What Happened To The Romanov Family
What Happened To The Romanov Family?
Alessandra Leonard
0 Maple
) Source A and B are not necessarily reliable because they give similar accounts.
Firstly they were both written in 1918, both reports. They also both involved Judge Sergeyev's opinions/views on the matter. Source A talks of Sergeyev's findings in the case. He was a supporter of the provisional government. He was appointed to investigate what had happened , but was mysteriously sacked, and also died shortly afterwards in mysterious circumstances. This may have been to do with that some of his findings in the investigation were supporting the Bolsheviks, rather than the Tsar.
Again in source B Sergeyev is the person to give all the evidence which was then used as a report to the British Government. It also states that 'There is no real evidence as to who or how many victims there were.'
Also in the report the words 'supposed' are used a lot, showing that there is no real answer. Therefore sources A and B are not definitely reliable because they give similar accounts.
The reliability of sourced A and B is also bought into question by what is said in source C
'My predecessor, Sergeyev, on handing the case to me, had no doubt about the fact that the entire Romanov family had been massacred in the Ipatiev House.
This shows that Sergeyev changed his mind about what had happened to the Romanov's showing that he is unreliable for giving evidence.
2) Source C differs enormously from A and B as it releases completely new information that are not included in A and B, even though A and B where written before source C.
Again source C roots back to Sergeyev's words, though it seems that Sergeyev may be unreliable as he has given different stories of what happened at Ipatiev House. It also states in source C that parts of Sergeyev's reports were never made public.
After Sergeyev had been sacked, he may have been forced to change his views of what had happened. That could possibly be why the source is so different from A and B.
Source C is also much more detailed about the murders and the disposals of the bodies, which seems maybe to detailed than it should be, considering it was not an eyewitness account.
'The murder was carried out using revolvers and bayonets.'
If Sergeyev knew this information, why did it take so long for it to be released?
The report also says ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
After Sergeyev had been sacked, he may have been forced to change his views of what had happened. That could possibly be why the source is so different from A and B.
Source C is also much more detailed about the murders and the disposals of the bodies, which seems maybe to detailed than it should be, considering it was not an eyewitness account.
'The murder was carried out using revolvers and bayonets.'
If Sergeyev knew this information, why did it take so long for it to be released?
The report also says that
'It is demonstrated that between the 17 and 22 July a murder occurred in the house.'
Does this mean that the murders took place on different days, the Tsar could have been killed separately to the rest of the family. Which in some ways relates to source I, and maybe the fact that they weren't all killed together.
3) Source D is not necessarily reliable just because it is an eyewitness account. Because the account came from someone that had been tortured, which means that he could have been forced to say something that supported the Whites. So he could be twisting the story. I also disagree that it is reliable, because although it is said to be an eyewitness account, a journalist or reporter could have slightly changed the sequences of event, while Pavel Medvedev was unaware of what was being written exactly. Also the fact that they are notes from an interview with a white Russian shows that it would obviously turned into a biased interview and notes.
Also source E states that Medvedev was involved in the murders, even that he had 'emptied two or three bullets into the Tsar'. Source E comes from information by Medvedev's wife that had been told by Medvedev. He may have been telling his wife the truth and not the white interviewers, or vice versa. Showing that just because it is an eyewitness account it doesn't mean it is reliable account.
4) As source F is a photograph it would be presumed that that was most reliable and useful. Though this photo could have been set up and made to look as if it was the place of the murders, and then photographed. Though source B does support this photo, as it describes the image of the bloodstained walls. Though, the photograph could have been created after source B was written to make it seem more realistic, and that it would also have a source to back the photo up.
Source G is just a painting, so there is no real evidence That this was what happened. The painting was also based on an investigation carried out by the whites , therefore the painting would be very biased and sympathetic towards the Tsar and his family.
Source H is a diagram of the positioning of the Romanov family and the guards before the murders. The diagram was made from eyewitness accounts. It also does not state from which side the witnesses were from, therefore it is probably not biased.
To find out which source would be most useful to a historian, it would have to state dates in which each of these sources were created. As this would give an insight into which would be the most reliable. All of these sources could have been based on each other and could be trying to build up a strong answer for what happened at Ipatiev House.
I would personally say that Source H is most useful to a historian, solely because it uses eyewitness accounts to create a diagram, and it was also published in a book. I feel source H would be more reliable than sources F and G, because I think that source F as a photograph was set up to look like the scene of the murder. Also the picture may have been constructed on the information that was available at the time about what the murder scene looked like. Source G is also most likely biased as it was created using white sources, and information.
5) This source is quite surprising, seeing as all the other sources state that the family were killed together, whereas this source says that just the Tsar was killed. As this was a message from the District Soviet, does this mean all the other sources are false, made up or twisted? Source G certainly states that they were all killed together and so does source H. Although source J states that in 1991 all the bodies were discovered together, including: Nicholas II, his wife Alexandra, and three of his daughters. However two of the children Anastasia, and her brother; heir to the throne Alexei.
It is also surprising because it was a local leader and was not a cover up. It also clearly states that 'his wife and son have been sent off to a secure place.' This is unusual because his son Alexei was the heir to throne, and keeping him alive would mean that he could possibly be hidden in secret and then years later regain his throne. Killing just the Tsar would not completely destroy the royal family.
Therefore Source I must be unreliable, as it differs from 9 other sources, which all in some way or another back each other up. It is surprising that source I says that they were killed at different times, but there bodies were later found together.
6) Source J does confirm most of the other sources, and that the family were supposedly all killed together, and buried together. Although two of the children were missing from the burial pit, Anastasia, and Alexei. As the bodies weren't found till nearly 80 years later, the bones went under a series of DNA tests, and were identified as the Romanov's.
This supports the other sources, for example sources A,B,C and D all claim that the murders took place together and Sources F,G and H also support that the murders happened in the Ekaterinburg. Most of the evidence available about what happened comes from the two investigations carried out by the whites, but the reds recaptured Ekataterinburg before the investigations were completed.
Source J also confirms that 'they had to be finished off by bayonets.'
This evidence confirms source c which states that 'The murder was carried out using revolvers and bayonets.'
There is new information in this source, that 'the bodies were driven to a mine and then the mine blown up by grenades. As none of the other sources state what happened to the bodies after the murders. This was an article from a British newspaper in December 1994, so it took 3 years since archaeologists opened the burial pit for the information to finally get to the papers about the Romanov's.
By Alessandra Leonard
0 Maple
