These situations are not at all comparble, well at least objectively speaking. In the case of Poland, for example, the Polish were defending themselves from a direct invasion of their country by the forces of the Whermacht.

In the second case, it is we who are doing the attacking. Do you see the difference between "attack" and "defend"?

Your question, in the first example would be to ask the question, "is German rule worse than rule by the Polish autocrats, who were summarily evicting people of German ethnic background in a reign of ethnic cleansing against Germans living in Poland?". It is a fact. They were.

This fact in no way justified the German invasion, because war is tyrrany. The rule of the gun over law, the whim of the individual soldier, the caprice of an officer, of shameless huckstering and of making alliances with low friends in high places, and so on. In that light, yes, the tyrrany of the Taliban is far superior to "our" rule because at least it imposed order and law, however violent, whereas we have chosen to impose the supreme tyrrany, which is war itself that is by definition violence and anarchy without any real order, whatsoever.

Even worse, we also broke, on the way to our achieving near total moral corruption, while shamelssly pandering to ideals that we had no hope of living up to, broke the two cardinal rules of imperialism. One: never engage in a war you can not win. And the second, which leads to the first: "never get involved in a land war in Asia."