GCSE History Coursework
- They are both similar because they are using evidence from the same primary source; Sergeyev’s findings, therefore one cannot say that they are reliable just because they have the same information. Judge Sergeyev, the person that conducted the investigation was a “white” judge and therefore we must assume that he is bias towards the whites and he will try and make the Bolsheviks look bad. Also, he was a supporter of the provisional government, which means that he probably didn’t like the Bolsheviks for destroying it. In addition to this the providence tells us that Judge Sergeyevs findings only known from comments of people who spoke to him or from people who read his report. Since there are no hard copies of the report we cannot be certain that what these people say is accurate, and people have a tendency to sometimes forget information over time. In addition, the providence says its from an American newspaper, newspapers editors want the paper to be sold, therefore they will make a story that the people want to know about and that will sell, and therefore make them money. Also an American would be bias towards the whites, because the Bolsheviks made Russia leave the war, it meant that there was more pressure on the allies to hold Germany back, and therefore more American soldiers died. The war was a bug issue in America and it would also be a selling point for the newspaper.
Source B is from a report by Sir Charles Eliot to the British government. This report is not reliable either because it is using the evidence that was gathered by Judge Sergeyev, and because Sergeyev is a “white” and a supporter of the provisional government then he is bias, therefore Sir Charles’s evidence is bias and therefore not reliable either. In addition, Sir Charles is working for the British government. The British don’t like the Bolsheviks because they made Russia withdraw from the war, and therefore nearly lost Britain, France and America. With this information, we can see that his report may have been bias. In addition to this, Britain also sent troops to help the whites and many died, again another reason to be bias.
- Sources A & B were using evidence from Judge Sergeyev’s investigation, source C however is using information from the investigations of another, Judge Sokolov.
Sources A&B claim that only the Tsar, Dr Botkin (the family doctor), two servants and the Empress’s maid were shot in Ipatiev house, and source B goes onto say that the Tsarina and her children were led taken out of the city to a safe place by means of a sealed train.
Source 3 however claims that all of the family were shot in Ipatiev house, and then after the murder a lorry took mine them to the Four Brothers mine. Here they were cut up, and then burnt using sulphuric acid and petrol.
Judge Sokolov also says that because there are holes in the walls that mean there has been a murder, and that because the holes are so widespread it must have been for more than 1 person. However, the holes could have been made someone shooting at he wall to fake a murder, or just someone shooting for fun! In addition to this, Sokolov’s report is about 7 years later than the alleged murder, so therefore if he questioned people, their memories may have been vague and could have given incorrect accounts, or the house could have been damaged itself either normally or during some other incident, in which the resulting damage could be interpreted as a bullet hole, or a sign of struggle.
