Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Final Chapter => Topic started by: azrael7171918 on October 31, 2004, 09:06:32 PM

Title: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: azrael7171918 on October 31, 2004, 09:06:32 PM
I was just looking over some photos on line and wondered.

What must have gone thru their minds as they entered that room?  Did they feel trapped? Did they suspect? Did they question why take a photo at night?

I remember in N&A the look of confusion on Alexandra's face.

In Rasputin they were all standing around like they didn't know to do.

The door being opened and that wallpaper and door in front of them.

Someone tell me was the writing that was put there by one of the guards already there or was it after, if before did they see it?

At the exhibit in Delaware that is the item that haunted me most at the end. The bayonet was staged for theatrical purposes. But that wallpaper had brown stains on which could have very well been blood.

Azrael
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: ashanti01 on October 31, 2004, 09:31:32 PM
I guess no one can really what would be on one's mind when a handful of guards with guns come in the room and declare they are going to shoot you

I would imagine from what I have read , when Nicholas says "WHAT?!WHAT?!" that he couldn't really believe what was happing at least to this family. Maybe he knew it would happen to him but not his wife and children.

Alexandra must have known and felt they would all die together as her response was to make the sign the cross.

I think maybe N & A believed they may pay for thier errors but I don't know if they believe their children would also pay.

But then again if they knew something may happen to them and knew they were hated, at some level they could have also have known thier children were not safe.

I just know I'm glad I was not in that room that night. The murder of the Imperial Family is one of the most horrible crimes in the 20th century
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: pushkina on October 31, 2004, 09:54:29 PM
Quote
The murder of the Imperial Family is one of the most horrible crimes in the 20th century


i'm sorry but the murder of the IF was not one of the "most horrible crimes of the 20th century."

it was a SERIOUSLY[/i] evil/troubled century.

this is the century of:

the Armenian genocide
WWI
the russian civil war
stalin's wars against his people  (the kulaks/ the ukranaina famines/ the purges/ the sentencing of returning all soviet POWs to siberia)
WWII (assorted atrocities on all sides)
the holocaust
the congo wars
the biafran genocide
the bangaldeshi famines
the ethiopian famines
bosnia

and i'm sure i've missed many other examples of truly evil and criminal behavior.  the killing of one small family does not compare and does not warrant such a superlative.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: ashanti01 on October 31, 2004, 10:03:15 PM
It has been declared "one" of the most horrible crimes, but you are right its not the most horrible. Sad to say there have been more horrible crimes around the world that never quite make the papers.

Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Belochka on October 31, 2004, 11:09:11 PM
Quote
I was just looking over some photos on line and wondered.

What must have gone thru their minds as they entered that room?  Did they feel trapped? Did they suspect? Azrael


Hi  azrael,

You may recall that Nikolai's final word was Chto (What?)

Fortunately they had no idea what was about to happen. :'(
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Olga on November 01, 2004, 01:13:08 AM
Quote
this is the century of:

the Armenian genocide
WWI
the russian civil war
stalin's wars against his people  (the kulaks/ the ukranaina famines/ the purges/ the sentencing of returning all soviet POWs to siberia)
WWII (assorted atrocities on all sides)
the holocaust
the congo wars
the biafran genocide
the bangaldeshi famines
the ethiopian famines
bosnia


May I add some more?

The Cold War
The Cambodian Killing Fields
Massacre of Lwow Professors
Jonestown
The Vietnam War
Kalmyk Deportations of 1944
South African Apartheid
The Cultural Revolution in China
Qana Massacre




Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: leanora on November 01, 2004, 04:12:41 AM
hi, ;)

It seems that a few of them were awared about the coming events as Olga, Alexei, Doctor Botkine and AF.. Alexandra called in her diary of "the angel" (the death angel in fact) .. she writted "the angel is coming up"..

Nicholas and his other daughters seems to have been more optimistics..

