http://www.polishresistance-ak.org/20%20Article.htm
    Churchill was genuinely furious at Stalin’s callous reaction to the Warsaw Rising, and in particular at the Soviets’ denial of landing facilities for the RAF. He was eager that Roosevelt* should join him in a forceful protest, and was dismayed by the President’s refusal to do so. . .

* Roosevelt was then surrounded by Harry Hopkins, Lauchlin Currie, Harry Dexter White, Alger Hiss, etc. etc. — either plain KGB agents or "fellow-travelers".
    His wife, Eleanor had been corrupted, notably by members of some "American" youth organizations. The most reliable witness may be William C. Bullitt — (ever loyal to FDR — yet was not blind to what was actually going on).
    Churchill's generally skeptical stance towards the Soviets had brought him the most vicious attacks by the marxanistic criminals in the U.S. etc.
(WPT).

Many British politicians were irritated by the frantic attempts of the Polish Government to arouse a greater sense of urgency.* The Deputy PM, Clement Attlee,** exclaimed ‘What more could we have done?’ But real anger was aroused by the Commander-in-Chief’s Order of the Day on 1 September – the 5th Anniversary of the outbreak of war – when he openly criticised Britain for repaying a loyal ally with less than fulsome support. One British minister commented: ‘The Empire has been insulted’. Few Britishers realised that the Commander-in-Chief had been personally opposed to the Rising. He was now blamed . . .

    * The "ally of our allies", i.e. USSR, had been urging an uprising — until it had actually started. Then "the ally" stood by watching the holocaust — while spreading lies about the events abroad.
    ** Mr. Attlee, head of government consisting, among others of one Ernest Bevin. Please see the activities of Mr. Bevin in 1920, his push for the recognition of the Red China, etc.. — (WPT).

In September, the most urgent item of business was to repair Poland’s rift with Moscow and thereby to increase the chances of a Soviet rescue for Warsaw.* Premier Miko³ajczyk’s revised proposals were submitted to the Foreign Office on 30 August, and were thereon transmitted to the Soviet Embassy. But once again, the Foreign Office showed no willingness to act as an honest broker or to speed a settlement. Similarly, no energy was displayed in organising the British military mission to the Home Army, even when the matter had been decided in principle.

* The 'rift with Moscow' ensued after mass graves had been discovered of thousands of Polish officers murdered in 1940 on orders by Beria, Molotov, Stalin, etc. The graves had been discovered by the German army after having invaded the erstwhile ally of 1939, the USSR, in 1941.

The Soviet then falsely blamed the "German Fascists" — (one notes that Fascism was the name of Mussolini's movement in Italy, and not of the German national version of 'socialism' ) — including specifically Goering at the Nuremberg trials. This crime had not been officially admitted by the Kremlin before ca. 1980's or so.

The considered chances of 'a Soviet rescue' had proved utterely unrealistic. All the USSR wanted was the maximum destruction of anything that was not Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist —

One notes that it has been not Germany (as many authors had surmised) but Poland who had borne the brunt of the resistance against the Bolshevik barbarism ever since 1920. Thus the Polish nation had naturally incurred an exceptional enmity on the part of the Komisars and their stooges, and their agents and, often, their dupes in the West. — (WPT).

Throughout the Warsaw Rising, British public opinion was deeply divided. A vociferous section of the left-wing press led by the Daily Herald and the Daily Worker was actively pro-Soviet, shamelessly repeating Moscow’s [propaganda]. The foreign columns of The Times, led by E.H. Carr,* followed a similar line in more guarded language. Yet most people were simply bewildered. There was no shortage of praise for Poland’s courage but equally no explanation why Allied policy was so ineffective. The underlying problems were rarely understood. And little discussion was spent on critical issues, such as Stalin’s ban on the airlift or the weeks of Soviet inactivity on the Vistula after Rokossovsky’s initial setback.** The Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, did not face prolonged or determined questioning from the House of Commons until the Rising’s very last days.

    * E. H. Carr (follower of "Harold Laski"), the author of a preface to a book by Bukharin.
    ** There had been no Rokossovsky's "initial setback" (as I have already indicated above). There had been a well-nigh inconceivable betrayal by the Soviets who had ceased any action as soon as the uprising in the city started.

Such an 'inconceivable' treachery had obviously become conceivable upon this one instance. This is perhaps the main difficulty with approaching these matters in the West : the villanies by the Kremlin-masters were such as could hardly been even contemplated by some average person in the UK, the US, others. — (WPT).

Only one powerful voice was raised against the prevailing complacency. On 1 September, George Orwell, who at the time was writing Animal Farm, published a trenchant piece to the socialist journal Tribune. He condemned the lack of principle in the press in general and in the left-wing press in particular. His immediate target was a young historian, Geoffrey Barraclough, then working at the Foreign Office. But his criticisms were aimed at the public at large whose infatuation with the Soviet Union obstructed all serious analysis.

Note The above is but a detail of the activities by the publishers of the newspaper ; it seems that the Daily Herald had been a hotbed of the criminal marxist disinformation ever since the early 1900's. (WPT).