline of the London Government

  • George V. Kacewicz
Part of the Studies in Contemporary History book series (SICH, volume 3)


Like his British hosts, Mikolajczyk hoped that ultimately it would be possible to reach an understanding with the Soviet Union and thus to preserve Polish independence. Not all of his colleagues shared his optimism. In fact, the signs of polarization within his government were becoming increasingly apparent. During a Cabinet debate on the demarcation line between the Soviet Union and Poland, which Mikolajczyk agreed in February should run east of Lwow, two Socialist Ministers, Ludwik Grosfeld and Jan Kwapinski, refused to support the motion. Many officials in Polish circles suspected that Mikolajczyk was going a little too far to accommodate himself to the British and Soviet points of view. The two viewpoints with regard to Soviet demands which always had been present within the Polish government, and to a lesser degree among the Poles in Great Britain, became more pronounced in the winter of 1944. One side, favoring concessions to the Kremlin if reconciliation were possible, was led by Mikolajczyk, with a majority of the Peasant Party and a sprinkling of Socialists. The other side maintained that concessions would be ineffectual and if they must be made, the Kremlin should reciprocate with concrete concessions of its own. This group included almost the entire armed forces, with Generals Kazimierz Sosnkowski and Wladyslaw Anders, President Wladyslaw Raczkiewicz, former Foreign Minister August Zaleski, former Polish Ambassador to France Juliusz Lukasiewicz, a majority of the Socialists, all the National Democrats, and a faction of the Peasant Party under Zygmunt Nagorski.1


Prime Minister Polish Underground Foreign Minister Territorial Integrity Socialist Party 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Waclaw Jedrzejewicz (ed.), Poland in the British Parliament, 1939–1945, (New York: Jozef Pilsudski Institute of America for Research in the Modern History of Poland, 1946), p. 324. See also: Witold Babinski, Przyczynki Historyczne od Okresu 1939–1945, Historical Sources, 1939–1945 (London: B. Swiderewski, 1967), p. 456.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stettinius to Cordell Hull, Washington, June 12, 5944, Foreign Relations of the United States (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office 1955–1963), 1944, III, pp. 1280–82. Cited hereafter FRCS. In Mikolajczyk’s report to the State Department on his conversations with Roosevelt he noted “The President said that at the Teheran Conference he had made it clear that he held the view that the Polish-Soviet conflict should not be settled on the basis of the so-called Curzon Line.” Washington, Juny 12, 1944 (GSHI, PRM-Z, 3), General Sikorski Historical Institute, Documents on Polish-Soviet Relations, II (London: Heinemann, 1967), No. 141. Cited hereafter DPSR.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    London, June 21, 1944 (GSHI, PRM-L, it), DPSR, II, No. 147.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anthony Eden, The Reckoning(Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1965), pp. 539–540.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moscow, June 24, 1944, Stalin’s Correspondence with Churchill, Attlee, Roosevelt and Truman, 1941–1945, Vol. II (New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., 1958), No. 206. Cited hereafter Correspondence.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    The Polish Committee of National Liberation, or Lublin Committee, was the offspring of a united coalition made up of the Polish Communist Party, the Union of Polish Patriots and the National Council of the Homeland. The Polish Workers’ Party (PPR), or Communist Party, outlawed by Pilsudski in the 193os and dissolved by the Communist International in 1938 was reconstituted in January 1942. (Those members of the Party who sought refuge in the Soviet Union during the interim were either “physically liquidated or sent to various concentration camps.” M.K. Dziewanowski, The Communist Party of Poland, 2nd edit. (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1976), pp. 149, 154). The Union of Polish Patriots (UPP) whose membership included several communists was formed within the Soviet Union in March 1942. Set up to compete with the exiled government for leadership of the Polish nation, the group declared on June 23, 1944 that the authority of the Polish government in London was based on the undemocratic 1935 Constitution and therefore by definition the Polish government was unrepresentative. On January 1, 1944 the National Council of the Homeland (KRN) was created as a counterpart to the Polish Underground. With the founding of this group the rivalry between the London government and the UPP was complete each directed the operation of their separate Underground movements from outside Poland. When the Soviet army entered Poland, the UPP and KRN on July 21, 1944 combined to form the Committee of National Liberation and prepared to assume the administration of the liberated territory. The Committee remained in the city of Lublin until the Soviet armies entered Warsaw in January 1945, hence the more familiar reference to the Lublin Committee.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moscow, July 25, 1944. Corespondence, I, No. 301.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    London, July 27, 1944, DPSR, II, No. 171.