B) Source C was part of a book by Judge Sokolov, Judge Sergeyev’s replacement, published in 1924, after the end of the civil war. Parts of this book were never made public. Judge Sokolov also supported the White Russians.
The beginning of source C says, in Sokolov’s words;
“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 is now already contradicting sources A and B, which both state that the number of those killed in the Ipatiev house was unknown but it was believed that only 5 people, including the Tsar, the family doctor, two servants and a maid, were killed in the lower storey of the house. Two sources, A and C, say that the murders were committed on the lower floor and source B does not state anything as to the whereabouts of the events. Source C agrees with both of the other sources by saying that the murder was carried out using revolvers but then goes into much more detail and also claims that bayonets were used to finish off some of the victims. Sokolov claimed that more than 30 shots were fired and that several people had to have been murdered as one person would not be able to change their body position so many times and submit to so many shots. Source J also supports this.
However source C also says that the bodies were chopped up and burned. This does not agree with any of the other sources.
C) The interviewee, Pavel Medvedev, was a supporter of the Red Russians and was the leader of the men guarding the royal family. However, as he was captured by the Whites, he was probably tortured and therefore his account is unreliable. I do not believe that Medvedev’s evidence was correct because he has stated that he was told to go out into the street and see if anyone was there and if they will hear the shots. What leader would be ordered about? Medvedev then says that he walked back into the room and saw all of the royal family lying dead on the floor. This does not agree with sources A and B however it does agree with source C.
On the other hand, in source E, a history book published in 1991, Medvedev’s wife told investigators what Pavel had told her. The source says:
“They were led downstairs where they were put into a room and a paper read to them that said, “The revolution is dying, and so shall you”. After that they started firing and they killed them all. My husband fired too.” If this is the truth, which is more likely than Medvedev’s statement, then Medvedev lied as he said that he was told to go outside. Unfortunately for him, he was stupid enough to tell another guard that he had emptied two or three bullets into the Tsar. This established his guilt and makes
source D unreliable.
D) Each illustration has its own importance and each will help an historian in their own way but in my opinion source H is the most important and the one which would be the most useful to historians.
I believe this because it is a diagrammatic view of the people who were in the room at the time of the murders. This diagram is from Sokolov’s book and is based on the information he was given by a witness during an interview. Who the interviewee was, we don’t know but it is possible that they were not telling the truth.
However, the diagram does seem to fit. Take source F and compare the scenery in that picture to that of source H. In the diagram, it is pictured that the Tsar, his family and their servants are near to the storeroom door. This looks the same as in the picture, although we cannot tell what is behind the scenes of the photograph or indeed what is actually happening. Who took the photograph? When?
Standing just infront of the wall is the obvious place where the victims would have been standing as the damage to the wall is incredible and looks to have been caused by the removal of something in it, possibly bullets during Sergeyev’s investigation. Both sources F and H together would actually help historians the most as they show where the people were standing and the surrounding background, of where the royal family were standing, and you can then weigh up how and where it all happened.
Source G is probably the least important and the least useful to an historian as it is an artist’s impression of the event. Nevertheless, it mustn’t go overlooked as it has, in the background of the painting, the same wallpaper as in the photograph and it has the same door as the photograph and the diagram also show. But unfortunately we have many examples of how deceptive these imitations can be, like at the beginning of the First World War. Source G is also based upon the investigation held by the Whites therefore making the depiction of the painting unreliable.
Also, source F confirms source B and shows that is highly likely that the victims were kneeling at the time because of the position of the bullet holes. And source H supports source D on the whereabouts of the people in the room at the time of the murder.
E) Source I is most definitely a surprising letter from the leader of the District Soviet of the Ural to the Bolsheviks in Petrograd, 20 July 1918, just a few days after the murder of the Romanov family. It is the only source to have been sent from Bolsheviks to Bolsheviks.
Source I indicates that Ekaterinburg was under serious threat from the White Russians and that it would only be a matter of days before it was captured by them. The Bolsheviks did not want the Whites to re-capture the Tsar along with the town as this would mean that they would then have a strong leader to fight under. Yet, why would the Bolsheviks want to send a letter, so obviously stating the Tsar’s death, when they are basically trapped from all sides and there is a great risk that the letter would reach enemy hands? This was what surprised me the most.
The Tsar and Tsarina had often offended the revolutionaries (Bolsheviks) and it had long been known from documents published from February 1917 onwards that they had been personally involved in decisions which resulted in the deaths of many peaceful demonstrators on bloody Sunday (January 22nd 1905). Now they were in the hands of the Bolsheviks it was likely that they were going to die.
Another reason why this source is surprising was that the Tsar and his family were in fact related to the British royal family and this then alerted the British, American and French governments to the happenings in Ekaterinburg and the Whites were strongly backed up by these three major powers.
Conversely, in the views of the revolutionaries making up the District Soviet what they were contemplating was not a crime. Initially, the revolutionaries had proposed to transport the royal family to Petrograd where they would have been subjected to a show trial which would have exposed all the felonies that the revolutionaries deemed them guilty of. Aswell as all this, Russia was only just emerging from a feudal system and had also been exposed to a horrible, dehumanising experience, which took a greater toll on Russia than any other country, the First World War.
F) Source J is from a British newspaper in December 1994 and gives the impression of being part of an article which aims to provide a definitive account of what happened to the Romanov family and their servants and maids. Chiefly, this is just someone trying to piece together all of the past, and more up-to-date evidence from a Soviet official saying that the royal family’s grave was discovered by archaeologists. The official said that DNA testing and dental records had positively identified the Tsar, Nikolai Romanov, his wife and three of their daughters. Conversely, two of the five children were still missing. This piece of information happens to support several other sources.
Source I, assuming that the journalist was told and relayed his message accurately, was therefore not telling the truth. They clearly say that they have sent off the Tsar’s wife and son to a secure place. This was not the case as the Tsar’s wife was killed. Moreover Judge Sokolov’s source C is unlikely to be correct as he had said that the entire family were massacred in the Ipatiev house.
Source J also makes sources A and B imprecise nonetheless source A does say that the Tsar’s son and other children were not shot in the house which was possibly the case.
Progressing onwards, the British newspaper in source J contradicts what sources D and E say, (of which source D comes from the only eyewitness from all of the sources and his wife’s account of his story in source E) as Medvedev had said that he had been involved in killing all of the family when two of the family’s children were possibly not there. This is a further indication that his statement was obtained under coercion.
There are more points in source J which seem to substantiate parts of the other sources. Like the fact that marks on some of the skeletons meant that some of the bodies had to be finished off by bayonet (source C) and also that the bodies were transported by lorry to a mine to be disposed of. However, source J does not say that the bodies were chopped up and burnt but does say that the bodies were later removed from the mine and dumped in a swamp because of the mine not collapsing when the grenades went off.
In conclusion source J shows that many of the other sources had their own accuracies and inaccuracies and that by piecing them together you will get closer to an answer but, with the information given, it will be extremely difficult to provide and prove an exact and precise one. Unfortunately, we cannot make an assumption as to the strict happenings of those fateful few days, with these sources, but to aid further will be to find out what happened to the two missing children and the heir to the throne.
