The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 35

Lord Conway's rule and Poland in 1772


Ironside 47 | 9,587
31 Mar 2010  #1
According to lord Conway "Poland is the least important to Britain of all Europe".
jonni 16 | 2,486
31 Mar 2010  #2
Lord Conway's rule

Probably true but what's he supposed to have "ruled", except the island of Jersey and that briefly?
jeden - | 226
31 Mar 2010  #3
UK ddoesn`t have friends or allies , Uk has interest, business.

The Uk ( in general west) thinking is different than our...

UK`s never had brother country. We have.

For west countries the most important is reason of state, for us brotherhood and honor...

Different values. that`s all
jonni 16 | 2,486
31 Mar 2010  #4
For west countries the most important is reason of state, for us brotherhood and honor...

I'm not sure the Czechs or Lithuanians would agree with that. In any case the UK is an island whose traditional alliances have been with countries far away - that has shaped perceptions of European countries who more often than not have dragged them into problems.
OP Ironside 47 | 9,587
31 Mar 2010  #5
Probably true but what's he supposed to have "ruled", except the island of Jersey and that briefly?

He said what was the policy of Britain in regard to Poland.
I may add that Britain supported certain German state till about 1870s !

UK`s never had brother country. We have.

What are you about?please make yourself scarce ..

I'm not sure the Czechs or Lithuanians would agree with that.

That's not a point, point is do they have ample reasons to complain ? I say not!
jonni 16 | 2,486
31 Mar 2010  #6
He said what was the policy of Britain in regard to Poland.

I can also say what Britain's policy is. Though since I'm not the Premier or the Foreign Secretary nobody would care. In 1772, Lord Conway was a backbencher with a role in domestic affairs and the Governor of Jersey.

I may add that Britain supported certain German state till about 1870s

I should hope so too!

As an aside I wonder what Poland's policy towards Britain was at that time?
OP Ironside 47 | 9,587
31 Mar 2010  #7
I can also say what Britain's policy is. Though since I'm not the Premier or the Foreign Secretary nobody would care. In 1772, Lord Conway was a backbencher with a role in domestic affairs and the Governor of Jersey.

Well, Are you part of establishment, part of the ruling class? if so, I'm all ears :)

I should hope so too!

Well, Germans have a reason to be grateful:)
...

what Poland's policy towards Britain was at that time?

I have no idea, most likely nobody bothered to voice an opinion on the subject.
Although many a very influential people in Poland were at the time taken in by Britain for example Prince August Czartoryski - and King Stanisław August :)
jeden - | 226
31 Mar 2010  #8
What are you about?please make yourself scarce ..

I`m talking about Hungary... There are o lot of threads even on this forum about our brotherhood. (it`s not an alliance, it`s not even friendship it`s more ) If you are english , probably You won`t understand this issue--- different values.;)

Brave Czechs died about 1620... 1/4 nation died in war... The rest act like cowards now, but I can understand them. They chosed their way.

Lithuenians are not Slavs.
jonni 16 | 2,486
31 Mar 2010  #9
Prince August Czartoryski - and King Stanisław August :)

They were certainly Anglophiles, though in King Stanisław August's case Scotophile would be more accurate. I'm trying to remember the Latin nickname he was given in Britain - it was quite apposite.
Ziemowit 12 | 3,364
31 Mar 2010  #10
As an aside I wonder what Poland's policy towards Britain was at that time?

Nearly 20 years later there happened something that could have spared Poland the fate of partitions. Wiliam Pitt the Younger wanted to curb Russia's strengh assuring at the same time safety to Turkey and Poland in order to restore the balance of power in Europe. So England, Prussia and Holland in coallition demanded that Russia signed a peace treaty with Turkey with the status quo ante, but Catherine II refused saying Rusia must keep at least Oczaków and the lands towards the Dniestr river that she conquered on Turkey in 1788.

British ambassador in St. Petersburgh, Lord Whitworth, was convinced that time had come to force Catherine II to concessions. But England could only challange Russia if she could have assured timber supply for building her ships from another source than Russia. That other source of timber could only be Poland.

Poland would have been a beter trading partner to Britain than Russia (Britain's trade deficit with Russia was nearly one million pounds a year) as Poland imported a lot more of English produce, and a lot of Russian goods were originally from the eastern part of the Polish Cmmonwealth, shipped through the Russian port of Riga. William Pitt carried on talks on the issue with Franciszek Bukaty, the Polish ambassador in London, and with Michał Ogiński, the Polish representative in Hague. Any trade agreement between England and Poland implied the participation of Prussia, however, but Prussia, knowing its strong stance in the deal, let their partners know that they would cooperate only if Poland concedes the city of Gdańsk and the city of Toruń to them. In other words, the entire plan of Wiliam Pitt the Younger to curb Russia, to which plan he won Sweden, Turkey, Danmark and Holland, was based on the assumed ceding of Gdańsk and Toruń by Poland to Prussia.

(to be continued)
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,997
31 Mar 2010  #11
I`m talking about Hungary... There are o lot of threads even on this forum about our brotherhood. (it`s not an alliance, it`s not even friendship it`s more )

Yeah, that's why Hungary allied with Germany in both world wars...;)
jonni 16 | 2,486
31 Mar 2010  #12
It's why Pitt was such a controversial genius - have you read Carlyle on the 2nd republic?
Stu 12 | 522
31 Mar 2010  #13
No, Jeden ... that's true! We will never understand this loyalty to the Nazi's. Seems to me that you shot yourself in the foot, didn't you :D?
Ziemowit 12 | 3,364
31 Mar 2010  #14
No, I haven't. What's the title of the book?
jonni 16 | 2,486
31 Mar 2010  #15
I assume it's 'On Heroes', though it might be the 'Critical Essays'. He writes about it in the context of Prussia - he was no admirer of the Second Rzeczpospolita, to say the least. I'll see if I can find a reference.

