Source C also shares a key similarity with Source B, in that parts of it were never presented to the public. This means that these sources are likely to be more reliable an useful than sources such as Source A which is extremely likely to be biased.
A large amount of differences between the account in source C and those of sources A and B are also noticeable. To begin with, Source C shows a much greater amount of intelligence about the disposal of the bodies after the supposed murders. The source describes in reasonable detail how they were driven to the ‘Four Brothers mine’, before being burned in petrol and sulphuric acid. On the other hand, source B gives an extremely vague description of what happened, which contradicts source C, as it says, ‘no trace of them having been burned.’
Source A differs greatly to source C in the way it is written, and for whom it is written to. Source A is taken from a public newspaper in America, making it much more narrative, and less factual and possibly less reliable, whereas source C is written for a book, and it is more factual and definite. For example, source C says, ‘no doubt about the fact that the entire Romanov family had been massacred in the Ipatiev house, whereas source A says, ‘I do not believe that all the people were shot there’
Source C was also written 5 years later than sources A and B. This means that more evidence about the case could have been discovered since Sources A and B were written, which would explain why Source C contains far greater amounts of detail about the disposal of the bodies. This suggests that source C is likely to be slightly more reliable than sources A and B.
Source C also gives more detail on the actual murder. Skolov says in Source C, ‘More than thirty shots were fired,’ whereas source A simply says, ‘the Tsar, his family, and those with him, were shot.’
Question 3 (c). Source D must be reliable because it is an eyewitness account. Do you agree?
The fact that source D is an eyewitness account does not necessarily mean that it is to be taken readily as a reliable source. On the other hand, eyewitness accounts can be more accurate than other kinds of source, as there is less scope for the information to be twisted and misinterpreted though information being passed on. The reliability of the source is almost totally dependant on the nature and condition of the witness. Source E also contains information, which the witness, Pavel Medvedev may not have disclosed in his report. Whilst there are points which can be used to argue that source D is reliable, there are also points which show that it is not necessarily trustworthy.
To begin with, Source D implies that the whole family were killed, along with the doctor and the Empresses maid, as Medvedev says, ‘The Empress sat down by the wall, behind her stood three of her daughters. The Emperor was in the middle, next to the heir, and behind them stood Dr Botkin. The maid stood by the storeroom with the other daughter.’ This contrasts with Source B, written by judge Sergeyev, which says that only five were shot, ‘The Tsar, Dr Botkin, the Empress’s maid and two servants.’ Source A, also based on the findings of judge Sergeyev similarly disagrees, as its says, ‘It is my belief that the Empress, the Tsar’s son and the four other children were not shot in that house’. This shows that the information provided by judge Sergeyev disagrees with Source D, and therefore that source D is possibly unreliable. However, judge Sergeyev mentioned to Sir Charles Eliot, in source B that there was no real evidence as to who or how many victims there were, and so it is thinkable that Source D is more accurate and informed.
Source E says that, “Medvedev stupidly told one of the other guards that he had ‘emptied two or three bullets into the Tsar”. However, there is no mention of this in Source D, which even says that Medvedev left the room while the shooting took place, before returning to find the entire Romanov family dead. This could mean that Medvedev was lying to the whites during his interview, and trying to conceal the fact that he had personally shot the Tsar, in order to avoid further punishment.
Source D is one of many sources, which write about the murders being carried out with guns, as it says, ‘see whether anyone’s there and if the shots will be heard’. Guns are also mentioned in Sources A, B, C, E, G, I and J. This practically confirms that Medvedev is being truthful when he says that the Romanov’s were shot. However, it is surprising that he does not mention the use of Bayonet’s in the murder, as Source C says, ‘The murder was carried out using revolvers and Bayonet’s’, and Source F shows that the floor has been ripped up a great deal, implying the use of more than just guns. Source J also confirms that Bayonet’s were used. This shows that Medvedev was probably concealing certain details of the murder, in order to cover his back slightly.
We are not told of when source D was written, however we can assume that it was written before the Whites lost the civil war,
Source D is taken from notes of an interview performed by the Whites. It is therefore highly likely that Medvedev, a guard present at the time of the murder and great enemy of the whites, was tortured for the information. In law, evidence cannot be taken from a witness if they have been tortured. This principle can be applied to this case, as the reliability of Medvedev’s account is extremely questionable due to the fact that he was probably tortured.
Question 4 (d) Which of these sources is most useful to an historian studying the deaths of the Tsar and his family?
Sources F, G and H all give visual information on the deaths of the Romanov’s. However, it is difficult to decide which source is most beneficial to a historian, investigating the murder of the Tsar and his family. There are two main factors, which contribute to the usefulness of a source. These include the reliability of the source, and the amount of information the source provides.