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moscow, July 28, 1944, Correspondence, I, No. 306.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    History of Soviet Foreign Policy, B. Ponmaryov, A. Gromyko, V. Khvostov, eds., (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969), p. 448. See also: A.N. Shimansky “Liberation of Poland” in Liberation Mission, A.A. Grechko, ed., (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 86 and Aleksander Skarzynski, Polityczne Przyczyny Powstania Warszawskiego (Political Causes of the Warsaw Uprising) (Warsaw: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1964), p. 20, 26, 36. Starzynski notes that since Britain was on the verge of losing her Empire, she attempted to compensate by establishing herself in Eastern Europe. The plan to invade the Balkans is cited as part of her strategy.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mikolajczyk-Molotov conversation, Moscow, July 31, 1944 (GSHI, PRM-Z, 4), DPSR, II, No. 177. Aside from an Izvestia comment of August 9, that Stalin received Mikolajczyk, the Soviet Documents include no entries on the August visit.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mikolajczyk-Stalin Conversation, Moscow, August 3, 1944 (GSHI, PRM-Z, 4), DPSR, II, No. 180.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Edward Rozek, Allied Wartime Diplomacy: A Pattern in Poland, (New York: John Wiley Sons, Inc., 1958), p. 243 and DPSR, II, Note 186, p. 769.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    London, August 31, 1944, (GSHI, A. s 1.49/Sow./ 14), DPSR, II, No. 219. For a discussion of Mikolajczyk’s conversation with the Lublin Committee by sources in Poland, see Stanislaw Zabiello, o Rzad i Granice (Government and Frontiers) (Warsaw: Pax. 1965), pp. 216–217 and Wlodzimierz Kowalski, Walka diplomatyczna o miejsce Polski w Europie 1939–1945 (Diplomatic Struggle for Poland’s Place in Europe 1939–1945) (Warsaw: Ksiazka i Wiedza, 1966), pp. 430–431. The description of these conversations correspond exactly with Western sources. Kowalski’s attitude toward the London Poles is the least biased of all sources surveyed.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stanislaw Mackiewicz Britain and Poland in October 1945 (Published in London by the author in 1945), PP 2–3.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mikolajczyk-Stalin Conversation, Moscow, August 9, 1944, (GSHI, PRM-Z, 4), DPSR, II, No. 189.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Quoted in Llewellyn Woodward, British Foreign Policy in the Second World War, III (London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1971), p. 209.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Quoted in Jozef Garlinski, Poland, SOE and the Allies, trans. Paul Stevenson (London: George Allen and Unwind Ltd., 1969), P. 233. Statistic on number deported or executed in Polskie Sily Zbrojne w Drugiej Wojnie Swiatowej (The Polish Armed Forces in the Second World War), Vol. III: Armia Krajowa (The Home Army), (London: General Sikorski Historical Institute, 1950), p. 926.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    During August and September the Germans killed or took nearly 200,000 Poles, one-fifth of the population of Warsaw; Stalin rejected, with no excess of cordiality, pleas that Russia should help; Roosevelt, with the election imminent, did not exert himself unduly; the War Cabinet in London fumed at their own impotence. Churchill, half-regretting afterwards that they had not threatened to cut off the northern convoys, wrote that `terrible and even humbling submissions must at times be made to the general aim.“’ The Diaries of Alexander Cadogan, David Dilks, ed., (London: Cassell and Co., 1971), p. 653. Cited hereafter Cadogan Diaries. posais to the Lublin Committee for I am of the firm opinion that if reasonableGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roosevelt to Mikolajczyk, Washington, August 24, 1944 (GSHI, PRM-L, 49/208), DPSR, II, No. 209.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schoenfeld to Secretary of State, London, August 3o, 1944, FR US, 1944, III, pp. 1215–17.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pilsudski Institute of America (New York), Archives, quoted in Jedrzejewicz, III (New York: Jozef Pilsudski Institute of America for Research in the Modem History of Poland, 1962), P- 39.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tadeusz Bor-Komorowski, The Secret Army (London: Victor Golancz, 1950), pp. 326–27.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Babinski, pp. 447–48. See also: Polskie Sily Zbrojne w Drugiej Wojne Swiatowej, (The Polish Armed Forces in the Second world War), II, Pt. 2, (London: General Sikorski Historical Institute, 1959), p. 850. This group was composed of representatives of the four political parties.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dispatch to Commander of the Home Army, July 11, 1944, DPSR, II, Note 153, p. 758. Constitutional provisions concerning the powers of the President enumerated in Article 13 Section 2(b) to appoint and dismiss the Commander-in Chief assured the legality of this action. However, when Sosnkowski was dismissed as a successor to the presidency, Rackiewicz’s constitutional power appeared questionable. Section 2(d) of Article 13 gave him only the power to appoint his successor in time of war. No mention was made of the power to remove his successor. Raczynski, pp. 228–37; Babinski, pp. 290–91 and 428–56. See also: Schoenfeld to Secretary of State, London, September 28, 1944, FR US, 1944, III, p. 1319.