Joe, I highly recommend the researched books of David Irving to you. He has written some of the best documented books on Hitler, Churchill, Rommel, during the WW2 era. Awesome amount of work.

Hungary versus Russian tanks 1956

the victors get to write the “real” history. a truism that always seems to be true.
if there was a major villain in the European side of WW2 my vote goes to Winston Churchill. Hitler offered several times to stop fighting and give back the land his armies had taken (with the exception of land that had been taken from Germany after the WW1 surrender). Churchill would have none of it. He wanted his war and the glory that went with it. David Irving, a Brit historian, has written WW2 histories based on interviews and diaries and source documents from the ;leaders involved. His books paint a much more believable version of history. I encourage you to read them with an open mind.

And you believe Nazis. Lol!

Thank you, Jen. This battle is close to my heart: a people giving their all to rid their land of the mighty occupier, pragmatics not considered. This is pure heroism. We saw it in Russia and Poland during WWII. That is probably its last sighting, for pro patria is its drive, and patria is alien in our ‘diversity’-centred world view.

‘… Russian command waited over the Vistula, in a still unexplained hiatus,’
 
Not unexplained at all. The Soviets were waiting for the Germans to crush the Warsaw Rising.

‘As soon as they came upon it? They committed the atrocity so no, they did not report it as soon as they “came upon it”. ‘
 
Oh, dear! You know no history at all.

“no respectable attempt”
 
And who, may I ask, is the arbiter of “respectable”? You?
 
“Your ‘forgery’ is totally speculative.”
 
Speculative perhaps but given the weight of evidence contradicting the “official” narrative, quite plausible.
 
” And your Gaddafi comparison is a canard.”
 
How so?
 
“You might recall also that the Germans reported the Katyn massacre as soon as they came upon its site. Why would they have done that if it were their doing? “
 
As soon as they came upon it? They committed the atrocity so no, they did not report it as soon as they “came upon it”.
 
You ask, why would the Nazis lie? I struggle not to break out into laughter. The Nazis were prolific liars, the phrase “the big lie” comes from them! If anything, the Nazis were incapable of telling the truth. But to answer your question, they lied to discredit the Soviet Union and to attempt to drive a wedge between the allies. It’s not rocket science.
 
“The astonishing thing is that the Germans were thought responsible for Katyn for so long, on the basis of exactly no evidence.”
 
False, there is a lot of evidence pointing to German guilt. Grover Furr has meticulously documented much of it. He’s published a book on the topic.
 
“you forget the Poles”
 
I do not. The Poles are rabidly anti-communist and have let ideology trump reason. They ignore the historical evidence proving Nazi guilt because they are ideologically invested in the narrative as is. Again, it’s not rocket science.
 

You might recall that it was the Germans who reported the Katyn massacre as soon as they came upon its site. Why would they have done that if it were their doing? The astonishing thing is that the Germans were thought responsible for Katyn for so long, on the basis of exactly no evidence.  (Churchill, of course, knew better.) But then as always in the history of a war, the victors got to write it.
 
Also, you forget the Poles, for whom Katyn remains a deep wound to the national psyche: They would have been the foremost investigators of a research that seemed to them to hold water about German guilt at Katyn. But they know the ground very well indeed. The ‘forgery’ proposal is therefore hardly likely to excite them, or anyone else.