Source F is a photograph, which automatically suggests that it is a reliable source. The photograph is very likely to have been taken soon after the crime, making it a primary source. The bullet holes, and bayonet marks displayed by Source F are supported by many sources, such as Source C, which says, ‘the murder was carried out using revolvers and bayonets’. Sources A, B, D, E, G, I and J all support source F, in the way that they say the crime was carried out using guns, bayonets, or both. Source F is also proved more reliable, by the fact that it shows a door in the right hand corner of the room. This door is mentioned in other sources, such as source D, where Medvedev says, ‘The maid stood by the storeroom door.’ Source H also support this, as the words ‘Door to the storeroom’ are written in the top right hand corner.
On the contrary, Source F is not to be taken too readily as reliable and useful information, simply because it is a photograph. It is important to bear in mind that there is always the slight possibility that the photo is a fake, i.e. the crime scene has been re-created for the photo, and below the source, it is written, ‘where the murders are claimed to have taken place,’ meaning that there is no evidence to prove that it shows the room in which the murders took place. Additionally, whilst there is a high chance that the photo is a genuine photo of the crime scene, it does not convey as much information as sources G and F, for Source G in particular shows the position of the Romanov’s, the way in which they were killed, and much more information on the murder. However, the reliability of these sources is questionable.
Source G is an artists impression of the Murder’s. This means that great caution must be taken when deciding whether or not to trust what the source is showing. The fact that it is created by an artist, means that the artist was likely to have been trying to produce something that’s both artistic and interesting, and this could distract the artist from focusing on the facts. The source is also based on the investigation carried out by the whites (Sergeyev, and Skolov), who opposed the execution of the Tsar and his family. This means that it is likely to be biased, and could be aiming to make the reader sympathetic towards the Romanov’s, to increase support for the Whites.
On the other hand, there are many sources which support the content of source G, and it is apparent that the artist has looked very closely at the evidence before painting his work. Firstly, The painting shows that the Tsar and his family are being shot by the guards. This is shown to be almost definitely true, as references to guns occur in all of the sources apart from H, and possibly F. On the other hand, there is no evidence of bayonets being used in the picture, as mentioned in sources C and J. Source G also shows us who the artist believed to be in the room, and where he supposed they were situated. This however, is a very uncertain matter, and so it is important to look carefully at whether the artist opinion agrees with the other sources. The painting shows the Tsar and his son being shot in the middle of the room, in front of Dr Botkin. This is supported by source D, which says, ‘The Emperor was in the middle, next to the heir, and behind him stood Dr Botkin.’ The painting then shows 4 women in the corner, one of which is dead. It is difficult to tell for sure who each one is, however it appears as though three of the daughters are backed against the wall near to the door, with the dead Tsarina lying in front of them. This appears to be evidence based, as it is again supported by Source D, which says, ‘The Empress sad down by the wall, behind her stood three of her daughters.’ This leaves the final victim shown in the picture, a small woman, crouched in the corner of the room. Judging by the headscarf she is wearing, it looks as though this is the maid, however, Source D contradicts this, as it says, ‘The maid stood by the storeroom door with the other daughter.’ These sources do not match in this respect, as the maid or the daughter is on the wrong side of the room, as sources F and H show us that the storeroom door is on the right hand side of the room. Conclusively, Source G suggests that the whole Romanov family was killed in the Ipatiev house, although it is possible that one daughter was missing.
Source G seems to be based mainly on the interview of Paul Medvedev, which was carried out by the whites, and we are also told that it is based on the investigation carried out by the whites. However, this is unusually contradicted by sources A and B, which are taken from the accounts of the two White supporters, Sergeyev and Sir Charles, who tell us, ‘the Empress, the Tsar’s son and the four other children were not shot,’ and, ‘It is supposed that there were five- the Tsar, Dr Botkin, the Empress’s maid and two servants.’ This shows that Source G is backed by little evidence, other than the untrustworthy account of Paul Medvedev who was tortured.
Source H is an overhead plan of the room, showing where Judge Skolov believed each of Romanov’s, their servants and the guards were situated in the room. Skolov based this diagram on what he was told by people who he had interviewed. It is quite possible that Medvedev was one of these people, and resultantly, source H corresponds with source D, as Medvedev says, ‘Eleven men walked into the room.’ This excludes himself, and so from Medvedev’s account we can conclude that there were twelve guards in the room, as shown in source H. Having said that, it is extremely debateable as to whether the number of Romanov’s and servants in the room is correct. Source H shows that the entire Romanov family, along with the Doctor, the maid, and two servants were murdered in the basement of the Ipatiev house. This is contradicted by sources A, B and I, which all agree that the Tsarina and her son were not murdered in the Ipatiev house. Sources A and B say that there were only five victims, which differs greatly to source H which shows twelve.
