Talk:German–Polish declaration of non-aggression

message: Perhaps we could expand on the equal distance policy and the international situation surrounding the signing... Halibutt 05:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Funny, this one doesn't redirect from a "Nazi-Polish Alliance", eh? Talk about double standards.
* Unlike during the negotiation phase of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, during the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact negotiations the goverments of germany and poland did not plan together the invasion and the partition of other countries. Mieciu K 18:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Český Těšín with the surrounding area?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Being from area invaded by Polish forces I must support Paul Siebert's comment.  Cimmerian praetor (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: German policy changed drastically in late 1938, after the annexation of Sudetenland  sealed the fate of Czechoslovakia and Poland became Hitler's next target.
This article fails to mention that this pact served vital role in Hitler's anti-Czechoslovak policy. He later got Britain's and France's backing in Munich in 1938 and could count on Polish and Hungarian forces to join him in case of invasion to Czechoslovakia, what in fact really happened. Beneš was facing war on 3 fronts in case he wouldn't surrender the borderland, and that was one of major reasons why the fully mobilised Czechoslovak army was ordered to stand down. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 09:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish invasion of Zaolzie in 1938 

message: Maybe there should be a category for Polish historical blunders and or ironic acts? As an Austrian Jew I am saddened to learn of this collaboration. =( Hpelgrift (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since France needed to be shamed by Britain to declare war on Germany after it invaded Poland, followed by the non-war--France was not going to take any action against Germany since Germany was right next door and could easily retaliate--Pilłudski was correct in his earlier assessment that France was not trustworthy, hence Poland signing this treaty to attempt to not be invaded in the future by Germany was a reasonable decision. There is a difference between attempting to normalize relations and aiding and abetting totalitarianism which perhaps you've missed here. This is not an example of "collaboration." PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I think there also needs to be differentiation between conflicts dating to the (re-)formation of the Polish state from having been partitioned out of existence and ascribing actions associated with those conflicts with the support of German aspirations. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Wikipedia Section? :p 

message: I think it should be addressed somewhere that although Hitler was "in power", he was only the chancellor at this time. He would not become the Führer until 2 August 1934. The treaty was signed by the German foreign minister Freiherr von Neurath. I think it's misleading to not include these things. (Jsourber (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitler's Stance, von Neurath signature 

message: Re the English translation at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk01.asp how can we summarize the major points in it to explain its terms? The "principles" basically? This article seems to focus on when the pact happened, what led up to it, why it ended, without spending much time explaining what it meant.
A major line appears to be:
:In no circumstances, however, will they proceed to the application of force for the purpose of reaching a decision in such disputes.
The 26 January 1934 > 5 May 1934 span between this and the Soviet-Polish NAP seems significant enough (less than 3 months) that I'm also wondering if we should count the exact number of days it was between them. Have any sources commented on the significance May 5th had on the disintegration of the G-P pact? ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Treaty text

message: Th article discusses what leads into the agreement, and what happens after. But what it doesn't say is what the agreement actually said. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. CIENCIAŁA, ANNA M. “POLISH FOREIGN POLICY, 1926-1939. ‘EQUILIBRIUM’: STEREOTYPE AND REALITY.” The Polish Review, vol. 20, no. 1, 1975, pp. 42–57 looks like a good ref to write based on for this, especially the description from p.49 onwards. I don't have access to ProQuest so I can't read the rest of the Cienciala article specifically analysing the declaration. FOARP (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  obvious gap in article 

message: I assume that it's uncontroversial that the context of the collapse relations between the two countries is the failure to resolve the Danzig question but highly pertinent to this is the two conversations Lipski had on 20/24 September with Hitler and Ribbentrop on German objections to the Polish annexation of Teschen. Obviously Hitler thought he had a quid-pro-quo to resolve Danzig. I've therefore mentioned this in the denunciation section. (Dughall 11th May '24) 147.147.149.103 (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denunciation section