(B) Study Sources A, B and C. How far does the account in Source C differ from those in Sources A and B?
Source C was written by Judge Sokolov, the successor to Judge Sergeyev after he was relieved from the case. Source C differs from sources A and B in various ways. Firstly, source C clearly differs from sources A and B regarding who was actually killed in Ipatiev house. Source C firmly states that ‘the entire Romanov family had been massacred in the Ipatiev house’ which greatly contrasts with ‘the Tsar, the family doctor, two servants and a maid’ who were killed which both sources A and B believe, although source C does agree with sources A and B in that whoever was murdered, was killed in the lower levels of Ipatiev house.
Another difference between source C and sources A and B is the fact that they contradict in what is suggested to them by judge Sergeyev to the authors of each source. Source C suggests that judge Sergeyev ‘had no doubt about the fact that the entire Romanov family had been massacred in the Ipatiev house’. Sources A and B in contrast imply that judge Sergeyev did not believe this, and as such either both sources A and B or source C is incorrect.
Also, source C goes into greater detail than either of sources A or B into the aftermath of the murder of the Tsar. Although source A neither suggests, nor implies anything in this regard, source B hypothesizes that the surviving members of the royal family left Ekaterinbourg on the 17th of July aboard a train. Apart from differing with source C in that source C suggests there were no surviving members of the royal family, source B also deviates from source C in that source C states, with a tone of certainty, that in actual fact the bodies of the royal family ‘were chopped into pieces and burned with the aid of petrol and sulphuric acid. The fatty matter from their corpses ran out and mixed in with the soil.’
In addition to this, the detailed and grotesque imagery that is utilized in source C is sharply dissimilar with the language used in sources A and B. In sources A and B the text is maintained as very informative throughout, with little discussed of the minutiae of how the Romanovs were killed, and instead focusing on the more obvious points of the disappearance of the Tsar. Finer details given in C such as: ‘The fatty matter in the corpses ran out and mixed in with the soil.’ Are not of the greatest importance to the investigation of the deaths of the Romanovs, and in fact may have just been placed there by judge Sokolov to make the Reds appear more inhumane, and tarnish their standing among the Russian people in a critical time of the civil war.
To conclude, I believe that the account which source C provides is very different to the accounts presented in sources A and B. The fact that source B was an extract from a report to the British government, and was not an unrestricted publication makes it seem more likely that the author was in fact attempting to make the information contained in his documentation of the events as accurate as possible. The government could do with the information as it pleased on receipt of it, whether it decided to alter it, publish it as it was or indeed never publish it at all in any form. The fact that source C contradicts source B in particular makes C seem less reliable. Source C is opinionated and objective in trying to portray the reds negatively, with the use of words such as ‘massacred’ to suggest the brutality of the Reds. I believe this is because in fact judge Sergeyev was not harsh enough to the Reds as the whites would have hoped, in his report of what he believed happened to the Romanov family, and therefore his successor, Judge Sokolov would have had to be much more callous in portraying the Reds in his report of what happened to the Romanov family if he hoped for his documentation of the events to be accepted, and therefore this is why source C differs to various extents in different respects to sources A and B.
(C) Source D must be reliable because it is an eyewitness account. Do you agree?
It is usually considered that if an account is that of an eyewitness then it is reliable, however, this immediately presupposes that the account is not distorted and that the eyewitness is in no way biased regarding what they saw, and that they tell the truth.
Source D is ‘The notes from the interview of Pavel Mevdevev by White Russians.’ The bias here is immediately evident. The source itself also states that ‘He (Mevdevev) was probably tortured by the Whites.’ The Whites were the opponents of the Reds and hence they may have twisted or changed Mevdevev’s words or tortured him into saying anything to save himself from further suffering. The intentions of the Whites would have been to turn the Russian public against the Reds, the Bolsheviks, by proving that they had ruthlessly killed the Russian royal family. The reliability of this source immediately becomes very questionable.
Source D is also strange since the account Mevdevev offers does not seem to fit together well. Firstly, since Mevdevev was in charge of the guards detaining the royal family then it is highly unlikely that he would have been the one sent out to check for the shots, if indeed anyone was in fact sent out. Secondly if he was sent out to check whether or not the ‘the shots would be heard’ then why did the men remaining inside the house not wait until he returned before firing, since he was meant to be checking if there was anyone outside?
