Talk:Anglo-Polish alliance

Discussion

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)

The article needs to be revised. i.e. "What are the special priviledges of the German minority"?! Is not being depossessed, murdered and aggressed against a "special priviledge"?! The motive of Britain should also be investigated. Why did they offer support to Poland in the first place?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.250 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

---

The article does say what the key British motive was. In the third sentence.

This bilateral agreement between Great Britain and Poland agreement was no "annex" to a bilateral French-Polish treaty.

It is true that the British-Polish Agreement dated 25 August 1939 did not provide clauses concerning the Polish territorial integrity. Nor did it provide any clause concerning the British territorial integrity. Therefore, pointing out that one of the parties was free to cede its own territories of its own free will if that party so wished is pointless, or, if this point needs to be done for one party, it should be done for the other party, too. If the Agreement did contain a committment by both parties to go to war over the territorial integrity of the other no matter what, this would lead to the ridiculous situation in which, if Great Britain decided to do nothing about a Japanese annexation of Hong Kong, Poland would be expected to declare war on Japan nonetheless.

The statement that the British would support the Poles by bombing the German industries very much needs a citation. Considered that Article 4 of the Agreement specifically required plans to be worked out between the competent military staffs, it's difficult to imagine that these took place between August 25 and September 3.

I will soon proceed to edit the article to reflect the points above, though I'm not doing it straightaway in order to leave space for a fruitful discussion of these issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.216.210.57 (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll add that I would like to see proof that the Polish government ordered its own troops to fight against the Soviets when they came. If the Polish government did not order that, or worse, it ordered its troops not to resist the Soviets, then the statement about the British obligation to declare war on the Soviet Union will need to be removed.

212.216.210.57 16:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

>The polish government, according to the Wikipedia page on the Soviet invasion of Poland, had conflicting orders. However, the agreement says nothing about orders.

The agreement says “one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter against that Contracting Party”. It is clear that Poland became “engaged in hostilities” with the USSR, since they fought each other, and it is also clear that it was a “consequence of aggression by the” USSR, since the USSR invaded Poland. Hence according to the agreement the UK should have acted against the USSR, which they did not. I will change the wiki-page accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.22.180.253 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not clear at all. The Polish government ordered its troops not to engage Soviet troops in hostilities. Poland did not declare war on the Soviet Union, nor did it acknowledge the existence of a state of war with the Soviet Union. What local clashes did take place happened under the understandable decision of local Polish junior officers. Britain was under no obligation to delcare war on behalf of a country that did not even declar war itself.

>It’s good to see that you still follow this page.

If I understand you correctly, you mean that Poland ceded “its own territories of its own free will”. This is not true. They retreated, but that is not ceding “territories of its own free will”. When the USSR entered the war, the outcome of the war was already clear. When the Red Army entered Poland, the polish government and military commanders where already on the border to Romania and crossed into Romania the same night. They left “to fight another day”. The last order to the troops inside Poland from the polish military command, delivered on the 20. September from Romania, declares that polish honor had been maintained by the polish troops resistance to the Soviet invasion. In other words the resistance to the Soviet invasion was recognized and praised by the polish military command. They did “acknowledge the existence of a state of war with the Soviet Union”. Besides the dead on the ground, this implies that Poland was “engaged in hostilities” with the USSR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.22.180.253 (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No, of course. They acknowledged the events that had taken place contrary to their orders, which can thus be classified as unwanted border accidents, the occasional firefights that take place in tense situations. They tipped their hats to the independent initiative of individual local commanders. That's not the same as declaring war, or issuing a diplomatic note statng that there is a state of war. Besides, the "last military order" seems a tad too late, both gneerally speaking, and in particular to have any effect on an appeal allegedly presented by the Polish ambassador before that date. I will also remove "coarsely", it is a typically POV adverb and has no place in wikipedia. If anything, the adverb should be "understandably". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.239.220 (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

>I’ll remove all your changes.

“The ambassador did not take into account the fact that the USSR was not a European Power and that the Polish government had pointedly ordered its troops not to engage the Soviet troops in hostilities, thus preventing the treaty to put Britain under any obligation even if it were one.” How can you define the USSR as “not a European Power”? When did the USSR leave Europe? And polish orders to withdraw does not change the fact that the Soviet invasion was a hostile action against Poland. Since Poland did not cede “its own territories of its own free will”, the Soviet actions were hostile.

“considered that the treaty conditions had not been met” If the British had disputed that the conditions was met, this would have been a relevant comment, but I have not read that anywhere. If you have, include a reference. (This is a wiki-page on a historic event, not on your personal views.)

