In conclusion, Sources A and B do give similar accounts to an extent but the differences between them outweigh the similarities which suggests the sources are not that reliable and that just because they are similar to an extent it does not mean they have to be reliable. Both sources very in a large amount and the fact that they are both constructed using Sergeyev’s comments, a poor source in terms of reliability in his own right means that both differ to a large extent considering Sergeyev’s input. Source B also contains additional information, which could improve its reliability but when comparing with Source A which does not include this, it makes me question both sources reliability.
Question B
Source C is an extract from a book by Judge Sokolov published in 1924. Sources A and B are similar accounts of what happened at the Ipatiev House but are written by different people.
By taking source A and B as one account there are similarities between these sources and that of source C. Source C mentions that the murders took place in the Ipatiev House which both sources A and B agree on. Source C also mentions that the murders took place "in one of the rooms in the basement." Similarly Source A suggests that the crime was supposed to have been committed in the lower storey of the building.
However, there are also many differences between sources C and A and B and the extent of the difference is based on how many facts are different. Firstly, source C mentions that Judge Sergeyev "had not doubt about the fact that the entire Romanov family had been massacred in the Ipatiev House. This is completely different to what the American newspaper reports on in source A as they state that only five people were murdered in the house. They even based their reports on Sergeyev's findings. Source B also states the same five people in source A being murdered; consequently this is a major difference. Source C also states the dates "17 and 22 July" as to when Sokolov believed that the crime took place - in between those days. Source B does not mention a date but does state that on 17 July, a train left Ekaterinbuurg...surviving members of the royal family were in it." This suggests that Sir Charles Eliot believed that the murder took place before these dates, hence the difference. Source C also states that "revolvers and bayonets" were used to carry out the murder whereas sources A and B do no mention weapons but do mention the fact that the family was "shot." This suggests that Judge Sokolov discovered new evidence to what had been used as the murder weapon, something the other sources do not pick up on. There is additional information to support this theory as Sokolov suggests that "more that thirty shots were fired because some of the bullets must have remained in the bodies. Sokolov further explains that on 17 July "a lorry carried the corpses to the four brothers’ mine." He also explains how the bodies were "chopped into pieces and burned with the aid of petrol and sulphuric acid." Neither sources A and B mention any corpses and this is justified by source B stating "No corpses were discovered." However, as Sokolov believed that the Royal family in its entirety was murdered, source B gives somewhat of a different account to what happened on 17 July stating that the train left Ekaterinburg with the surviving members in it. Sokolov believed that there were no surviving members; therefore this is a major difference.
In conclusion, the account in Source C differs largely from those in sources A and B. The reasons for this include the fact that Sokolov's reports have a large amount of differences such as the weapons used, the dates he believed the murders took place; something that the other two sources do not mention. Also there are many basic facts of the murder that the sources differ on. This includes how many people were murdered.
Question C
Source D is two paragraphs of notes taken from an interview with Pavel Medvedev, who was in charge of the men guarding the royal family. The interview was conducted by white Russians and is the nearest to an eye witness account of the murders.
There are many factors which make the source reliable. The fact that Medvedev was at the scene of the murder and therefore this being an eyewitness account does add reliability to this source. Furthermore, the source mentions similar victims to those of the sources A and B including the emperor, the empress, her daughters, Dr Botkin and he maid. Hence, this adds to its reliability.
Conversely, there are many factors which make the source unreliable. First and foremost, Medvedev was being interviewed by 'white Russians' which could lead to his account as being biased since he was probably tortured by the whites. The bias would be based around covering for the Bolsheviks' and hiding evidence. The opening paragraph of Medvedev's account includes something that does not seem to be truthful and the therefore reliable. He says "In my presence there were no tears, no sobs and no questions." In my opinion I would feel that there is bound to be some fear from the family that would inevitably lead to tears and sobs but this is not the case in Medvedevs account. His account of how many victims there are does coincide with those of previous sources such as A as he does not mention any servants. This makes his account even less reliable. In the second paragraph, it seems as though Medvedev is covering himself as according to him he was told to "go out on the street and see whether anyone's there and if the shots will be heard." He then hears the shots, walks back in to find the royal family lying on the floor. This does not appear to make sense as it would be useless for someone to go out and hear if shots can be heard because it’s pretty obvious that they could be heard from a mile off. This suggests he does not want to be involved as a suspect.
When analysing source E there are no similarities to that of source D. With source E being from an extract from a History book using Medvedev's wife's comments, we can see there are many differences. Firstly there is a mention of "a paper was read to them that said, "the revolution is dying and so shall you." There is no mention of this in source D. His wife also says "My husband fired too" in response to the shootings while Medvedev clearly states that he was outside when the shootings took place. This continues as the source states that Medvedev told a guard he'd "emptied two or three bullets into the Tsar" which further implies his guilt, his lies and also shows how source E is completely different to what source D states.
In conclusion, I do not agree that since source D is an eyewitness account it must be reliable. This is because source E, taken from Medvedev's own wife's words are the opposite of what source D and Medvedev state. Furthermore, source D includes many suspicious factors such as Medvedev being told to see if he could hear the shots outside. Other sources such as A do not agree with source D on some points either in relation to the number of victims which means that even though it is an eye witness account, source D does not have to be and in this case is not really reliable.