On the whole, I believe that source G is the most useful source to a historian studying the death of the Tsar and his family. Whilst it is simply a painting, and therefore has lots of room for error, the information conveyed by the picture is well supported and reasonably accurate. Source F is an extremely reliable source, as it is a photo, and is backed up by several sources which mention bullet holes, and bayonets, however it gives far less information than source G. Source H gives a reasonable amount of information; how many victims and guards there were, where they were stood, the position of the doors, however it is less well supported than source G and gives slightly less information, as it does not show how the victims were murdered.
Question 5 (e), Are you surprised by Source I?
Source I is a message from the District Soviet, and is most likely to be a telegram, as it was intended for the Bolsheviks in Petrograd. There are several reasons why the source is surprising or contradictory to other sources. There are also a number of points which come up in the source, which are not surprising, and are reflected in other sources.
Firstly, Source I makes reference to the use of bullets, when it says, ‘by shooting’. The use of guns is confirmed by all of the sources, except for Source H and so it is very unsurprising that the District Soviet claim to have used guns. Another point which is common amongst most of the sources is the fact that the Tsar was killed, as sources A, B, C, D, E, G and J all claim that the Tsar was shot. It is therefore also unsurprising that Source I says that the Tsar was killed, and the matter is virtually confirmed with the addition of a Bolshevik statement. It also comes as little surprise that the Tsar was actually killed, as the motive for committing the murder is shown in Source E, when Medvedev’s wife says, ‘a paper was read to them that said, ‘the revolution is dying and so shall you’’. This shows that the Bolsheviks were becoming extremely worried as the whites had captured Ekaterinburg, and were rapidly ceasing the revolution. In response to this, the Bolsheviks took drastic action and decided to kill the Tsar, along with his family, as they felt that this would boost the revolution. There is evidence of the panic amongst the Bolsheviks, as The District Soviet says in Source I, ‘Ekaterinburg was seriously threatened by the danger of counter revolutionaries’. The counter revolutionaries were the whites.
Having said all this, there are a number of surprising elements in the source. To begin with, the date of the source is 20th July 1918. This shows that the estimate in source C is correct, when it says, ‘between 17 and 22 July a murder occurred,’ which is relatively un alarming, however it also shows that the Bolsheviks had acted extremely quickly and irrationally, as the whites had only captured Ekaterinburg in May that year, showing that the Bolsheviks were surprisingly quick to respond so harshly, and rather recklessly.
When talking of the Tsars murder, the District Soviet say, ‘His wife and son have been sent off to a secure place.’ This does not coincide with what is said in Source J, where the Tsars wife was positively identified in the shallow burial pit, using the latest scientific technology in DNA. This shows that the District Soviet was lying in the message sent to Petrograd. This is unusual and surprising, as the message was intended for a senior authority amongst the Bolsheviks, and therefore should not contain lies. However, this mystery is explainable, as it is likely that the District Soviet, who had little authority had disobeyed the senior Bolsheviks in Petrograd by killing the Tsar, or his family, and had attempted to hide the fact that the Tsars family were killed.
There is also no mention of Doctor Botkin, maid or the Tsars son in source I. This is also surprising, as many other sources say that some of them were also killed. For example, in Medvedev’s account from Source D, he says, ‘The Emperor was in the middle, next to the heir, and behind him stood Dr Botkin. The maid stood by the storeroom door with the other daughter.’ Sources A, B, D, and G all claim that Doctor Botkin and the Maid were murdered with the Tsar, and Sources D an G tell us that the Tsar’s son was also murdered with him. However, this contradiction of other sources is likely to have been the result of the District Soviet trying to cover up the fact that they had killed the Tsars family without permission.
The most surprising thing of all about source I is the fact that the Bolsheviks took such drastic action in such a short period of time. On top of this, it was also a very low authority giving the command to take such extreme action. The consequences of killing the Tsar and his family could have been extremely serious, which is why it is hard to understand how the decision was made by the District Soviet, as opposed to a major power. The execution of the Tsars family by the Bolsheviks could have led to them losing a great deal of support, as they would have appeared to be out of control. The support for the whites could have also increased greatly, as the brutal murder emphasised their cause; to remove the ruthless killers from the Russian system, and it showed that they were the ones in control. People around the world would have taken a very dim view of the Bolsheviks actions, and governments would have condemned them, causing them to be far less popular.