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    The Economist. May 13, 1944.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    The New York Herald Tribune, May 16, 1944. The article reprinted in the Sunday Times on May 21, provoked a retort a week later by the Dean of Chichester, Duncan Jones: “If there existed advocates of an anti-Soviet coalition why had they rejected Hitler’s offer of alliance?”Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Churchill-Mikolajczyk conversation. Romer, Raczynski and Cadogan also present. London, November 2, 1944, (GSHI, A.12.49/15), DPSR, II, No. 257.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mikolajczyk to Churchill, London, October 9, 1944 (GSHLAl2.49/WB/Sow/5), DPSR, II, No. 236.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Moscow Conference. Those present included: Stalin, Molotov, Churchill, Eden, Mikolajczyk, Romer and in the capacity of observer Harriman. Moscow, October 13, 1944 (GSHI, PRM-Z, 5), DPSR, II, No. 237. See also Harriman to Schoenfeld, Moscow, October 16, 1944, FR US, 1944, III and Dokumenti i materialii po istorii Sovietsko-Polskhich otnochenii (Documents and Material relating to Soviet-Polish Relations) Vol. VIII (1943–1945) (Moscow: Nauka, 1974), No. 143 (October 13). Cited hereafter DMISPO.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    For a discussion of the origin of the Curzon Line and its delineations of lines ‘A’ and ‘B’ as pertaining to the city of Lwow and Eastern Galicia, see Woodward, II, pp. 657–662.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Moscow, October 14, 1944 (GSHI. A.1149/Sow/4–6), DPSR, II, No.239. See also: DMISPO, VIII, No. 144.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Moscow, October 57, 5944 (GSHLA55.49/Sow/4–6),DPSR, II, No. 245.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zabiello, pp. 233–34. See also: DPSR, II, Note245, p. 785 and DMISPO, VIII, No. 150.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Quoted in Rozek, p. 294.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Edward Raczynski, In Allied London(London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1962), pp. 197–198.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Parliamentary Debates (Commons) October 27, 1944, Vol. CCCIV, Cols. 493–95.Google Scholar
  38. 39.
    Raczynski, pp. 142–43. See also: Schoenfeld to Secretary of State, London, November 9, 1944, FRUS, 1944, III, pp. 1331–32.Google Scholar
  39. 40.
    Letter from A. Cadogan to Romer stating the British position on the Polish governments’ requests of October 31, London, November 2, 1944 (GSHI. A.XII.3183), DPSR, II, No. 256. See also: Schoenfeld to Secretary of State, London, November 9, 1944, FRUS, 1944, III, p. 1331; and Woodward, p. 312.Google Scholar
  40. 41.
    For an account of Soviet treaty violations see: Jan F. Triska and Robert M. Slusser, The Theory, Law and Policy of Soviet Treaties (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1962).Google Scholar
  41. 42.
    Raczynski, p. 244 “Like a big sheep-dog, watchdog rather, he (Churchill) barked imperiously at his Polish flock, who were spared neither warning bites not shafts of sarcasm.” P. 240.Google Scholar
  42. 43.
    The article went on to state: “Moscow maintains that there are no reasons whatsoever to doubt Stalin’s good intentions to establish a free and independent Poland… But Russia forgets its relations with Hitler from 1939–1941.” October 13, 1944.Google Scholar
  43. 44.
    Conversation between Mikolajczyk and Churchill, Romer, Raczynski and Cadogan also present. London, November 2, 1944, (GSHI.A.12.48/15), DPSR, II, No. 257. Cadogan recorded: “Poles have done nothing. They didn’t even have a Cabinet today. They really might have. P.M. (Churchill) knocked them about badly and rightly. Finally gave them 48 hours in which to say yes or no. Think that’s right.” Cadogan Diaries, p. 667.Google Scholar
  44. 48.
    Eduard, Benes, Memoirs: From Munich to New War and New VictoryTranslated by Godfrey Lias, (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1954), pp. X84–85.Google Scholar
  45. 49.
    Roosevelt to Mikolajczyk, Washington, November 17, 1944, FRUS, 1944, III, pp. 1334–35.Google Scholar
  46. 51.
    Winant to Secretary of State, London, November 23, 1944, FRUS, 1944, III, p. 1336.Google Scholar
  47. 52.
    Wladyslaw Malinowski, Najnowsza Historia Polityczna Polski, 1864–1945 (Recent Political History of Poland 1864–1945), Vol. III, Pt. 2. (1939–5945) London: Gryf Printers, 1960), P815.Google Scholar
  48. 58.
    The Quest for a Philosophy of Foreign Affairs,“ in Contemporary Theory in International Relations, ed. Stanley Hoffmann (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-hall, Inc., 1960), p. 82. ”Churchill, at the end of the war at least, was warned by the Russian army’s advance into the center of the continent. But neither Roosevelt nor Churchill were convinced that a country liberated by the Red army was sooner or later going to be a Soviet satellite. They were not convinced because they were not informed“Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishers bv, The Hague 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • George V. Kacewicz

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations