No, the evil of war with Germany to prevent possible massacres in Poland obviously did not result in any good at all for Poland. As stated above, the attrocities commited in occupied nations were made ever more brutal because of the fact there was a war going on.
Pus, with a bit of a non sequitur, Poland even took a portion of Czechoslovakia when Germany seized the Sudetenland.
States aren`t justfied in anything. The least of which is intervening in wars an ocean away.
Germany lost the war. Thus Nazi brutality against Poland actually stopped. Had Germany not lost the war the it would not stop. We never saw the worst Nazis were capable of, because they were defeated before they could implement most of their vision.
There is no telling what social engineering programme the Nazis would enact in Poland in the safety of having won the war. They had every intention of destroying the Polish as a people.
They just as a rule did not put into motion those of their plans that would the most drasticaly harm their war effort. Eg, instead of staying true to their untermenschen doctrine they actually in some cases tried to cosy up to them and even recruit them for divisions of Waffen SS (not to be confused with Waffen SS divisions).
So in many cases occupied Eastern Europe was actually spared by the worst the Nazis had in mind by the fact there was stil a war going on and thus Germany could not afford to harm her war efforts by putting into motion designs such as Generalplan Ost, because dealing with the backlash would divert resources from the front.
So the Allies were supposed to just let Nazi Germany go through with conquering Eastern Europe? You yourself said Eastern Europe would have been worse under the Nazis. Did the Allies choose the lesser of two evils?
Show me one claiming a just war and I show you a liar.
Libertarians don`t deal in lesser evils, else we would love democracy.
What did the Allies do for Eastern Europe anyway? When the mayority of the German military was busy invading Poland, on the Rhine the French had the Germans outnumered at least 2 to 1. Instead of taking advantage of that to move and occupy the industrial heartland of Germany in Ruhrland they sat on the Maginot line playing “Phony War”.
Then in midst of the most gigantic and vicious battles the world had ever seen taking place on the Eastern Front they sat back and watched. Only opening a second front worthy of its name in June 1944, lest they bring themselves into a position they would be meeting the Soviets in Paris rather than in Berlin.
But oh yes, in the mean time they encouraged Yugoslavs to break off the free transit agreements their government had been pressured into signing with Hitler and then watched and did nothing as the country found itself a target of an invasion in retaliation. But non the less being heartened by the knowledge they had dragged Germans into a quagmire, which could only come about at the expense of civilian suffering in Yugoslavia.
I understand that, but what of the critics who hold that letting evil flourish is an immoral act in of itself.
Actually, I partially feel that way in many instances. If I saw someone being raped, I would intervene to stop such immorality.
Yes I certainly agree that the West did very little for Eastern Europe.
Yes mate, but it is impossible to combat evil while commiting it. You can not fight immorality via immoral means, because then you are fighting morality not for morality.
You would stop a rape that was taking place in front of you, but would you hunt down 50 men with families, brainwashed them in your dungeon and then sent them to patrol the streets looking to stop rapes from taking place?
Yes, the Western governments were in it for their own reasons. Not for any altrustic reasons. And they were in it for reasons that were not worthy of the sacrafices they made their citizens bear.
It was a “good war” in a sense that had it been fought as a privately funded war and for the right reasons then hordes of people would contribute their funds or bodies voluntarily, but that doesn`t justify dragging those that would not by force and for all the wrong reasons to boot.
Indeed I would not.
I agree with this.
I disagree, without the intervention of the allies, Hitler would have been removed from power far quicker.
A historical fact is that the anti-Hitler plots only came to the forefront once the tide of war had turned against Germany.
It’s also historical fact that Hitler did not make all the correct choices concerning warefare, and it’s quite forseeable Hitler himself would’ve helped contributed to his own downfall regardless.
Aside from this crystal ball nonsense regarding on if such & such ocurred is best left to the science fiction & historical revisionist writers. WWII remains unjustified, unless anyone here wants to go pop-in Minority Report & wonder if there is such a thing a super-positional pre-emptive intervention 
Which is incidentaly a part of the reason why the officers turned against him.
If we did not get involved there would be alot less good war movies though.
Good war movies ?
Yes good war movies. “Good” as in enjoyable for entertainment.
The depiction of nationalism and mass murder is enjoyable entertainment ?
Yes it can be.
It also shows personal relationships and bonds that are forged in such atrocious things.
I suppose you are going to label me some statist now that I claimed that I enjoy war movies…
All Quiet on the Western Front is about WWI yet it’s a wonderful novel.
Which I didn’t see but understand is an anti-war movie.
edit: My bad I forgot it originally was a novel, not a movie. Im Westen nichts Neues : Nothing new in the West.