Nevertheless, they might have been all amazed when they realized that they would be shot. Nothing was prepared and they were said to go down in the cellar for security reasons. I think the first behaviours in such cases are fear, trembles, a great shock.. When you are in front of a  danger, you think about anything unless your fear, only your fear... I have also heard people who escaped a big danger saying that they saw their entire life passing through their heads... maybe it was the case for the last imperial family of Russia. It will be a mistery to all eternity.  :-/
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: ChristineM on November 01, 2004, 09:48:02 AM
Dear Pushkina and Olga

All that you write is true, but in fairness, you are not comparing like with like.   Atrocities are being perpetrated all over the world every hour of every day of every week. ..    It is ghastly and indefensible, but sadly such is man's inhumanity to man - and we never seen to learn.   However, this Forum is devoted to Imperial Russia, and, in particular, to the last Imperial Family, their relatives, friends, associates and etc.

During the making of Gleb Panfilov's film - 'The Romanovs - the last days', I interviewed the British actress, Lynda Bellingham, who portrayed Alexandra Feodorovna in that film.   They were in Pushkin shooting some of the exterior scenes.   Most of the interiors were shot on 'stages' in Prague.   As you know, films are not, in general, shot sequentially.   In the case of 'Last Days', the death scene was filmed first.

Lynda Bellingham told me how, on the Sunday evening she took the girls who were playing the grand duchesses out for a meal.   They were all young, happy, aspiring actresses and this older actress was determined they should have a memorable evening.   Towards the end of the meal she said to them - 'We are going to do something really horrible tomorrow.   Something none of us will ever forget'.

The following day, the scene was set and the cast took up their positions.   Lynda Bellingham told me that even although she knew it 'was only a film',  and they had rehearsed and 'walked through the scene', nothing could have prepared her for that door bursting open and the barrage of armed 'guards' rushing in to confront them, when they were actually expressing it as reality.   Retelling this weeks later, she could still feel the chill.

I think only those involved in this re-enactment can have some idea of the family's absolute terror.    They, of course, did not have the - possibly numbing - effects of surprise/shock.

tsaria
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: bookworm857158367 on November 01, 2004, 09:59:36 AM
Terror. Disbelief. What any human being would feel when faced with a gang of murderous thugs aiming guns at them. What would you expect?

The murder of one is as evil as the murder of thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions.  I don't think you can say these murders were less important or less horrific than the thousands of other crimes in a very evil century. They all originate from the same basic evil and human failings. These creatures shot a helpless hemophiliac child at point blank range and then kicked him as he lay wounded. That is evil, plain and simple. No one can say otherwise.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: ChristineM on November 01, 2004, 10:26:40 AM
Dear Bookworm

I don't think anyone who has remarked on the unimagineable final moments of the Imperial Family has, for a second, thought anything other than the perpetrators of their murder were evil.

tsaria
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: rskkiya on November 01, 2004, 10:58:31 AM
Quote
Dear Bookworm

I don't think anyone who has remarked on the unimagineable final moments of the Imperial Family has, for a second, thought anything other than the perpetrators of their murder were evil.

tsaria


Hello
  Well--- is a doctor EVIL when she administers the lethal injection to a criminal sentences to death?
   Admittedly many people here would support the Romanovs, but the soldiers involved in the execution most likely saw this as their revolutionary duty...
   Was the execution Evil? Not to everyone...Was the Tzarist state Evil? Not to everyone....

just something to consider
rskkiya
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: ashanti01 on November 01, 2004, 11:08:55 AM
Quote
Terror. Disbelief. What any human being would feel when faced with a gang of murderous thugs aiming guns at them. What would you expect?

The murder of one is as evil as the murder of thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions.  I don't think you can say these murders were less important or less horrific than the thousands of other crimes in a very evil century. They all originate from the same basic evil and human failings. These creatures shot a helpless hemophiliac child at point blank range and then kicked him as he lay wounded. That is evil, plain and simple. No one can say otherwise.


I totally agree with you bookworm.


Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Karentje on November 01, 2004, 11:18:57 AM
I think it's always wrong to take another life, except maybe in a case of self-defence.
Personally I'm against the death penalty, and though I wouldn't say the doctors in that case do an evil deed, I certainly don't think one can call it a very good deed either.
Too many people on death row are innocent, minors or mentally disabled. People make mistakes, police investigations sometimes fail to uncover enough evidence, juries consist of people with prejudices and issues of their own ... IMHO, the final judgment and punishment should not be in man's hands.
There have been cases in the US where people's innocence was proven after they had been put to death. I wonder how the doctors who gave them their injection feel?
The whole 'just doing my duty, just following orders' is just an attempt to escape responsability for your own actions, IMO. I don't think that that argument can excuse the executionaries of the Romanovs. And then they didn't stop at a 'clean execution' now did they?
Kicking a boy who is bleeding to death? How 'dutiful' is that?
Hope I haven't stepped on any toes, this is just how I see it.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Janet_W. on November 01, 2004, 02:23:32 PM
The execution squad, as has been pointed out in FOTR, came from various situations and viewpoints. The guards, from whom the squad was culled, were generally young men who needed employment. To be a part of the execution squad was, for a few, their "jihad," for others simply part of their job. So many people can equivocate when it comes to a job and a paycheck; think of those who were recruited to run the concentration camps.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Janet_W. on November 01, 2004, 02:35:15 PM
With regards to the infamous acts that have been perpetrated against families throughout history and continue to be committed, even as we read these words: If those of us who have come to know and perhaps appreciate the IF can bear in mind that extremists can take control when living conditions for the masses become untenable, then our time here will not be wasted.

In order to make wise, humanitarian-based decisions, we need to understand what has gone on before us so that the same grievous errors are not repeated. From the example of Nicholas and his family, it should become self-evident that our existence does not end within our own "palace" walls. All of us are are linked to the rest of the world, even more so than was the case 100 years ago for the Romanovs. If we do not understand this and consider other people's issues as well as our own, then we—like the Romanovs—are doomed to suffer accelerated terrorist assaults until even our most innocent are destroyed.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: jackie3 on November 01, 2004, 02:39:04 PM
Quote

i'm sorry but the murder of the IF was not one of the "most horrible crimes of the 20th century."

it was a SERIOUSLY[/i] evil/troubled century.

this is the century of:

the Armenian genocide
WWI
the russian civil war
stalin's wars against his people  (the kulaks/ the ukranaina famines/ the purges/ the sentencing of returning all soviet POWs to siberia)
WWII (assorted atrocities on all sides)
the holocaust
the congo wars
the biafran genocide
the bangaldeshi famines
the ethiopian famines
bosnia

and i'm sure i've missed many other examples of truly evil and criminal behavior.  the killing of one small family does not compare and does not warrant such a superlative.


I think any murder is a "horrible crime" and the murder of an entire family certainly counts as one. It was none other than Stalin who said that "one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic" or some such and equating great tragedy with numbers is a misnomer. Murders happen all the time and each victim has a history, a name, a face, even if they are lost to history. For me the death of the IF was notable in that (IMO) it was a mark that signaled the end of the Victorian era of chilvalry and gentlemanly war and stands as a symbol of the century of massive blood-letting that followed. As Trotsky remarked in his memoirs (repeated by Radzinsky in "The Last Tsar") upon hearing the of the murders of the IF, once he heard about it he knew why it had happened: now there was no going back from the "Revolution" and the Red Terror that followed, the Iron Curtain, The fascist Nazism that was the rightist twin-face of the Communists (2 sides of the same coin) and all the atrocities that have been mentioned. The cold-blooded and brutal murder of the IF stands out if only as a harbinger of things to come.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: azrael7171918 on November 01, 2004, 02:43:55 PM
Okay the scenerio was :

You are being held captive together with your family.

YOu are woken up at 1AM told to get everyone ready and go downstairs. You are going to have your picture taken.

You are led to a room in the basement no furniture you ask for chairs the doors are closed behind you.

What is going thru your heads.

Not at the moment the doors are reopened.

Preceding that.

Now the previous reason that had always been given made sense to throw off your prisoners you tell them you are moving them.

