Source C is generally more factual than the first two sources. Source A’s purpose was to advise, and so had far more opinions than source C who’s main task was to uncover all of the facts, so that they could be interpreted by others. This meant that Judge Sokolov’s source was very strait forward, but seemed more vague, because in the first two there was much speculation on the part of the author, which was cleverly disguised to look like fact.
Source C differs from the first two sources because it also carries additional information. Sources A and B mainly talk about the how and the where of the Romanov killings, but Sokolov also explores what happened after the killings, to their bodies. He states, “a lorry carried the corpses to the four brothers mine.” This development, although not mentioned before, has to be considered, and the information is backed up by sources D and J.
Judge Sokolov’s report was written in 1924, six years after the incident had occurred. This means that the sources may not be as reliable as evidence will have been lost. Also the Bolsheviks were becoming more powerful in the civil war, and because Sokolv was a White supporter, he may have been pressurised by certain groups to draw certain conclusions.
In conclusion there are many points on which source C differs from sources A and B, but essentially it is still stating that the Tsar, and some other people where murdered in the Ipatiev house on the 17th July 1918.
Question C) Source D must be reliable because it is an eyewitness account. How far is this true?
Reliability is often judged by the nature origin and purpose of the source. The nature of source D is an “eyewitness account”, more accurately; they are the notes from an interview with an eyewitness. The origin of the source is from a white supporters hand, but on what the red’s key protector of the Romanov family, Pavel Medvedev said. Finally the purpose of the source was to record what Pavel Medelev said under interview with the whites. Classically an eyewitness account is meant to be very accurate and reliable. Unfortunately in this circumstance the source may not be so reliable.
The interview was conducted by White Russians of a prominent Red Russian in the case they were conducting. Pavel Medvedev was in constant close contact with the Romanov Family during their stay in the Ipatiev house, and as a Bolshevik was involved in the murder of the Romanov family. The white Russians captured Ekaterinburg in late 1918, and with this they captured Medvedev. It is very likely that he was tortured during his stay with the White Russians, His interview being more like an interrogation than an interview.
We do not know what form of information the white forces wanted to get out of Pavel Medvedev, but it is likely they either wanted a confession for the killings or Medvedev to name names on who did. Seeing that he stood less chance of living if he did confess to the crimes he may well have given himself an alibi regardless of the truth. Also putting dough on the reliability of the source is the nature of the source. A white Russian writes it in note form. Because it is not written verbatim, it is not possible to know if it is exactly what Pavel Medvedev was trying to say, but merely a interpretation of what he was saying. The white Russians may have twisted it, to suit their purpose more than the bounds of interpretation would allow.
A way of verifying how reliable the source is, would be to compare it to another source that is describing the same incident, but this is one of the only sources that is not speculation, or investigation, on the part of a third party, and the only one to discuss this first hand. The only comparison I can make is to source E. this is an extract from a history textbook published in 1991. This claims to give an account by Medvedev’s wife and a quote of Medvedev’s that he said to a guard after the incident had taken place. The source its self is not 100% reliable because of the time it was recorded (over 70 years after the event occurred), and the circumstances in which it was taken.
The origin of this source is Medvedev’s wife and an unidentified guard, who both had probably died before this source was published; the text book extract does not say where it got the information from either. The purpose of the two people’s comments are unknown, but the source as a whole was to inform school children of what might have happened over 70 years ago. Even with the unreliability of the source it is the best thing to compare source D to. Medvedev would have probably felt most secure when he was with his wife, and would have probably confided in her what actually happened. He would have had no reason to lie, or to boast to her and so this would have hopefully mean that source E has the more accurate account of what Medvedev actually did.
If for this reason we are to take Source E as the more reliable account of what happened, because Medvedev was not trying to clear his name, then there are lost of inconsistencies between the two sources, putting Medvedev’s statement to the White forces as very unreliable. The larges, and most damming on Medvedev’s part is the statement he allegedly boasted to the guard that he “ emptied two or three bullets in to the Tsar.”. This is the least reputable claims against Medvedev, because it came from the unidentified guard, but when Medvedev claims that “he walked out (on to the street) and heard the shoots” this claiming he was not their to place any number of bullets in to the Tsar.
I think in this case there is such a mismatch of claims on the reliability, that it is probable part of both sources is correct, but also parts of both sources are as bent as a dogs back leg, it is just impossible to tell which is which, because of the lack of supporting evidence. Over all I would say there is not enough reliable evidence to prove or disprove the reliability of Source D, but for the simple reason it is an “eyewitness account” does not mean it is reliable at all.
