Conversely, there are also a few similarities – for instance, Sources A and B both agree that the murder took place on the lower story of the house – the quotes, ‘I examined the lower storey of the building where the royal family lived and where the crime was supposed to have been committed’, and ‘the bloody carnage took place in one of the rooms in the basement’ come from sources A and C respectively – showing that they do agree on some aspects of the occurrences, and so Source C does not totally differ from Sources A and B. Furthermore, all 3 sources make a mention of some form of firearm was the weapon harnessed to end the life of the Romanov family – as well as various acquaintances of theirs. Source A states that ‘’the Tsar… were shot in the Ipatiev House.’’, whilst Source B states ‘’that victims had been shot whilst kneeling’’, and Source C includes that ‘’the murder was carried out with revolvers and bayonets.’’ This is because whilst they came from different sources, both giving different stories, some pieces of the stories are undeniable. For instance, a large quantity of blood was found in the lower story of the house, whereas nothing was found elsewhere. This provides almost undeniable evidence that the murders occurred in the lower story of the house.
To conclude, Source C does differ from both Sources A and B, however it also offers similarities. Sources B and C both agree that the murder occurred on or near to the 17th of July. However they also disagree, as Source B states that the ‘’surviving members of the royal family’’ escaped on a train which left Ekaterinburg. Thus proving that, Source C does differentiate from the sequence of events given in Sources A and B, but not totally.
c. Source D comes from an interview from an eyewitness of the events – Pavel Medvedev. Medvedev was a Bolshevik, whilst the interviewers were Mensheviks. This immediately leads us to question the reliability of the source, as the Mensheviks could have resorted to torture in order to acquire the information from Medvedev – this is supported by the provenance of the source, as it states that Medvedev, ’was probably tortured by the whites’. We can interpret from this that Medvedev did not discharge the information willingly – and may have tailored the story in order to support his innocence. If he admitted that he was one of the perpetrators of the murder, then no doubt would remain that he would have been executed. Therefore, we cannot fully believe this source; with regards to where the information came from and the methods in which it was obtained.
On the other hand, the provenance states that Medvedev was ‘in charge of the men guarding the royal family’. This implies that he will have been fairly close the Tsar and his acquaintances – and must have been a trustworthy and respected member of the Russian Hierarchy. Such a respected and noble man would be more likely to tell the truth in all situations, even under questioning from the Menshevik interrogators. From this we can deduce that this account of the murders is probably fairly reliable with it also being the closest we have as to an eyewitness account.
Conversely, there is also a fair amount of evidence which conflicts with Source D, questioning its reliability. For instance, Source D states that ‘’eleven men walked into the room’’ where the Romanovs were murdered. However, if you examine Source H, it clearly states that 12 guards were in the room. As Medvedev was the person in charge of the guards, simple reason would lead us to believe that he was in the room; however he denies this in Source D. If he admitted that he was in the room at the time of the killing, this would surely establish his guilt – and as he denied he was in the room, yet Source H states that there was an additional man whom Medvedev did not account for, this immediately leads us to believe that he was the extra man, which questions the sources reliability.
However, Source D could also be fairly reliable. Source E, is an account of the murders by Medvedev’s wife – with all of her information coming from Medvedev himself. Medvedev will have no doubt held his wife in high esteem, bestowing her with a large amount of trust. Consequently, she will have known the true sequence of events which happened in the Ipatiev House. Some of the information in Sources D and D agree with each other – for instance, Source D states that Medvedev saw ’all of the members of the Tsar’s family lying on the floor’, Source E states that the guards ‘started firing, and killed them all’. The fact that both these sources agree does establish a slight amount of reliability for both of them.
d. Sources F, G, and H, are all graphical sources relating to the murder of the Tsar. However, some are more reliable than the others. For instance, Source F is a photograph – it shows the exact state that the room was in, and is therefore indisputable. Source H is also a factual source – however it comes purely from the perspectives of the witnesses, and so although this may seem reliable, it may not be as reliable as first thought. However, Source G is not factual – it is a painting; and therefore it reflects the opinions of the painter and nothing more. Based on this evidence, the most reliable Source is Source F, with Source H second and Source G third.
However, this does not mean their usefulness will reflect their reliability. For instance, Source H states that there are twelve guards in the room – whilst Source D (an eyewitness account from Medvedev) states that there are only 11. As Source H comes from the collective perspectives of the witnesses who Sokolov interviewed, we are more likely to believe this source over that of someone who could be potentially responsible for the murders. Due to this, this, Source H is a very useful source to historians and detectives alike – as it allowed us to somewhat establish Medvedev’s guilt.
Furthermore, Source F is also a very useful source. It shows that the blood is located in the basement. This helps to disprove some of the points put across in sources such as Source D – as Medvedev told his interviewers that the murder occurred in ‘’the corner room, next to the storeroom.’’ Because of this, we know that not all of the information in Source D is factual – and therefore leads us to question the reliability of the other information provided by the source, such as the positions of the victims, how many guards were in the room, etc.