But the story has now changed surely the reaction of the captives is going to be different than if they are told they are leaving.

In Rasputin the reason for coming to the basement was to have their pictures taken and once the doors were closed you did see panic and fear. Did they suspect?
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Forum Admin on November 01, 2004, 03:12:01 PM
I do not really think this sort of ghoulish speculation is of any genuine historical value. Please, they were simply people...To ask these questions is as morbid to discuss what those on the airplanes crashing into the WTC felt, or how Sharon Tate et al felt that night. I won't lock the thread, but genuinely ask EVERYONE to think deeply about this.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: ChristineM on November 01, 2004, 03:16:30 PM
Dear Forum Admin

I entirely agree.   I regret having left a posting here.

tsaria
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Janet_W. on November 01, 2004, 03:18:26 PM
From the standpoint of a mere mortal:

The family and attendants were aware of battles going on nearby. All but Dr. Botkin had been asleep, though for some it must have been a fitful sleep. They were asked to dress quickly; one more order to follow, though not exactly typical. But since they were lodged on a second story, it made sense to take them out of range.

I doubt any of them were thinking of Rasputin's demise. They were thinking instead of getting dressed, of using the toilet or a chamber pot, of making sure they took with them their most valuable items--i.e., the jewels sewn into the clothing and pillows--and of obeying instructions. They realized their lives were in the hands of these people and they did not want to incite any problems. They went down the steps, into the room, waited--with the groggy nervousness that comes from being awakened suddenly, then expected to function, then expected to wait--and when the men came in with their guns, both understanding and denial undoubtedly flashed in the ensuing seconds of the stated "verdict," just as it does when we know we're about to be involved in a car accident or some other threatening situation. For some time Alexandra had crossed herself almost on reflex; she did so at this time. So, according to some reports, did Olga. Then complete realization--as the first gun was raised--screams, and the ensuing massacre.

For us to really know how it must have been, we would need to have the knowledge of the angels; let us hope that we never have cause to know the full experience while we are still here on earth.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Janet_W. on November 01, 2004, 03:20:11 PM
I apologize. I sent my last post off before I knew of the other two posts.

I agree with FA; I simply meant to try to satisfy morbid curiosities, and then leave the thread alone after that.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Annie on November 01, 2004, 04:05:10 PM
This thread got me in a really morbid mood and I was imagining how much worse it must have been for Ella and the others who must have suffered a horrible end for a much longer time :'(
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: RichC on November 01, 2004, 05:24:38 PM
I actually like some of the posts on this thread.  It's worthwhile to discuss the meaning of the execution as bookworm and jackie3 were doing.  But I realize that wasn't the original point of the thread.  As for it being one of the most horrible crimes of the 20th century, I still think Richard Pipes summed it up best:

"The manner in which the massacre was prepared and carried out, at first denied and then justified, has something uniquely odious about it, something that radically distinguishes it from previous acts of regicide and brands it as a prelude to twentieth-century mass murder."

Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Sarai on November 01, 2004, 06:34:15 PM
I agree that this is a very morbid and depressing topic, and seemingly disrespectful to some, but I also think it is quite natural of human beings to be curious about death and sometimes want to know all the details, including how the family may have felt and reacted at the moment of their deaths.

It is similar to reading a blow-by-blow account of their executions, as is so effectively done in Fate of the Romanovs. That is the most explicit and detailed description of the family's death I have ever read, but I don't condemn the authors for it. Instead, I am grateful to them for having researched this and put it in their book nonetheless, as it was a very real part of this whole tragic story. If anything, as repulsive as these deaths were, it makes one empathize even more with those poor people. However, I understand that this thread at times deals with pure speculation and the book deals with actual facts.

I think the FA is right not to lock this thread. If people find it too disturbing to read, then it must be left up to them to avoid it.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Merrique on November 01, 2004, 06:37:29 PM
Quote
I agree that this is a very morbid and depressing topic, and seemingly disrespectful to some, but I also think it is quite natural of human beings to be curious about death and sometimes want to know all the details, including how the family may have felt and reacted at the moment of their deaths.