Question D) Which of the sources F G and H are most useful to a historian studying the death of the Tsar and his family?
Sources F G and H are all pictorial or diagrammatic. These types of sources are often classes with a different type of use than the text sources. Their use usually lies in evidencing other sources and backing up what a text report says. Proving very useful if you are conducting an investigation away form the location of the incident.
Source F is a photograph of the basement in the Ipatiev House, where the Romanov family and their various servants were allegedly shot. Because of the nature of the source, we do not know the origin or purpose of the source, but it could have been to capture the look of the basement before it was cleared up, or sealed off. Of course because of the nature it is not even certain that the source is of the basement in Ipatiev house, but this could be verified by going to see the scene for yourself.
Source G is a painting of the death of the Tsar, based on the investigation carried out by anti revolutionaries. As a general rule of thumb artists are romanticists, who will try and dramatise the facts to make their work more passionate and dramatic. The nature is a painting, and the origin is not known other than it was an artist with white sympathies, finally the purpose is unknown but is probably to express the artist’s opinion and interpretation of events, although it could have been commissioned by the whites to use in a propaganda campaign.
The artist was not an eyewitness, and the painting is based on a bias report. This makes the painting an unreliable interpretation of what happened, and although reliability does not always affect the usefulness of a source, when you are truing to find truth in the investigation of the Tsars death, it would not be as useful, though it does give a white point of view on the matter.
Source H is a diagram by Judge Sokolov, of how he thought that everyone stood in the basement room of Ipatiev house, when the Romanov family were killed on the 17th July 1918. It is claimed that he used eyewitness accounts to reference his diagram of the room, but as I have already discussed in question C, the nearest thing to a eyewitness account that we have, is the interview with Pavel Medvedev, which in the extract he had claimed he was not in the room when the killings happened. There is always the possibility that Sokolov knew about an eyewitness that we do not, but either way we cannot verify the facts. The origin of the diagram is Sokolov’s book, published in 1924, which has had doubt thrown on it because of the revelation that only parts of his report were published. And there is doubt about what that could be. The purpose of the whole report, including the diagram, was to inform the anti-revolutionary leaders of what happened to the Romanov family.
Over all each of the sources are useful when looking in to the tsar’s death, but each in their own way. When looking at something more about core facts than opinions, the bias in source G makes it less useful, even though it gives a good insight in to the opinions of the white forces of what they thought happened.
If I were caring out an investigation at the moment, I would place both sources F and H as the most useful, because although they both have slight problems with reliability, they back each other up by having the same lay out and structure to the room, and tie in very well with other sources.
Question E) Are you surprised by source I?
Source I is a message from the local Soviet of Ipatiev house, the Ural, to the Bolsheviks Soviet in Petrograd, on the 20th July 1918. The Purpose of the source is to inform the important powers that be in the Bolsheviks, that they had shot and killed Nicolai Romanov.
At first glance this source is such an important piece of the puzzle, and answers so many questions. It says that people, on orders of the Ural soviet, or from its own ranks killed the Tsar, when Ekaterinburg was put under pressure by White forces. It also gives a date, to which the killings can be ties with in a week to. We are given the date that the message was received by the Petrograd Soviet, the 20th July 1918, and no doubt that the Ural would have wanted to send word out as soon as they could get a secure message out. This and other information that the source supplies makes it invaluable if its reliability can be proven.
This source fits in with what many of the other sources are saying, although there are many contradictions. This always happens with any source you look at, and to get a good idea of the truth, you have to weigh up how many of each source claim each opinion, and which one is more likely to be true? In this case I am inclined to believe in the reliability of most of source I. Both sources A and B claim, as does source I that only the Tsar and his servants were killed in the Ipatiev house. As for the rest of the family, a train left on the 17th July and “the surviving members of the royal family were on it.”. While this does provide clear evidence for the reliability of source I, the same extract from source B brings up the problem with dates. Although there could be a delay in the message getting through, and the message did have 1600km to travel, the Bolsheviks did have control of most of the rail network, and telegraphing had reached most of European Russia.
There are parts of the source that can be verified with out bias records, things like the imminent threat of white forces on Ekaterinburg will be verified by both red and white army records. On the other hand though it does leave a lot of information out, like what happened to the other members of the royal party like the four daughters and the servants, all of who would have known what was going on, and could not have just been leaf encase they told their story.
Even if this source is only partially true, the fact that it still exists is an insight in to the minds of the Petrograd. When the received this source, why did they keep it? If it got in to the hands of the anti revolutionaries it might cause all sorts of problems, turning the Tsar in to a martyr, and giving them even more reason to hate the Bolsheviks. They must have been that confident in their situation to keep such an important piece of evidence against them.