In addition to this, it is also reasonably surprising that the Bolsheviks revolution was successful, after they were ‘seriously threatened’ by the Whites. The Whites captured Ekaterinburg, and drove the Bolsheviks into a state of panic and confusion. This confusion is shown, as in source I, the District Soviet sends a message containing the false information; ‘his wife and son have been sent off to a secure place,’ to Bolsheviks in Petrograd. This shows that the Bolsheviks had been weakened by the whites, and there was confusion arising between the key administrative centres, making it rather surprising that they managed to succeed. On the other hand, the Bolsheviks had other strengths which help explain their victory, such as the ‘Red Guards,’ the military force devoted to the Bolsheviks, their strong and inspiring leader, Vladimir Lenin and their ability to adapt their policies, which cause this victory to be slightly less startling.
Finally, I find the way in which the Bolsheviks murdered the Royal family to be slightly careless. Sources A, B, C, D, E, G and J all show that the Tsar was shot. The Bolsheviks were trying to be extremely discreet in the way they carried out the execution, as shown in source C, which says, ‘the bodies were chopped into pieces and burned with the aid of petrol and sulphuric acid’. This shows that the Bolsheviks were trying to reduce the amount of evidence from the murder as possible. It is for this reason that I find it unusual that the royal family were shot, because, as we can see in source F, shooting someone inside a room leaves a large amount of evidence of the murder taking place. However, this is also partially explainable, as the Bolsheviks were under a great deal of pressure from the Whites, and so the murder was carried out extremely hastily.
In conclusion, there are a number of points which come up in source I, which make it surprising in different ways. These include things such as the fact that the Bolsheviks responded extremely quickly and harshly, the way in which the District Soviet mislead their leaders in Petrograd, and the fact that the decision to kill the Romanov’s was made by a department of such low authority. However, there are a number of possible explanations for these surprising points, and a number of unsurprising elements, which cause the source to be slightly less surprising. In all, source I is a moderately surprising, and interesting source.
Question 6 (f) How far does Source J confirm what the other sources said about what happened to the Tsar and his family?
Source J is From a British newspaper, and shows recent information on the Romanov case, after archaeologists opened a burial pit near Ekaterinburg in 1991. The source was proved using the latest scientific methods of using DNA. The DNA of the Duke of Edinburgh, whos mother was a Romanov, and the Duke of Kent, who linked back to the Tsarina, was sampled, and Identified the Tsar, his wife and three of their daughters. This method of proving the information means that it is a highly reliable source, and is extremely useful to compare with other sources. There are some ways in which some of the sources corroborate and are confirmed by source J, and there are other some sources which are shown to be false.
Firstly, source J shows some of the detail in source C to be correct, which says, ‘the murder was carried out using revolvers and bayonets’. This is confirmed by source J when it says, ‘the girls, protected by jewels sown into their underclothes, had to be finished off by bayonets.’ This is also reflected in the photograph in Source F, which shows the ripped wallpaper, most probably caused by the aggressive use of bayonets.
Source C states that the bodies were put onto a lorry, as it says, ‘a lorry carried the corpses’, as does source D, which says, ‘The corpses were taken out to the lorry’. Therefore, source J confirms these to sources in this respect, whilst disproving source B, which says, ‘A train left Ekaterinburg, and it is believed that the surviving members of the royal family were in it.’ Source C also goes into more detail, and says, ‘a lorry carried the corpses to the Four Brothers mine’. This again is confirmed by what is said in Source J, however the two sources describe different methods of disposing the bodies after reaching this mine. Source C says, ‘the bodies were chopped into pieces and burned with the aid of petrol and sulphuric acid’, whereas Source J says, ‘the mine blown up by grenades, however the mine did not collapse, and the next day the bodies were put back on the lorry. The lorry became bogged down in a swap and the remains were buried right there.’ There is no mention of the bodies being chopped up, or of them being burned, and therefore Source J partially disproves Source C.
Source J also agrees with many of the Sources, in the fact that the victims were shot, as every source, excluding source H shows evidence of guns being used in the murder, and source J implies of the use of guns, as it says, ‘the girls, protected by jewels sown into their vest had to be finished off with bayonets’. All of these sources, except source H also show that the Tsar was shot, which is reflected in source J, which says, ‘DNA Tests along with dental tests positively identify Nicholas II’.
Many of the sources corroborate, and imply that a great deal of force and firepower was required to kill the victims, such as source C which says, ‘More than thirty shots were fired’, and Source F which gives visual evidence of the amount of force used. Sources B and E also imply that many shots were fired, and sources D and H, show the number of guards, which hints the extent of the force used. The reason for this brutality is given by source J, which says, ‘Marks on the skeletons show that the girls, protected by jewels sown into their underclothes, had to be finished off with bayonets’. This is an extremely fitting explanation, and convincingly supports Source B, C, E and F. Source J mentions five victims, which means according to the above quote from source C, enough shots were fired for each victim to be shot five times.