It is similar to reading a blow-by-blow account of their executions, as is so effectively done in Fate of the Romanovs. That is the most explicit and detailed description of the family's death I have ever read, but I don't condemn the authors for it. Instead, I am grateful to them for having researched this and put it in their book nonetheless, as it was a very real part of this whole tragic story. If anything, as repulsive as these deaths were, it makes one empathize even more with those poor people. However, I understand that this thread at times deals with pure speculation and the book deals with actual facts.

I think the FA is right not to lock this thread. If people find it too disturbing to read, then it must be left up to them to avoid it.


Very well said Sarai.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: bookworm857158367 on November 01, 2004, 09:00:32 PM
Quote

Hello
   Well--- is a doctor EVIL when she administers the lethal injection to a criminal sentences to death?
    Admittedly many people here would support the Romanovs, but the soldiers involved in the execution most likely saw this as their revolutionary duty...
    Was the execution Evil? Not to everyone...Was the Tzarist state Evil? Not to everyone....

just something to consider
rskkiya



Killing a helpless child is always evil, regardless of whether he is royalty or not. They may not have been evil people, but the act was horrifiically evil. I believe the death penalty is always wrong. Yes, I have a problem with executioners in general.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: rskkiya on November 02, 2004, 09:36:33 AM
This topic has wandered into some very unsavory and rather ghoulish territory -- and I think that I had better make my farewells before things get any more questionable.

peace to you all
rskkiya
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: BobAtchison on November 03, 2004, 10:37:02 AM
As they went down the stairs they had to step over a big stuffed mother bear and her cub - they all crossed themselves as they stepped over and went down.

It the rooms upstairs the family would have all received Nicholas's blessing before they left the room.  I am sure there would have been prayers as well.

Having been through so much they had all learned to compartmentalise their days, focusing on each other and the 'routine' in order to avoid dwelling on the circumstances they were in.  In the last month of their captivity this must have been harder to maintain with guns, threats, bombs and the like going on around them.

I think Nicholas and Alexandra knew they were 'finished' - and that Aleksey would not survive one way or another, but they thought the others might survive.  Still, they had heard so many *horrible* stories about the murder of their friends and officers that they could have had no illusions about the possibilities.

The situation was so critical and the hatred of their guards so obvious that it would not have been necessary for there to have been discussions among the family about 'what might happen' for everyone to have known the possibilies.  However, I am sure Botkin and Nicholas had discussions since Botkin knew what was in store for them from the guards and he would have considered it his duty to discuss this with Nicholas.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Sunny on November 03, 2004, 07:03:48 PM
Blessings Bob...

Sunny
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: moonlight_tsarina on February 04, 2005, 10:39:32 PM
Quote
It has been declared "one" of the most horrible crimes, but you are right its not the most horrible. Sad to say there have been more horrible crimes around the world that never quite make the papers.



well, it is surely one of the mmost horrible crimes ever in MY VIEW.

I recall reading them almost being excited, thinking that being saved was soon....that the hussars were coming to the town to save them...sad..so horrible...imagine the girls seeing their dead mama and papa..knowing they were all alone! and i think it was said they tried to escape or open the locked storage room... :'( :'( :'( :'(
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Juli on February 05, 2005, 07:48:56 AM
 Well once the gunmen came into the room they must've all been terrified and not knowing what to expect. When their parents and brother were shot OTMA must have been really afraid.