It also gives us an idea of what must be happening to the leaders of the Ural Soviet. They were in a dilemma. They didn’t want to keep the Tsar alive encase they were completely concord by the anti revolutionaries, they didn’t want to kill him though and turn him in to a martyr for the whites to hold up and unite them under. Finally they didn’t want to move him because it would have meant increasing the chance of the whites capturing him. It shows the pressure the must have been under, to kill him.
During the civil war, there were many separate soviets all following the Bolshevik ideals, but with out a clear command centre, as each was ruling its self and caring out its own orders. This had cause problems in the past which the Bolsheviks who had captured the Romanov family. It meat in this incident that there was no set reason for the Ural Soviet to send word to any other soviet of what they had done. The reason they probably did was to boast almost. They had been the ones with the bottle to kill the Tsar. But they also had to send word after that that they were not completely ruthless or ignorant of the world around them, saying, “His wife and son have been sent off to a secure place.”
Over all I am surprised about this source, not so much about the things that the source tells in the text, but more about what it tells us by the source existing at all. The facts the text reveals merely back up what has been established in other sources. It is the why and the how of the source that intrigues me, if I were to carry this investigation forward, this would be the first thing I would research further.
Question F) How does Source J confirm what the other sources have said about what happened to the Tsar and his Family?
Source J is the most recent of all the sources I have been examining, published over seventy-five years since the incident occurred. It uses the advances in modern technology to help solve the mystery of what happened to the Romanov family in 1918. It goes through and adds real strong and conclusive evidence to back up some sources, while adding a new angle of question to others.
Source J is an extract fro ma British newspaper in December 1994, telling its readers about recent discoveries, that shed new light upon a problem that many of its readers were not around for its origin. Because the source was written by and independent author after the USSR had disbanded and broken up, there should be no bias in this source, and with the developments in science the source should be very reliable, as well as useful when looking merely at the physicality’s of who was killed where and when.
Source A is the report from and American Newspaper in December 1918. It describes the findings of the disreputed Judge Sergeyev, for the general interest of the American public. These two sources come to different conclusions. Source J states that only “Nicolas, his wife, and three of their daughters.” were found in the grave. Thus implying, but not stating that they were all killed together, probably at the same time. It also implies that the son heir to the thrown, and one of his sisters were take somewhere else before they were killed, otherwise we would have either found their bodies with the others, or heard of their stories. On the other hand source A concludes that “the Tsar, the family doctor, two servants, and the maid were shot.” together, while the rest of the royal family were taken elsewhere. It is of course possible for both sources to be true, but highly unlikely because who’s logic would say that you would kill people separately, at different times in different locations, and bury some of the bodies in each killing in one place, and put the rest somewhere else that lies yet undiscovered.
Source B is from the same school of though as source A, because both authors got much of their primary information from the same questionable source, Judge Sergeyev. This is an extract from the report written by the British ambassador, Sir Charles Elliot who was investigating the disappearance of the Romanov Family. He was conducting his investigations in 1918, and the purpose of his report was to inform and advise the British Government of what was going on in Russia at the time.
Along with claiming that the Romanov family did not all die in Ipatiev house at the same time, it claimed that there was a train that left Ekaterinburg with the remaining members of the royal family on it. Source J adds even more disclaim to the reliability of the source, because why would they ship most of the royal family to another part of Russia to kill them and then bring their bodes back to be buried with the Tsar, especially because after their deaths Ekaterinburg became a White base, making it very unsafe to bring the bodies to? It is of course possible that the people on the train were the heir and the heiress, whose remains were not found in the grave, but it was specified in source B that only the Tsar and his servants were killed there. It seems like a balancing act between the two sources. One could be completely correct, or the other could, and it is also possible that there could be parts of each source that are true.
There is a certain amount or irony when comparing the two sources. Sir Charles Elliot claims that “no corpses were discovered, nor any trace of them being burned.” While the source that is doing the most damage to the reliability of source B is source J that describes exactly where the bodies of the Royal family are.
Source C is an extract from the book by Judge Sokolov on his investigation in to the deaths of the Romanov family. Its purpose was to relay the findings of his investigations to the White commanders. This is the first source that speculates about what happened to the bodies of the killed party. It claims, “a lorry carried to corpses to the four brothers mine.” Where the bodies “were chopped in to pieces and burned”. It infers, but does not state that the remains were left there in what could be termed a grave. Source J on the other hand manages new feet in reliable sources, by contradicting both source C and its self. Firstly it says that the bodies were buried in “a shallow burial pit”, but then goes on to say that when the mine failed to collapse “the bodies were put back on the lorry. The lorry became bogged down in a swamp and the remains were buried right there,” note the use of bodies, not pieces of the bodies or charred remains, and also the fact that the source does not state whether the bodies were buried or left in the lorry? Either way it is still a contradiction of source C, also the statement that the bodies were blown up by grenades, instead of being burned in petrol and sulphuric acid. I am not a scientist enough to know the difference in 75 year old corpses, but one would have thought the science great enough then to tell with a month old corpse whether it was chopped up and burnet or blown up.