There is much confusion between all of the sources as to who exactly was murdered in the Ipatiev house. Source J therefore contradicts some sources in this respect, whilst supporting others. To begin with, sources A and B say that only five people were killed, and that the children were not shot. This is partially shown in source J, which says, ‘two of the imperial family’s five children were missing’. This shows that some of the children were killed, however not all, as said in sources A and B, so this is only a partial agreement. On the other hand, Source J does not confirm when or where the victims were killed, so there is the slightest possibility that some of the victims were not shot in the Ipatiev house, as said by sources A and B.
Source C is extremely vague about who was killed in the Ipatiev house, as it simply says, ‘Several people were murdered.’ This source can be linked with source J, which tells us, ‘Nicholas II, his wife and three of their daughters,’ were killed, and so whilst source J does not exactly prove Source C in this area, it does not disagree. Source J also shows us why sources such as source B contain errors, when they say, ‘there is no real evidence as to who or how many victims there were’, as we are shown the lengths that the Bolsheviks went to hide the bodies, and prevent this sort of evidence from being discovered. This also displays the panicking behaviour of the Bolsheviks, which is shown in source D and also source I, which says ‘Ekaterinburg was seriously threatened’.
In the notes, taken from Medvedev’s interview, it is stated that, ‘walking into the room, he saw all the members of the Tsar’s family lying on the floor’, which shows that the entire family had been killed. Source E, which contains the account of Medvedev’s wife, also says, ‘they started firing, and killed them all’. These two sources therefore do not coincide with what is said in Source J, as source J says, ‘two of the imperial family’s five children were missing’.
In slightly more detail, Sources G shows the guards to be shooting downwards. This is also shown in source B, which says, ‘the victims had been shot while kneeling’ and source F which shows the bulk of the bullet holes to be on or around the floor. Source J also implies this, as it says the jewels in their underclothes meant that the girls had to be finished off with bayonets. This means that the guards cannot have been shooting into the victims heads, as jewels sewn into the girls underclothes would not protect them from shots to the head. Instead the guards must have been shooting downwards, towards the bodies of their victims.
The artists impression shown in source G shows the Tsar’s son being shot with the rest of the family. This is completely contradicted by source J, which tells us that ‘Two of the imperial family’s five children were missing,’ and ‘three of their daughters,’ were found. This means that the son was not found, and so there is a disagreement between the two sources. In contrast to this however, both sources J and G show that only 3 of the four daughters were killed.
Finally, a plain disagreement between sources I and J is apparent, as source I says, ‘His wife and son have been sent off to a secure place’. This cannot be correct, as Source J says that the Tsars wife was found in the burial pit with the Tsar. It is however possible that the information given in Source I was deliberately false for two main reasons. Firstly, there is a high chance that the message was a telegram, which could have been intercepted by the whites, and therefore by placing lies in their messages, the Bolsheviks could hope to mislead the Whites, and cover their own backs slightly. Secondly, it is also possible that the District Soviet had disobeyed orders from the Bolsheviks in Petrograd, and therefore were attempting to cover up the fact that the majority of the Romanov Family were murdered.
In conclusion, source J supports many points made in the other sources, and helps link together sources which are rather vague in certain areas. Particularly useful is the connection which can be made between the amount of force displayed by sources B, C, E and F, and the fact that the girls were protected by jewels sown into their underclothes. On the other hand, there are also a number of different disagreements and contradictions between source J and the other sources, which show them to be incorrect and unreliable. In general, I believe that the connections between source J and the other sources far outweigh the inconsistencies.
Information taken from other sources also contradicts these sources, and proves them to be unreliable. For example, source J has a completely different version of the way in which the bodies were disposed of to source B. Source J says, ‘the bodies were driven to a mine and the mine blown up by grenades.’
- Both primary
- Judge1 sacked – giving away too much info – so no reason to lie.
- Sergeyev’s involved in both sources
- Report from charles eliot is to government not public so more reliable.
- Both written to other countries – could be trying to make Russia look bad
- Could be being biased to make Russia look bad to deflect criticism about own country?
-
2nd source – indefinite language.
- Americans trying to make communists look bad
- A year after – secondary information, so could be inaccurate or biased.
- Contains no factual evidence – just trusting the author. Not specific.
- Sergeyev’s involved in both – not reliable
- Source J disproves source B – buried in a mine.
In general, I believe that the number of differences outweitgh the number of similarities
