Talk:Anglo-Polish alliance

message: Good article - answered several of my questions on the German, England, Russian, Poland goings on. Doublecrossers, one and all. No wonder they don't teach this in school - the masses wouldn't support any war, or they would want to kill everyone ( it might drive them mad). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.92  (talk • contribs) 16:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: How could Britain have pledged France's support for Poland's independence, or for anything for that matter?  Wasn't France independent enough to do its own pledging?  Un peu d'respect, voyons.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.81.35.33 (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Courtesy 

message: Failed. Insufficient references, also poor coverage - if the French alliance is only mentioned in see also, this is not well developed at all. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This article seems to fail to mention the British declaration of war on Germany in 1939 and quite a lot of other things. As it is, the contents should be merged in Western betrayal and the article started again from scratch. --Rumping (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-class review 

message: The term "Anglo-Polish military alliance" is almost absent in scholarly literature . In actuality, it is misleading, because it was not a full scale military alliance. "Anglo-Polish agreement" is much more common . Such authors as Paul W. Doerr (Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Jul., 2001), pp. 423-439) or Keith Sword (British Reactions to the Soviet Occupation of Eastern Poland in September 1939. The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 69, No. 1 (Jan., 1991), pp. 81-101) describe it as "Anglo-Polish agreement", not as an "alliance". Google books gives more results for "agreement" that for "alliance" despite the fact that the latter term was applied to earlier alliances between Britain and Poland. In connection to that, I rename the article accordingly. If someone wants to restore the old name, please provide your arguments first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The term  "Anglo-Polish alliance"  gets just about as many hits as "Anglo-Polish agreement". The "Anglo-Polish Agreement of Mutual Assistance" is formal name of the document which formalised what is commonly known as the "Anglo-Polish alliance". By changing the name you have reduced the scope of the article from the topic of the broader alliance (which continued through acts like the Allied Forces Act 1940) to the topic of one single document. Therefore since this move is contested I request you initiate a formal move request. --Nug (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See below. Allied Forces Act 1940 was not a broader alliance, but a unilateral act of British parliament.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term "Anglo-Polish military alliance" is not the most common term to describe 1939 agreement. 

message: The pact said nothing about Germany. (RodFielding (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there was. And yes it does: "1. (a) By the expression "a European Power" employed in the Agreement is to be understood Germany. "  http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Agreement_of_Mutual_Assistance_between_the_United_Kingdom_and_Poland-London_%281939%29 --41.150.236.93 (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, the secret protocol was only added after the Soviet invasion of Poland on 17th September 1939. The original document signed in August only referred to an invasion, it made no mention of Germany at all. (SinbadSailorman (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems we got someone with a serious comprehension problem here. With whom can one engage into an agreement, when that party is already at war or actually defeated? The secret Protocol is from before September, hence is the agreement it stipulates. It's also not limited to the case of an invasion. --41.150.175.65 (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  There was no secret protocol 

message: Categorically false, seeing as it was the only deal (USSR and Britain failed to come to terms on any deal in 1939). However, the main issue is the crass phrasing without any source to support the reason claimed for the decision. I question whoever wrote this and doubt their historical prose 82.38.10.33 (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Stalin was attracted to a much better deal by Hitler"