The Poles were better off under the Russians than under the Germans and, maybe, better off under the Russians than under the Poles.

The Poles badly need to get over themselves.

This is a tough one. The Allies, specifically the Brits, did fly suicidal missions to drop supplies off to the fighters of the underground during the Warsaw uprising. I don't see, however, how they could have intervened directly to save Warsaw.

I put this on the Soviets. They were the ones who sat behind the Vistula River because the primary resistance group leading the uprising wasn't Communist. They waited for two months while Poles were being slaughtered.

Steve:

Why were there Soviets?

Harry:

The Jews were alive under the Poles.

Harry:

I know you want to blame the Poles, but for what?

They didn't shoot themselves at Katyn, you know.

Perhaps you are feeling a bit guilty for Iron Feliks, no?

jim:

In Harry's eyes neither FDR nor Stalin ever did any wrong.

Since Germany invaded Poland, and Britain and, briefly, France sacrificed everything they had and then some to try to help the Poles, it comes with ill grace for the Poles to complain that the UK did not do enough -- 5 years later!

The answer to Steve's question is, the Russians wouldn't fight for the tsar but would for Stalin.

There are people today who say the Allied air forces should have bombed the death camps, for a net gain; and they may have a case, although bombing proved not to be a very effective weapon.

At the time, though, informed opinion was that bombing of German cities would bring an end to the war the fastest. There is no question that the war would have been ended even faster if bombers had been diverted from Germany to patroling the sea lanes in 1940-41.

There were people at the time who knew that, but they were not listened to.

Being wise after the fact is not the same as being wise.

The Poles did everything they could to make their situation hopeless. So it proved.

Screw 'em

Harry:

Wrong as to most facts, not least the relative willingness of Russians to fight for Stalin. He had to murder many and then maintain the threat to get them to fight.

I still don't see what the western Allies could have done to save the Poles of the Warsaw Uprising. All the troops were west of the Rhine - none of them could have gotten there. And supplies were so low that Patton's army had to stop.

Obviously the Poles got screwed by the Russians. Could the western Allies have somehow convinced Stalin not to screw them? How? What specifically could have been done?

Actually, the best thing the Germans could have done is retreat from Poland at the time and use them as a buffer between Germany and the Russians. But Hitler's ego or madness wouldn't let him see it.

Of course, much of the international politicking after WWII didn't help the Poles. They were written off. That's what happens when there's already several divisions of the Red Army in the country. It would have been nice to stick up for them, but the entire West was war weary.

It was ultimately geography that damned Poland, not the west.

Sure, we helped save the USSR from the Nazis...

Gee, if we'd just have let Nazis beat the Soviets, everything would have been much better for the Poles.

Brandon:

They couldn't have.

So then what difference does it make that we helped the Soviets beat the Nazis? How could anything have turne dout differently for the Poles?

The Nazis and Soviets were obsessed with each other and would gladly have slugged it out til both were wasted.

The Russians fought for Stalin. Why is immaterial.

The Poles did everything they could to make it difficult for anyone to help them. Then bitched about not getting any help.

But if you're into hypotheticals, let's suppose the Allies did something (I dunno what it could have been; Chris is right about the logistics). And the German task was stretched out.

The Poles were not going to win. Stalin was not going to move until the Germans were through.

It wouldn't have taken too much longer to have kept the war in Europe long enough to have used the atomic bomb on the Germans.

I could go for that.

Harry:

Why is immaterial? They fought so he wouldn't shoot them. You've really got to get over this Stalinophilia.

They fought and we didn't have to.

I don't care why, but I'm thankful.

But we did have to for the next fifty years, wasting tens of thousands of our lives and millions and millions of other peoples (Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodian, etc.).

Now we did have to fight the Cold War ?

Michael:

Of course, or it would have been obvious to everyone that we'd lost WWII and the fighting of it would have discredited Democrats forever.

Don't expect Orrin to be consistent, Michael.

The Russian partisans didn't fight because the NKVD squads were at the their backs.

Had we not fought, Russia would have avoided defeat and, probably, ultimately conquered Germany. Had Britain not fought, Germany would have conquered Russia.

Either result would have been worse than the one we got.

Harry:

Then why did he have to murder so many of them to get them to fight?

Lend Lease won it for them, not anyone fighting.

Without it they'd have swallowed the Germans even in defeat. You love to point out how much infantry would be needed to truly control Iraq--how much would you need to control Europe from Paris to Kamchatka?