“I will also remove "coarsely", it is a typically POV adverb and has no place in wikipedia. If anything, the adverb should be "understandably".” Halifax was “straightforwardly hostile” according to Prażmowska, and I think the word “coarsely” reflects that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.22.180.253 (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who thinks the USSR not to be a European power, but it's not me. The fact that you don't see the glaring POV nature of an adverb like "coarsely" means, I believe, that you yourself suffer from POV problems. Now consider this: Poland did not declare war on the USSR. What you want and, apparently, the hapless Polish ambassador wanted is that the UK declared war on behalf of an ally that had not itself declared war. Unprecedented and, frankly, preposterous. The Polish government wanted to be free to come to terms with the USSR. They went away to fight another day, yes - against Germany. Which is precisely what happened. If the polish government wanted to have their hands free wrt the future relations with the USSR, it would be absurd to demand the British or the French not to follow the Polish example. I'm correcting the page again.

Courtesy

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)

B-class review

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)

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)

The term "Anglo-Polish military alliance" is not the most common term to describe 1939 agreement.

The term "Anglo-Polish military alliance" is almost absent in scholarly literature [1]. In actuality, it is misleading, because it was not a full scale military alliance. "Anglo-Polish agreement" is much more common [2]. 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)

The term "Anglo-Polish alliance" [3] 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)

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)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Only the nominator has expressed support for the move. --BDD (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Anglo-Polish military alliance → Anglo-Polish agreement (1939) – (see talk page) Paul Siebert (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Gscholar gives just 5 results for "Anglo-Polish military alliance", none of them are peer-reviewed, and all of them use this term just in passing. In other words, Wikipedia simply creates a new term. "Anglo-Polish alliance" gives more results (47), however, many of them are irrelevant (thus, the ref #4 refers to "Anglo-Polish alliance against Turkey", ref #5 refers to Anglo‐Polish Relations in the Seventeenth Century, etc). Many sources from this list are not from peer-reviewed journals. In contrast "Anglo-Polish agreement" gives 55 results, most of them are relevant to the topic, and most of them are from peer-reviewed journals. I conclude that the latter term is more common in scholarly literature. In addition, as the sources ##1,2 say, the agreement was directed exclusively against Germany, so it was not a full scale alliance. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, the name change will reduce the scope of the article from the topic of the broader alliance to a specific document. Note that Article 1 of the secret protocol states:

"1. (a) By the expression "a European Power" employed in the Agreement is to be understood Germany.

(b) In the event of action within the meaning of Article 1 or 2 of the Agreement by a European Power other than Germany, the Contracting Parties will consult together on the measures to be taken in common."[4]

so clearly the agreement wasn't exclusively against Germany. Note that the ANZUS Treaty only obliges the parties to consult each other, yet no one disputes there is an alliance between the USA, Australia and New Zealand. --Nug (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support as a proposer.
  The lede defines the scope of the article quite narrowly, and I don't see how the new title can change the article's scope.
  Regarding the interpretation of the secret protocol, the piece of original research presented by Nug is quite unconvincing. The sources cited in the article (ref 1,2) say that Britain refused to take any step against the USSR citing the first clause of the secret protocol, which is a direct demonstration that the agreement was directed against Germany exclusively. This is not my conclusion, but a conclusion made by the authors the article cites.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Poland and Britain did consult each other per part (b) of the 1st clause of the secret protocol as the sources show. The existence of part (b) which refers to "European Power other than Germany" invalidates the claim that the agreement was directed against Germany exclusively. The authors you cite state only that Britain refused to take any step against the USSR after that consultation, you go further and synthesis this is evidence that no alliance between Poland and Britain existed at all, which is not the case since many sources do indeed speak of the "Anglo-Polish alliance"[5]. --Nug (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

That is not true. The source says:

"Halifax pointed out that the obligation of His Majesty's Government towards Poland arising out of the Anglo-Polish Agreement of 25 August, was restricted to Germany. While the Treaty had referred to a European power committing aggression against Poland, the secret protocol attached to the Agreement had made clear that by 'European power' was meant Germany. The British Government did not therefore feel under any obligation to declare war on the Soviet Union, and the decision whether or not to do so 'should be determined by which would help most to achieve our common end of defeating Germany'."

I believe this text allows no double interpretations. The clause 1b means that the sides have no obligations other than sit together and talk.

