Czech Legion

[Constantinople]

Well 8 million children in a population of 166 million is not exactly universal schooling.  I would suspect that most of these schools were in urban areas and that the literacy level of rural Russian peasants was close to zero and it was these peasants that made up most of the ranks of the Russian army and of both the Red and White armies during the civil war.  Literacy in the general population in 1914 was no higher than 20% and was probably closer to 10% which was also the size of the middle and upper classes in Russia at that time.

[AGRBear]

The point I was making wasn't denying the fact that a huge amount of children were not being educated, however, it was showing that a middle class was starting to appear in Russia.  And with that rise,  so came the new  generation that was becoming literate.  Even the clerks in the stores had some education and the peasants in the most remote regions were realizing that their children needed to learn in order to have a better life. 

The people who were the officers were educated to some degree and not just country bumpkins who fell off the potato wagon and put on officers uniforms.  They were the ones in the leadership positions.  Most of them were experiences in battles since they had been fighting, and depending upon the time frame, were still fighting the Germans, who still occupied part of old Russia.  Experience goes a long long way.

According to your stats,  it does appear that the Czechs from General on down to the foot solider were better educated than the Russians.  With that said,  I'm not sure if they were better fighters because of it,  or,  they were just better organized due to the fact that were had been a unit since 1914.   For example,  it's like placing our US Soccer team against other teams, who had lived and breathed soccer for a long time.  It's not that they are better educated,  it's because they have the experience that they are better.  Same with the Whites in the general sense.   We're talking apples and oranges.

Who were the leaders [generals] of the Czechs regiments in Russia?

AGRBear

[Constantinople]

The leaders were the same people who created the Czechoslovakian armed forces and one or two people who helped create Czechoslovakia.  And if you dont understand what literacy does for a soldier, its difficult to explain.  The middle class of Russia was about 10% of the population compared with a normal figure of 30 to 40%. To further thwart the Russian middle class, Alexander lll and Nicholas ll both made sure that the people and companies who exploited Russia's minerals, oil and other resources and most of the factories producing goods were foreigners.  A good example was Alfred Noble who made the vast majority of his wealth from Caucasus oil and not from explosives.  the reasons that the Tsars did this was they did not want to enrich Russian entrepreneurs and create competition.

[AGRBear]

This thread is about the Czech Legion and,  I am assuming since this forum is about Russia,  this thread is about how they came into being in Russia under Nicholas II and their fate after WWI.  

I responded to your education of the Czech Legion as compared to the Russian.  You feel  it was because the Czech were better educated which cause them to be   successful in their goals whereas the Whites were drawn from an uneducated group of people and this caused  them to lose the civil war.. The Whites and the Reds were cut from the same cloth, so, this falls back into what I was saying,  it was the leadership which made the difference in the Russian Civil War.  The leadership of the Reds and the Czechs  gave their people a common goal which was reachable.  

The topic on the  importance of a middle class in Russia  is meant for it's own thread.

Nicholas II's use of companies exploiting Russians and their natural resources is meant for it's own thread, also.  

AGRBear

[Constantinople]

Well it was you who made the comment that Russia had a burgeoning middle class but it was the Czechs who first commercially bottled beer and set up factories to manufacture standardized shoes and it was the Tsars who suppressed Russians from doing the same thing and that suppression had its effect on the intellect of Russians.  If the Reds hadn't had the organizational genius of Trotsky, they probably wouldn't have won the civil war but they were both using the same raw material.  If you look at the Czech legion and the war against Poland, the Russians were beaten overwhelmingly and it is the training and the raw education of the soldiers that made the difference.

[AGRBear]

The point I was making wasn't denying the fact that a huge amount of children were not being educated, however, it was showing that a middle class was starting to appear in Russia

AGRBear

The last thing Russia had in 1917 was a middle class.   If you read my post again  I wrote that "a middle class was starting to appear". [under Nicholas II.]

Why are we discussing the suppression of the Tsars?  Did they, the Czechs and Slovaks, willingly join the Tsarist Army in 1914 and  fight under Nicholas II for three years?  Was it because of  this relationship with the Tsar,  that their  small brigade grew in numbers and were given  the title of the Czech Legion in 1917?  And due to their success,  didn't the Whites ask them to help them?  And because they were good at what they did,  didn't they  win the support of the "Allies  and set up a republic in 1918?

Since I don't know a great deal about them,  I'd like to know more about  the Czech Legion who were in Russia trying to get back home.

AGRBear

[Constantinople]

#And it looks like you didnt read my post very carefully.  Both Tsar Alexander lll and Nicholas ll suppressed Russian entrepreneurs.  Where there were Russians exploiting Russian resources, it was at the top coterie of Russian aristocrats, where there was needed an infusion of capital or technology that the Russian aristocrats could not provide, it most often came from foreign sources as both Tsars were afraid of creating new Russian wealth.

[Constantinople]

I didnt write anything about the Russians suppressing the Czech Legion.

[newfan]

Anything about the Czech Legion.

[AGRBear]

http://translate.roseville.ca.us/ma/enwiki/en/Czechoslovak_Legions
 
>>As World War I broke out, the ethnic Czechs living in the Russian Empire petitioned Emperor Nicholas to let them set up a national force to fight against Austria-Hungary and he gave his assent.