The extent to which D is reliable can also be tested by cross-referencing it with some of the other sources. In doing so the reliability of D is proved doubtable as by comparing the account D gives with those offered in sources A, B, E, I and J many dissimilarities present themselves, making it seem less likely that D is reliable. Sources A and B both disagree with D on who was actually killed by the Reds, source I also disagrees with D on who was actually executed, and source J – although it does not directly state it – advocates that perhaps not all the children were killed. Source D does however also agree with some sources on other aspects of the murders. For example, sources J and C both agree with D in that the corpses of the royal family were transported by lorry to a location for destruction.
Source E in particular directly opposes a number of the details that are offered in source D. In source E Mevdevev’s wife states that ‘my husband fired (at the royal family) too’, and the account also establishes that Mevdevev bragged to another guard of how he ‘emptied two or three bullets into the Tsar.’ which straightforwardly contests the statement that Mevdevev gives in source D of ‘He (Mevdevev) walked out and heard the shots. Walking into the room he saw all the members of the Tsars family lying on the floor.’ Mevdevev’s account in source D implies that he had nothing to do with the killing of the royal family. Sources D and E are distinctly dissimilar, and complement each other in no way apart from that the Tsar was killed in the shooting. Source E does not even firmly ascertain who the other victims were.
It is understandable however, that in source D Mevdevev would not have confessed to participating in the killings of the royal family (assuming that the statement Mevdevev’s wife makes in source E is in fact correct), in view of the fact that his investigators were White Russians. Had Mevdevev admitted his own involvement in the events then he would most certainly have been reprimanded by the Whites facing a possible sentence of execution for his actions. However, the implication that he lied about his involvement in the murders doesn’t necessarily mean that he lied in his account about everything.
I do not believe that source D is reliable first and foremost because of the fact that it is based on the notes of an investigation carried out by white Russians. The bias is immediately evident, as the information displayed in the source is selective, possibly taken out of context, and in fact may be totally distorted from what Medvedev actually stated by the white officials who conducted the interview. The source states that ‘he (Medvedev) was probably tortured by the Whites’ and therefore in his account Medvedev may have given false information to save himself from further torture.
(D) Study Sources F, G and H. Which of these sources is most useful to a historian studying the deaths of the Tsar and his family?
Source F is a photograph of where the murders of the Tsar and various other people are claimed to have taken place. There appears to be blood sprayed across the walls, and the amount of blood could help a historian to reason whether this was a massacre or merely a one-shot execution.
The origins of source F however are not known, and no date is printed on the caption, leaving this source open to speculation. The photograph is of poor quality and may have been faked in that the bullet marks in the wall may have been intentionally shot there to hoax the murders. Perhaps the killings did not even take place in this room, or perhaps the marks were there from something else.
I believe that to a historian source F could be useful as it could be used to deduce information about how members of the royal household were killed. However, being only a photograph, source F can only give an impression of the way things happened and as such is not clear or conclusive, and cannot fully back any other source. Nevertheless it could be used to cross reference information from other sources, such as the direction in which the Tsar (as well as others) were shot, the caliber of the weapons used, and indeed confirming the very way in which they were executed (who knows that they were not hanged?!).
One problem with the source however is that it may not give historians a full idea of what happened in the room since not the whole room is shown, and therefore it cannot be deduced from this source whether there was much more blood in the room to indicate a total slaughter, or whether the only blood contained therein was just on the wall pictured, which would imply that the direction from which the photograph was taken is the direction in which the royal family was shot.
Source G is a painting of the death of the Tsar based on the investigation of his death by the Whites. The source is immediately subjective to bias as a piece of White propaganda and is basically just an artist’s representation of what is stated in sources C and D (the reports and investigations of the Whites). The source is objective in attempting to make the Reds look bad, and portrays the Tsar and indeed all the other victims in the room as innocent and helpless to the brutal mercilessness of the Red guards by whom they are killed. It is designed to evoke negative responses towards the Reds. The one-sidedness of this source is apparent, however merely because it is not reliable that is not to say that it may not be useful to a historian.
The source for example can be used to cross reference the details of the murders of the royal family, with the two different accounts offered by sources A and B which detail Judge Sergeyev’s findings on the killings, and source C which gives Judge Sokolov’s account (although it also claims to be based on the findings of Judge Sergeyev). By looking at the source G it appears as though it supports the information given in sources A and B more, since it seems to contain the ‘the Tsar, Dr Botkin, The empress’ maid and two servants’ which they suggest rather than the ‘entire Romanov family’ which is stated by C, and perhaps it may therefore be assumed that the painting was commissioned before Judge Sokolov took over the investigation from Judge Sergeyev.