If I remember, he wrote critically about the first partition though said (very much in his style - in the same essay he called the Tsarina of Russia ‘mainly a mass of esurient oil’) that "‘deliverance from anarchy, pestilence, famine and pigs eating your dead body was a manifest advantage for Poland and the one way of saving Europe from war".

There was also an essay which touched on Chopin's early life and quite a bit about earlier history, especially August II Mocny.
jeden - | 226
3 Apr 2010  #16
I said about this BB: https://polishforums.com/archives/2005-2009/history/poland-hungary-september-36395/

Éljen Magyarország!

Long live Hungary! Long live Polish-Hungarian friendship!

"Lengyel, magyar - két jó barát, együtt harcol, s issza borát."
"Polak, Węgier, dwa bratanki, i do szabli, i do szklanki."

STU

Seems to me that you shot yourself in the foot, didn't you :D?

NO

Hungarian weren`t nazis. They were only german short term allie.

I`m proud to be brother for Hungarians. Their help to Poland in 1939 was probably bigger than English, even they were opponents, and England was allie...

Like I quote above they didn1t allow Germany to attack Poland from south. England did nothing. ( in 1939)
grubas 12 | 1,392
3 Apr 2010  #17
Exactly,they were under German pressure but did what they could to help Poles who were trying to reach France. Hail to Hungarians!!!
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,997
3 Apr 2010  #18
Hungarian weren`t nazis. They were only german short term allie.

They were also allies in WWI and got punished with land loss like the Germans...they are also still hurting from it (whereas Poles profited). They had the same reasons to go to war in WWII again like Germany!

If the Axis had won you wouldn't talk about all these alibis today (like "german pressure" etc.) today...think about it!

Exactly,they were under German pressure

Rofl, yeah sure! *rolls eyes*
You are such easy believers if you want to...:)
grubas 12 | 1,392
3 Apr 2010  #19
They had the same reasons to go to war in WWII again like Germany!

Maybe ,but seems like the reasons were not good enough to go to war with PL.And I don't think the Germans were happy knowing that Polish soldiers cross thru Hungary and Romania to get to France.Poles profited from WWII???Now thats something new!How did they profit?
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,997
3 Apr 2010  #20
Maybe ,but seems like the reasons were not good enough to go to war with PL

Well, they didn't lost land to Poland nor did they were ever neighbours!
grubas 12 | 1,392
3 Apr 2010  #21
nor did they were ever neighbours!

Are you sure about that?
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,997
3 Apr 2010  #22
Are we talking about Austro-Hungary (which Poland was no friend of and one of the partitioners) or cut down, humiliated Hungary which lost most of it's land and is not a neighbour (but seemingly the best friend of Poland) ?

;)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianon
Seanus 15 | 19,715
3 Apr 2010  #23
Times have changed, Ironside ;) ;) May I suggest May 2004? :)
grubas 12 | 1,392
3 Apr 2010  #24
BB we are talking 1939.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,997
3 Apr 2010  #25
Anyhow my chum Torq already claimed the Hungarians for Poland and even if I can't follow your logic...who am I to dispute it! ;)
jeden - | 226
3 Apr 2010  #26
BB so you deny that

Pole - Bem is a national hungarian hero

that Hungarians helped us in 1863 in resistance.

that Hungarian wanted to send us 20 thousnds cavalry in 1920

that they didn`t want to fight against us, even that they were allie of agressor(Germany)

that they helped Warsaw insurgents in 1944

that Poles send a lot of material help in 1956.

That in 23 March is Polish-Hungarian firendshi day...

If you can`t deny the majority of above statements, You have to agree that there is something in this.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,997
3 Apr 2010  #27
I think you suffer romanticism....;) Be happy! ;)
jeden - | 226
3 Apr 2010  #28
Probably every east European think similar to me... There is this differance wchich I` ve written about, on the beginig in this thread.

You People of western europe ( I think especially english) have the other kind of view facts, and you traet your allies practically. You have your own interests, we have diffrent values.

You only show ( in what you wrote) that my idea is true!;)
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,997
3 Apr 2010  #29
You have your own interests, we have diffrent values.

We don't suffer romanticism if that's what you mean....

You only show ( in what you wrote) that my idea is true!;)

I only know for a fact that my Wehrmacht-Grandpa had a close hungarian friend (a count in the hungarian army if I remember it correctly) who invited our family to live on his estate once the war was won.

I don't remember any talks about the fate of the Poles...

Sometimes pragmatism would serve you better, really! ;)
jeden - | 226
3 Apr 2010  #30
We don't suffer romanticism if that's what you mean....

I know, your nation is very pragmatist. Sometimes good for you.

that my Wehrmacht-Grandpa had a close hungarian friend

good for your grandpa, Hungarians as you see are awsome.

Sometimes pragmatism would serve you better, really! ;)

Sometimes are higher values than pragmatism, and raison d'etat, but I agree that pragmatism is not a polish strong point.


Home / History / Lord Conway's rule and Poland in 1772
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.