I mean how would you guys feel if you were about to be executed? =/
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: matushka on February 06, 2005, 06:56:05 AM
Leanora wrote about "the angel is coming". How many times have I read this error! I hope someone had corrected it in other forums. The angel is coming is a sentence of one of the church services of the Great Lent. IN original, it is not "angel" but an other word for the young man before the weeding (sorry, I do not know this word in english, hope some orthodox believer will tell me. In russian "sei jenikh griadet v polunoshchi"). Alexandra Feodorovna wrote Ania about her feelings in great lent, and she quote this phrase. She wanted to say she expected the feat of Easter, the coming of Christ.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Georgiy on February 06, 2005, 02:28:29 PM
That's right Matushka - it is not 'angel', but 'bridegroom'
"Behold the bridegroom cometh in the middle of the night" The bridegroom is Christ. The hymn is about how we don't know when we will be called, and our need for vigilence (re the parable of the ten virgins).
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Elisabeth on February 07, 2005, 03:47:04 PM
If it is any comfort to anyone out there, it is quite possible that even violent death is not as immediately and horribly experienced as we might think. Has anyone here read Charles Pellegrino's book, Ghosts of Vesuvius: A New Look at the Last Days of Pompeii, How Towers Fall, and Other Strange Connections? Here the author discusses his own near-death experiences and says that in moments of acute,  life-threatening danger a kind of mental distancing or dissociation occurs - you see what is happening to you, and react to it, but it is as if at the same time it is happening to someone else and you are above or outside of it. Simultaneously, he says, there is an expansion of time and every moment seems to last forever. When he was near death himself (at one point from a bomb blast) he remembers thinking, "Well, it's not so bad after all."  This is not to take away from the terrible suffering of murder victims but to give some comfort to those who survive them - the terror is apparently experienced at one remove for many. This dissociation might also explain why so many survivors of acute trauma cannot actually remember the trauma itself in the immediate aftermath of it, and then sometimes only in bits and pieces long afterwards.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Denise on February 07, 2005, 03:52:30 PM
Quote
If it is any comfort to anyone out there, it is quite possible that even violent death is not as immediately and horribly experienced as we might think. Has anyone here read Charles Pellegrino's book, Ghosts of Vesuvius: A New Look at the Last Days of Pompeii, How Towers Fall, and Other Strange Connections? Here the author discusses his own near-death experiences and says that in moments of acute,  life-threatening danger a kind of mental distancing or dissociation occurs - you see what is happening to you, and react to it, but it is as if at the same time it is happening to someone else and you are above or outside of it. Simultaneously, he says, there is an expansion of time and every moment seems to last forever. When he was near death himself (at one point from a bomb blast) he remembers thinking, "Well, it's not so bad after all."  This is not to take away from the terrible suffering of murder victims but to give some comfort to those who survive them - the terror is apparently experienced at one remove for many. This dissociation might also explain why so many survivors of acute trauma cannot actually remember the trauma itself in the immediate aftermath of it, and then sometimes only in bits and pieces long afterwards.


This is fascinating!!  I have experienced such a thing in a car accident, but it is certainly comforting to know that perhaps that distancing effect may have made their end easier.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Abby on February 07, 2005, 04:05:30 PM
Yes. Definitley comforting. Although to think of the murder still makes me feel ill....especially reading that one chapter of Fate of the Romanovs!
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: moonlight_tsarina on February 07, 2005, 07:05:22 PM
I have yet to get The Fate Of the Romanovs, and i hope to get it for my b-day, but what was different in the "chapter" as Abby says above that is paritculalry different than all the others?  ???
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: moonlight_tsarina on February 07, 2005, 07:06:50 PM
Oh, sorry..i found out!  :o
I heard it is the most grisly account of the murders so far kind of..
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Denise on February 07, 2005, 07:09:01 PM
Quote
Oh, sorry..i found out!  :o
I heard it is the most grisly account of the murders so far kind of..


Grisly might not be the right word--accurate and brutal might work best.  Greg and Penny went from the witnesses testimony and pieced together the murder scene...
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: moonlight_tsarina on February 07, 2005, 07:15:17 PM
Oh, this is making me want to get that book even more!
lol..
it's too expensive for my$5 allowance though.  :'(

They are releasing a paperback version in november 05 i saw on amazon...
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Denise on February 07, 2005, 07:20:33 PM
You might want to check if the community library in your town can get it, so you can read it sooner.  If they don't have it themselves, they might be able to inter-library loan it.

I just got my copy for Christmas.  I have only read 2 chapters so far but it is a riveting read.  It really makes you see what happened to them.  

Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: moonlight_tsarina on February 07, 2005, 07:23:03 PM
Unfortunalty, bu library only has Nicholas & Alexandra, and the novel "The Romanov Connection". Noone had checked it out in so long, the people thought it was stolen! lol...

sniffle, people just don't care about the Romanovs here... :(
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Denise on February 07, 2005, 07:28:48 PM
That's too bad.  Our local library has very few books to choose from.  I buy a lot of used books on Amazon.com.  You might want to look at their used books as well as the new.  I just got a used copy of "Anastasia: THe Riddle of Anna Anderson" by Peter Kurth for 1.99, plus $3 shipping.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: moonlight_tsarina on February 07, 2005, 07:30:51 PM
lol, my entire collection is practically from amazon!  :o ;)
However, The Fate of the Romanovs is still "up there"(if you know what i mean$$) a little bit...
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: moonlight_tsarina on February 07, 2005, 07:32:40 PM
What suprises me is in all the accounts of the Romanov's death i have never heard of nicholas doing anything about Alix, what i mean is no "My Love!" or, "I love you!".
I just thought about it, and it made me sad.  :-/ :'(
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Denise on February 07, 2005, 07:37:20 PM
Quote
What suprises me is in all the accounts of the Romanov's death i have never heard of nicholas doing anything about Alix, what i mean is no "My Love!" or, "I love you!".
I just thought about it, and it made me sad.  :-/ :'(


I think that everything just happened way too fast for anyone to react.  It was truly a tragedy.  They thought they were on the verge of rescue, as the Whites were getting so close to the city.  Instead, they met their doom.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: moonlight_tsarina on February 07, 2005, 09:20:10 PM
I know... :'(
My heart always breaks when i think about the whole scene...  :-[

They didn't deserve it. :'(
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: LisaDavidson on February 08, 2005, 12:26:05 AM
Moonlight Tsarina - you need to go see your local librarian and ask her about "interlibrary loans". Libraries share books with one another and your local librarian should be able to order "Fate" for you in no time.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 08, 2005, 08:39:09 AM
Quote
That's too bad.  Our local library has very few books to choose from.  I buy a lot of used books on Amazon.com.  You might want to look at their used books as well as the new.  I just got a used copy of "Anastasia: THe Riddle of Anna Anderson" by Peter Kurth for 1.99, plus $3 shipping.


Sometimes you can find discontinued books for sale at your local library too. Just the other day I saw a hard copy of "The Riddle..." for $1, but I already have it, so I didn't buy it. But I did buy "The Shadow of the Winter Palace" for $1! Library book sales are wonderful!  :D
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 08, 2005, 09:26:33 AM
Quote

I think it was an almost total shock.  N and A might well have been expecting their deaths intellectually, but when they were faced with them so very suddenly, I agree with Denise that things happened all too quickly for any reaction except the most reflexive.


Didn't Nicholas ask "what-what?" after Yurovksky read the "verdict" to him - Nicholas was so shocked that he didn't think he heard Yurovsky correctly!  At least according to some of the eye witnesses, these were his last words...
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Denise on February 08, 2005, 09:43:19 AM
Quote

Didn't Nicholas ask "what-what?" after Yurovksky read the "verdict" to him - Nicholas was so shocked that he didn't think he heard Yurovsky correctly!  At least according to some of the eye witnesses, these were his last words...


This is what I remember reading, too.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: bluetoria on February 08, 2005, 09:43:30 AM
I think that the idea that they were 'expecting' their deaths is a bit confusing. It's like when you're expecting someone else to die (someone who's very ill, of course) and you wait & wait, & the longer you wait the more remote it seems to become. Then when they DO die - you are still very shocked.
It may be the same with people who have been in captivity for so long that each day became like the last so that by the time they entered the cellar they no more expected to die than anyone else does - in which case it would be total amazement.
(Yes, I heard the version where the Tsar said, 'What? What?' - which sounds like total shock!)
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Denise on February 08, 2005, 09:46:21 AM
Quote
I think that the idea that they were 'expecting' their deaths is a bit confusing. It's like when you're expecting someone else to die (someone who's very ill, of course) and you wait & wait, & the longer you wait the more remote it seems to become. Then when they DO die - you are still very shocked.
It may be the same with people who have been in captivity for so long that each day became like the last so that by the time they entered the cellar they no more expected to die than anyone else does - in which case it would be total amazement.
(Yes, I heard the version where the Tsar said, 'What? What?' - which sounds like total shock!)


