Really? You're arguing that the Piłsudski-Hitler Pact, or the German–Polish declaration of non-aggression is EXACTLY the same as the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement, that secretly divided Europe and led to the invasions of Poland by Germany and of the Russian invasion of Finland, starting WW2
There was also a secret protocol to the pact, which was revealed only after Germany's defeat in 1945 although hints about its provisions had been leaked much earlier, so as to influence Lithuania. According to the protocol, Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland were divided into German and Soviet "spheres of influence". In the north, Finland, Estonia, and Latvia were assigned to the Soviet sphere. Poland was to be partitioned in the event of its "political rearrangement": the areas east of the Pisa, Narew, Vistula, and San rivers would go to the Soviet Union, and Germany would occupy the west. Warsaw, in turn, would be effectively divided between them into two parts. Lithuania, which was adjacent to East Prussia, was assigned to the German sphere of influence, but a second secret protocol, agreed to in September 1939, reassigned Lithuania to the Soviet Union.
Nice try. I didn't say that. It's the "you're saying that" ploy tried too often these days. So BBC, if not NYT.
I will say, on a size scale, the Kellogg-Briand is way larger in scope while the Piłsudski-Hitler Pact was far less impactful. Additionally the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was abrogated in the war, making the USSR among those "allies" of which we used to speak, allies who then became opponents and now sort-of enemies -- except that President Trump just met in Alaska with an 'enemy.'