Source H is a diagrammatic extract from Judge Sokolov’s report on the fate of the Romanov family, showing the positions he (Sokolov) believed the various different people were in the basement before the murders. As this source was drawn by a White, judge Sokolov, it is not very reliable and the information it contains may be inclined against the Reds– especially in view of the implication that Sokolov’s predecessor was sacked for not portraying them harshly enough in his report of the events. This source is based on the information judge Sokolov investigated as part of his report, and is therefore a secondary one. Without the information upon which this source was based then it would not prove of as much use to a historian as it could be. Also the diagram itself does not inform a historian of much; just how many people were involved in the killings and where they were placed. It does not label the individuals.
I believe that this source could be of some use to a historian depending on exactly what is they are trying to utilize the source for. If for example they were attempting to find out how many people were killed in the basement then source H would be of more use then if they were trying to research the Russian revolution as a whole.
In conclusion, I believe that all three sources F, G and H may be found useful by historians in different ways. Source F could be used to imply that some bloodshed had taken place and could also be used to infer with other sources, which could help a historian begin to draw up their own conclusion as to what happened in the basement. Source G could be used as a reference for the types of White propaganda used at the time. Source H I believe could also be useful to a historian depending on what it is they were trying to research. Any of the sources may be found more useful than the others depending on exactly what it is that the historian looking at them is trying to employ them for.
(E) Study Source I. Are you surprised by this source?
Source I is very interesting. The fact that the order for the extermination of the Tsar came from the district soviet of the Ural is probable because under the system of workers unions each soviet was left in total control of the areas they governed, and had the authority to carry out their wishes within the respective communes they controlled. In this source the district soviet of the Ural is shown to be only reporting their actions back to the Bolsheviks in Petrograd, not seeking permission - the killings have already taken place, the Tsar is already dead.
Source I also suggests that the Bolshevik party themselves had not authorized the murder of Nicholas Romanov, and therefore were not connected with the killing of the Tsar. This could have acted as a failsafe for the Bolshevik party, because if the Whites managed to capture them, and they knew the Reds were not responsible for the death of the Tsar, they would perhaps not treat the Bolsheviks as harshly as they would if they had solid evidence that the Reds were responsible, and killed the Tsar. The message may have been intended to be intercepted.
Had the counter-revolutionary forces managed to overtake Ekaterinbourg (which they eventually did) then they undoubtedly would have attempted to restore the Tsar back to power in Russia’s previous system of autocracy. This previous system was the total opposite of the foundations upon which communism was built, and as such the Reds had to prevent its return. Here it is made evident that the presidium of the district soviet of the Ural decided the best way in which to achieve this would be to execute the Tsar so that there would be no way for the Whites to restore him back to power, in the event that they should win the civil war. The decision made by the presidium was forced and hurried under the pressure of the nearing White forces.
However it does strike as rather odd that such an important decision to kill the Tsar was undertaken solely by the soviet without first consulting the Bolsheviks and Lenin in Petrograd. The fact that the leadership was not involved by the soviet of the Ural in such a politically important decision is what is most surprising about this source.
In this source however it is implied that only the Tsar was killed on the order of the Ural soviet. ‘His wife and son have been sent off to a secure place.’ This contradicts many sources (Sources A and B as well as all other sources related to the investigation of Judge Sokolov) and makes the reliability of source E questionable.
(F) How far does source J confirm what the other sources said about what happened to the Tsar and his family?
Source J, in my opinion is the most important and reliable source for many reasons. Source J was a report from a British newspaper published in 1994. It states that “two of the imperial families five children were found missing when archaeologists opened a shallow burial pit near Ekaterinbourg”. This tells the reader that it was true about the bodies being transported out of Ekaterinbourg. Source J is backed up by modern technology and is proved to be much more reliable than any of the other sources. Source J identifies exactly where and who the bodies are present. Source J is also supported by many other sources and the ones that do not support source J are most likely distorted.
In conclusion, Source J, along with sources C and D, believe that the corpses were taken, in a lorry, to a mine, in an attempt to dispose of any evidence. Also, sources A and B agree with J that 5 people were killed. However other sources disagree with J on certain matters, such as how many were killed, as sources C and D believe they were all killed. I still believe that, considering it has DNA information and that it is a secondary source published 75 years after the alleged shootings and has had more time to gather evidence, source J is the most trustworthy source.
