Rosyjsko-brytyjskie stosunki dyplomatyczne na sasko-polskim gruncie w przededniu pruskiej agresji. Heinrich Iwanowicz Gross a David Murray wicehrabia Stormont (czerwiec–sierpień 1756)

Russian-British Diplomatic Relations in a Saxon-Polish Context on the Eve of Prussian Aggression. Heinrich Ivanovich Gross and David Murray, Viscount of Stormont ( June–August 1756)The Russian-British subsidies convention signed on 19/30 September 1755 foresaw that in return for English funds Russia was to keep its army in Livonia. For the Russians it became a measure for breaking the military power of Prussia, while the British wished to isolate France. This difference of views resulted in a convention signed on 16 January 1756 by Great Britain and Prussia, to which St. Petersburg reacted adversely. On the other hand, the Russians welcomed the rapprochement of Austria and France. The diplomacy of the king of England was unable to penetrate the game played by Russia. Relations between David Murray, Viscount Stormont, the British diplomat accredited in Dresden, and his Russian colleague, Heinrich Gross, provide interesting facts associated with British hopes for preserving the alliance with Russia. The representative of George II counted on the Russian diplomat, an attitude also encouraged by instructions received from London (“M. Gross has been represented to the king as being thoroughly well-inclined to support His Majesty’s interest with the empress, his mistress”). On the other hand, the reports sent by Gross to St. Petersburg indicate the naiveté of such calculations. The presented facts confirm the statement made by the outstanding Polish historian Jerzy Michalski (1924–2007): “During the eighteenth century, when Russia was perceived as a newly created European power subject to frequent transformations and palace revolutions, the significance of the views and sympathies of individuals in the state apparatus was, as a rule, exaggerated; the same holds true for the possible impact upon the policy of the Empire exerted by attracting such people. The necessity of adapting their views and sympathies to the ‘supreme will’ was forgotten as were the consistent targets and methods of this policy”.