Source D is a set of notes from a white interview with Pavel Medvedev, the Bolshevik in charge of looking after the Romanov family during their stay at the Ipatiev house. The purpose was to keep a record of the interview and the statement made by Medvedev, so that the evidence could be used in the investigation in to the deaths of the Romanov family. The extract that is featured in source D covers a different aspect of the investigation to the part that is covered in source J so it is very difficult for source J to have an effect on the reliability and usefulness of source D. The only relevant part of the source is that it tells of nine people being led in to the room to be shot, the entire Romanov family, the family doctor, and the maid. It then goes on to say that the whole family were “lying on the floor” dead. It doesn’t directly contradict source J, but if the whole family were shot and killed along with some of the servants, why didn’t they dispose of all the corpses together, at the same time in the same place.
The only other part where the two sources overlap is when Medvedev claims; “The corpses were taken away by lorry.” this does tie in with source J, which say’s that a lorry brought the corpses to the two brothers mine, and carried them to the swamp afterwards.
It is always possible, as with sources A and B, that they were all disposed of in the same way, and the same time, but the servants bodies were too insignificant to mention in a newspaper report, and the missing bodies where just not found. Like I have said, I am not forensic scientist, and do not know the chances of missing the two bits of DNA, but it might be possible.
Source E is from a history textbook published in 1991, containing various quotes from Pavel Medvedev’s wife, and a guard of the Romanov family which state that “they” were shot and killed, the only member of the “they” that was identified was the Tsar. This is as far as the brief source goes in describing what happened to the Romanov Family, and there fore means that there is little to compare source J to.
Source F is a picture source, a photograph of the basement room in the Ipatiev house where the shooting of the Romanov family was supposed to have taken place. The Origin and purpose of this source can only be speculated and there is very little we can take out of this source to compare to source J, other than perhaps the fact that if Source F it what it claims to be, then there was more than one person killed in the room, perhaps the five that have been positively identified in the grave of Source J.
Source G is an artist’s interpretation of the death of the Tsar, based on the white forces’ investigation. Its purpose to illustrate how the author thought the Tsar had met his death. As with source F, there is a very little source J can do to prove or disprove the reliability or usefulness of this source. The only thing it does have to dispute with source J is that in the painting the Tsar and his heir seem to have been shot, but in source J only the Tsars DNA has been found. This is of little consequence though as the two sources are very different in both their nature and purpose.
Source H is a diagrammatic representation of the same scene as source G. It comes from the same book by Judge Sokolov as source C, published in 1924. This shows eleven members of the Romanov family and their servants, who were all in the room at the same time as twelve guards. It does not say that they where killed, but it is inferred that this is how every one was standing, and the lay out of the room, when someone but probably every one was shot.
The source does not identify which of the dots are the Tsar, and each family member, but it does not show whom or in which order they are shot, so it is of no real consequence. Source J looks at a different part of the Tsars death to source H and so have very little impact, but it does bring up the question, as with other sources, why where the bodies not all disposed of together?
An explanation for the servants bodies not being found it that they where not important enough, to have their bodies destroyed. If the White forces found the bodies of the servants when they invaded Ekaterinburg, then it would not have the same implications to if they found the Tsars body. This still though does not explain why the DNA of the Daughter and the son of the family were still missing.
Source I is the message sent by the Ural Soviet to the Petrograd Soviet on the 20th July 1918, informing them that Nicolas Romanov had been shot, and that his wife and son were alive and safe. This is the source that is most confusing in the light of the information in Source J. Why would the Ural Soviet send word that they had shot the Tsar and spared the other important members of the family, if they had in fact shot them all? It then of course brings back the unlikely possibility that the Romanov family where shot in stages. This might fit in with Source J, that the remaining members of the Romanov family where shot very soon after the message was sent, and that only the two missing bodies where spared for any length of time. I personally do not believe this theory, but fail to see why the Ural Soviet would say the Tsarina and the Heir where alive if they where not.
Over all source J seems to cause more questions than it solves, because it puts even more doubt over who was killed and when. Putting a whole new angel on to What happened to the Romanov family.