Regarding your "you go further and synthesis this is evidence that no alliance between Poland and Britain existed at all", that is untrue. My point is that more sources describe the document as "agreement", or as "British guarantee", then as an "alliance", so the title should be changed accordingly. Do you have anything to counterpose to that, other than your speculations?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Nug, had you exhausted your arguments? Please respond, otherwise I'll rename the article according to what the sources say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

As per closing instructions are not allowed to do so since you have participated in the move survey. See WP:RMCI. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Paul Siebert cites a source quoting Halifax as stating that Britain's obligations towards Poland was restricted to Germany, then weirdly synthesises this as evidence of that there was no Anglo-Polish Alliance. Paul is confusing the name of the document with the substance of the document. According to the Historical Dictionary of Poland, 966-1945: "ANGLO-POLISH AGREEMENT (August 25, 1939), formal act of alliance and mutual military assistance signed in London"[6] --Nug (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Nug twisted my words, which is totally unacceptable. Moreover, he repeated the same allegation twice, despite my exhaustive explanations. Specially for Nug I reiterate that I never said no Anglo-Polish alliance existed. My point was that that was not a full-scale military alliance (because it was directed against Germany only), and the term "Anglo-Polish agreement" is more common in literature. Therefore, per WP:COMMONNAME it would be correct to rename the article accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Nug cited a single tertiary source to demonstrate I was not right. However, that demonstrate nothing but Nug's misunderstanding of our policy. Please, provide an evidence that "Anglo-Polish alliance" is more common name in special literature.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Where is the source that states "that it was not a military alliance"? It seems to me you are using the fact that Britain chose not to act immediately against the Soviet Union after consultation to synthesis the claim that it was not a military alliance. Britain was planning to attack the SU in Operation Pike. This article is about the alliance, you seem to want to rename the article to the short title of the 1939 agreement which formalised that alliance. Yes, the source is a tertiary source, but it points to the fact that the alliance terms were amended in April 1944, which no doubt can be verified in secondary sources. --Nug (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Nug, by misinterpreting my words you continue to behave disruptively. Whether it was an alliance or not is irrelevant. What is important is the fact that this agreement is described as "Anglo-Polish agreement" in majority sources. The article is about this agreement, and it should be named accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No, this article is about the alliance that the agreement formalised. I do not see any consensus to move this article. --Nug (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The original title is more clear, I wouldn't be surprised if there were more agreements between UK and Poland this year. The term is also much more popular in Polish, I see about a 100 GBooks hits for "sojusz polsko-angielski"+1939 and 50 for "Polsko-brytyjski układ sojuszniczy"+1939. English wise, I see 6 hits for "Polish-British alliance"+1939. What's more used is a descriptive term, but it shouldn't matter - the Polish usage is common and clear, and Wikipedia likes its titles clear, too. Also, on a related note, please note that sometimes we will invent titles per our MoS.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

There was no secret protocol

Closing discussion initiated by banned editor HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The pact said nothing about Germany. (RodFielding (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)) 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) 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)) 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)

It doesn't make sense

How could Britain object to a country being invaded when it was occupying half the world by force in 1939? (Shfthn (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC))

Because that is how it works when you DO control the world; you also get to sell the illusion that "good heartedness and neighborly concern" is the basis of your intervention. The facts speak otherwise: UK investors, like Prudential Insurance, had de facto control over the Polish mining industry.

Do you really think the UK shareholders were excited to lose billions in today's value over a silly spontaneous territorial agreement between Germany and Poland? That investment was supposed to be their get-rich project, for which the entire coal industry in the UK was shut down (much like the outsourcing we see today...rinse, lather, repeat).

On behalf of those investors, lobbyists got British politicians to put the "territorial guarantee" to Poland on the table because Poland would obviously just shrug when Germany made revision offer after revision offer, as Poland would have nothing to fear by not signing, or gain from signing whatever the Germans suggested they sign. On the other hand, once the investors realized Germany had a new solution called the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, notice how "secret" it was that Britain was frantically grabbing Poland and dragging it unwillingly back to the negotiation table with Germany, at which time it was already too late. Germany was guaranteed to get what it wanted if the Soviets would supply them, Poland would be surrounded. Poland, meanwhile, still had faith in its "territorial guarantee", which it is STILL fixated on, now to the tune of "boo hoo England, why didn't you immediately invade the Soviet Union and Germany and stop its alliance of 210 million people who had us surrounded?" You got played Poland. That's what happens when you let foreign investors dictate your course and you are too incompetent to see it. Lafffingoutloud (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

"Stalin was attracted to a much better deal by Hitler"

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)