Talk:Anglo-German Naval Agreement

message: The article states: "Of course, at the time of the signing of the AGNA, Denmark had the capability of deciding what ships made their way into and out of the Baltic".
The Kiel canal existed, so wouldn't it have meant that the ship had to pass either through Germand or Denmark? Therefore, Denmark wasn't able to control German ships going in and out of the Baltic, as they could just pass through the Kiel canal, right? Correct me if I'm wrong. The article just gives the impression that Denmark could also stop German ships from passing. --HJV 02:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kiel canal 

message: An earlier version from april 2007 claimed, that: 
This claim has been repeated in numerous other sources, including other Wikipedia articles. See this Google search: "Britain agreed" withdraw navy "Baltic Sea". Is this information false? What is the original source of the false information? Doing a search of reliable sources at Google Books retuns only one relevant reference: 
Is this source reliable? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  January 2009 (continued) 

message: The Bismark article suggests that
:  Officially, however, her tonnage was 35,000 tons to suggest parity with ships built within the limits of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement (1935) that allowed Germany to build up to five 35,000-ton battleships... etc
of which there is no indication here. Is that a mistake or did the Agreement actually include such clause? The notes to the agreement linked to here also have no mention of such limitation. Could anyone clarify?  Saaska (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The 35000 ton limitation

message: If anyone is wondering why the Imperial German flag is being used for Nazi Germany, its because the the swastika flag was not adopted as the German flag until September 1935, and the AGNA was signed in June 1935. So the Imperial flag is there because it was the German flag at the time of the signing.--A.S. Brown (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a note about the flags

message: I seem to remember going to Liverpool when I was a very young girl to see the German Battleships, Scharnhorst and Gneisneau.  Does anyone remember if they did indeed visit. 79.72.34.227 (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can anyone remember whether the German battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisneau visited Liverpool in either 1938 or 1939?  

message: Attributed to Kershaw:
"The German Reich government recognises of itself the overwhelming importance for existence and thereby the justification of dominance at sea to protect the British Empire, just as, on the other hand, we are determined to do everything necessary in protection of our own continental existence and freedom"
What is the 'one hand' that matches the other hand?
I totally failed to parse that quote; the sentence is not susceptible to parsing, and I don't believe it's an accurate quote from a properly edited and published book. Can someone please confirm? 81.2.68.136 (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is just Hitler's usual, wishful policy line: if Germany recognised the British Empire's existence (like Germany had any say in the matter), then Britain should allow Germany a free hand to dominate Europe. This is so well known, and such a feature of the history of the period, that it should not cause confusion. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can this possibly be an accurate translation? 

message: Interesting read. One will learn that England performed a tricky 5D Chess move to decrease the size of the German navy by increasing the size of the German navy. Anarchangel (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ludicrous