A "Czech company" (Czech sotnya or Czech Druzhina, Česká družina) arose in 1914 and was attached to the Russian army. From May 1915, the force was composed of many prisoners and deserters from the army of Austria-Hungary which were from the territories of Bohemia, Moravia and Slovakia. In February 1916 it was turned into the Czechoslovak Riflemen Corps (Československý střelecký sbor) of a regiment in size, and in May 1916 into the Czechoslovak Riflemen Brigade (Československá střelecká brigáda, 7,300 persons). Masaryk and Å tefánik came to Russia (spring and summer 1917) to negotiate expansion of the units, to bring them under their control and to turn them into an independent Czechoslovak army, which they succeeded in.

The brigade consisted of three regiments:

1st Riflemen Regiment (of Jan Hus), created in February 1916 from the "Czech company" Here is a web site about Jan Hus:  http://translate.roseville.ca.us/ma/enwiki/en/Jan_Hus
2nd Riflemen Regiment (of Jiří z Poděbrad), created in May 1916
3rd Riflemen Regiment (of Jan Žižka z Trocnova), created in March 1917

In September 1917 the brigade was turned into the First Hussite Riflemen Division and in October 1917 it was merged with Second Riflemen Division (created in July 1917) into the "Czechoslovak Corps in Russia", numbering some 38,500 men, which was already a genuine Czechoslovak army. The corps peaked at around 61,000 men.

4,112 Czech and Slovak legion members lost their lives in Russia in World War I.<<

Nicholas II gave his approval for the Czechs to fight the Austria-Hungary soldiers in 1914.  Seems like a smart move to me.



AGRBear  

PS   Google Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk

PSS    Google Milan Rastislav Å tefánik  See: http://www.tfsimon.com/stefanik-note.htm

[newfan]

Thank you for the links!

[Petr]

"To further thwart the Russian middle class, Alexander lll and Nicholas ll both made sure that the people and companies who exploited Russia's minerals, oil and other resources and most of the factories producing goods were foreigners.  A good example was Alfred Noble who made the vast majority of his wealth from Caucasus oil and not from explosives.  the reasons that the Tsars did this was they did not want to enrich Russian entrepreneurs and create competition."

I have trouble with this statement because I believe it is too sweeping and probably inaccurate. The trouble with all these types of statements is that they tend to be gross generalizations and fail to recognize the state of Russia at the turn of the century. The Russian economy was rapidly developing (by the turn of the century Russia was the the third largest steel producer in the world the then most common measure of industrialization). Some sociologists actually blame the revolution on the pace of this rapid industrialization (cf. Durkheim and his theory of anomie) to the extent that the previously largely agrarian population did not have sufficient time to adjust to an industrialized world (like the English masses did a hundred years earlier and the American masses did fifty years earlier). Undoubtedly, foreign capital played an important role in financing this industrialization much like it did in the United States (cf., Baring Brothers financing of US railroads), but one only has to look at the Putilov Works and Morozov and many others to realize that there were Russian entrepreneurs who were quite successful. I have a stock certificate issued to my Great Grandfather for shares in a Russian Railroad, for example. Of course, I'm sure that the Royal Family probably looked on "people in trade" with disfavor but that was an attitude common throughout Europe in certain social circles (and also in the US as well).  But to say that only foreignors ownerd factories and exploited russian resources is grossly inaccurate.

Petr             

[Constantinople]

Can you provide some statistics to justify your statements?

[Constantinople]

Acciording to a study by John P McKay, the percentage of the steel ownership that was foreign owned was 78%.  There is a high probability that that which was not owned by foreigners was owned by the nobility.

[Petr]

Well I guess I would ask you the same question. What exactly did the Royal family do to prevent or impede Russian entrepreneurs from "exploiting Russian resources" or was it generally simply a matter that there was an insufficient amount of internal investment capital that was available. Were there laws enacted that prohibited Russians from investing in or exploiting natural resources or which favored foreigners (I'm not familiar with any and, frankly, I would doubt any existed, in fact, given the typical Russian proclivity for nationalistic policies I would think the opposite was true). Remember that the Russian nobility (again speaking in generalized terms) had most of its wealth tied up in illiquid land holdings and, like in the United States in the late 18th and 19th Centuries (and in most all developing countries) it would be completely normal to look to external sources of capital for industrial development until internal sources of investment capital were built up sufficiently to enable the process to develop further without the need for foreign capital.  My complaint with many retrospective views of pre-Revolutionary Russia is that the Russian economy was a moving target which was developing at a rapid clip (in fact, according to Richard Pipes the rate of industrialization relative to Europe and the US was one of the most if the not the most rapid in the world (with the possible exception of Meiji Japan)). Its a variation of the old "what if" issue. My guess is that if the Russian economy were allowed to develop naturally there would have developed an internal market which would have permitted the liquidation of foreign interests (much like the venture capital IPO exit strategy so familiar in the US and Europe and what has occurred in the US). In fact there was an active Bourse (stock market) in St. Petersburg before the Revolution and equity flotations (principally of railroad stocks but also other companies) were being effected on a regular basis. Granted the market was not very broad or deep but then again in 1917 neither were the U.S. stock markets as broad or deep as they are now. So the question remains as to whether Russian policies impeded the development of an entrepreneurial class.

Petr