In addition to this, Source G is also a useful source – although in my opinion it may not be as useful as the other two. In does emphasise the fact that the murder took place in the same position as portrayed in Source F. If we examine both sources, we can locate the door to the storeroom – and it is in the almost exact same position in both sources. This leads us to believe that the murder did occur in this position, as it is not just one source which believes this to be true.
Finally, despite the fact that also sources are potentially useful to historians, I believe the most useful source to be Source F – as it is indisputable. It also provides vital information required for the investigation, I.e. the location of the murders.
e. Source I is a message from the ‘’District Soviet of the Ural to Bolsheviks in Petrograd’’. I was surprised by this source - as it completely denies the fact that not only the Tsar was murdered in the Ipatiev House. It absolutely disagrees with other sources, such as Source C, which states that ‘’several people were murdered because one person could not change his position so much and submit to so many blows.’’ In addition to this, in we check the details of this source against another source, Source D, (both of sources coming from anti-Menshevik perspectives); we discover that even these sources disagree. For instance, Source I states that the wife and son of the Tsar have been ‘’sent off to a secure place’’, whilst Source D states that Medvedev saw ‘’all of the members of the Tsar’s family on the floor’’.
However, some of the information given in this source was expected – and is not surprising. For example, it does admit that they decided to ‘’execute, by shooting, Nikolai Romanov’’. Every single other source agrees with the fact Nikolai Romanov was executed, ‘’the entire Romanov family had been massacred in the Ipatiev House’’ (Source C), ‘’ the Tsar, the family doctor, two servants and the maid were shot in the Ipatiev House’’ (Source A), etc. Therefore, if this source denied it, it would have been completely incredible, and as a result of this it was expected that this source would support the fact that the Tsar was murdered.
Despite this, I still find it surprising that a letter containing information of this magnitude be sent to the Bolsheviks. Simply because it could quite easily have been intercepted by a Menshevik party, and if information of this enormity would to get in the hands of the opposing party then this would have surely confirmed the guilt of the Bolsheviks.
In addition to this, this source states that the reasoning for the murders were that ‘’Ekaterinburg was seriously threatened by the danger of counter-revolutionaries’’. However, Source E, which comes from an interview with Medvedev’s wife states that Medvedev said to the Tsar that “The revolution is dying, and so shall you’’. This contradicts the excuse given by the District Soviet of the Ural, and the fact that this source does not agree to a seemingly reliable source is surprising to say the least; as the justification as to why they were shot remains unclear.
f. Source J is an extract from a British newspaper, describing what archaeologists discovered upon opening a shallow burial pit in Ekaterinburg, 1991. It goes someway to corroborate what happened to the Tsar and his family – however it does disagree with a few of the sources.
For instance, Source J states that three of the Tsar’s daughters ‘’had to be finished off by bayonets’’. This authenticates the information provided in Source C, which also states that the ‘’murder was carried out using revolvers and bayonets’’. If both sources agree on this, it almost certainly verifies the information provided, insinuating that Source C is a reliable source – something which I already believed. However, it also disagrees with Source C; as Source J states that ‘’the bodies were driven to a mine and the mine blown up by grenades’’, whilst Source C states, ‘’ the bodies were chopped into pieces and burned with the aid of petrol and sulphuric acid’’. I’m inclined to believe that Source J is correct - as it is from 1994, a period where technology and methodology of discovering events of the past, etc, had improved dramatically. This implies that although, we can believe some parts of Source C; others do not seem to be all that factual.
In addition to this, Source J states that the lorry which contained the corpses of the royal family became ‘’bogged down’’ in a swamp in Ekaterinburg. Source B states that at the time, ‘’no corpses were discovered’’. This therefore validates the claim made in Source B that no corpses were located – supporting Source B and implying that it is reliable. However, it also disagrees with Source B. Source B states that ‘a train left Ekaterinburg and it is believed that the surviving members of the royal family were on it’; whilst Source J deviates from this as it proves that the corpses of the Empress and three daughters were also discovered with that of the Tsar’s – dental records positively identified ‘’Nicholas II, his wife and three of their daughters’’. If accurate tests have proved that the Empress and three of the Tsar’s daughters were also murdered with the Tsar, then this eliminates the possibility that some members of the royal family escaped – and so no surviving members could have left Ekaterinburg on a train on a later date, which implies that Source B may not be all that factual.
In conclusion, although Source J does confirm some of the details of certain sources, it does disagree with others, and therefore it does not completely construct the period in which the Romanov’s were murdered. For instance, it does not corroborate the claim made in Source B that the ‘’Tsar, Dr Botkin, the Empress’s main’’ etc were murdered in the Pieties House. As a result of this, we cannot use Source J to fully authenticate the events.