I think it is a bit simplistic to say they "expected" to die.  Perhaps it might be better to suggest they knew it was very likely that their imprisonment would end in death, but not really WHEN.  I know that with the Whites getting closer to the city, they probably weren't expecting to be killed when they were.  Given the history, perhaps they thought they were going to be moved yet again....
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 08, 2005, 09:47:09 AM
Even if they expected to die, I don't think they thought it would be done in such a way, in the middle of the night, in a basement. I think they were still under the impression that there would be a trial of Nicholas, and that if anything he would probably receive a death sentence which would be carried out openly. I don't think they expected all of them, including the servants, to be shot the way they were, with no warning, with no trial.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: bluetoria on February 08, 2005, 09:49:40 AM
Yes, & I would say this applies too to those at Alapaevsk...(going back to the 'Escape' thread.) I think, too, that they DID still hold out hope that they would be rescued & taken to England - why else would they have taken such care of all the jewels sewn into their clothes?
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Denise on February 08, 2005, 09:49:46 AM
Quote
Even if they expected to die, I don't think they thought it would be done in such a way, in the middle of the night, in a basement. I think they were still under the impression that there would be a trial of Nicholas, and that if anything he would probably receive a death sentence which would be carried out openly. I don't think they expected all of them, including the servants, to be shot the way they were, with no warning, with no trial.


Very true. One would expect due process.  I can't believe that Nicholas and Alexandra EVER expected that their children would be subjected to the same death sentence as their father...
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 08, 2005, 09:59:54 AM
Quote
Yes, & I would say this applies too to those at Alapaevsk...


I am pretty sure they did not think that way either. It may have crossed their minds, but at the same time they must have thought, no they can't possibly do something like that...


Quote
 I can't believe that Nicholas and Alexandra EVER expected that their children would be subjected to the same death sentence as their father...


No, I don't think they did. Even the French revolutionaries, who were pretty brutal in their day, did not pull anything like this. Both Louis and Marie A had public trials, albeit somewhat rigged, but trials nevertheless. They both had public executions, and both their children were spared. Since N & A were very familiar with the fates of L & MA, they must have been thinking things would possibly go along those lines. They did not realize that these revolutionaries were even more brutal than the French, and that they would proceed to pretty much take "justice" into their own hands with no trial, and execute them without a warning, including the children, the servants and the pets!
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: bluetoria on February 08, 2005, 10:26:10 AM
Going everso slightly off topic just really briefly! I know the children of Louis XVI & Marie Antoinette weren't killed (though the poor boy in the Temple had a pretty rough time of it!) but, do you know, did the French Revolutionaries guillotine ANY children in their purges?
(In other respects, although the massacre of so many Romanovs - and particular Ella who had already dispensed with her wealth anyway & was, in a way, more reolutionary than the revolutionaries - was brutal (understatement!)  I don't think they went quite so far as the French Revolutionaries, decapitating & literally tearing someone to pieces in the street?)
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 08, 2005, 10:31:42 AM
Quote
... do you know, did the French Revolutionaries guillotine ANY children in their purges?  
I never heard about that... I don't think any children were guillotined, but they may have been killed otherwise (?)... I just don't know.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: bluetoria on February 08, 2005, 10:38:33 AM
Thanks. I just often wonderwhat happened to them...all those aristocrats going to the guillotine, their children must have gone somewhere. Perhaps other people raised them as 'Citizens' instead.
It is, though, as in Russia, the barbaric behaviour when 'the mob' suddenly seizes power. It is always, IMO, worse than any previous tyranny (Hitler's 'mobs', the Roman 'mobs,' the French Revolutionary 'mob'...the Russian 'mob') The ideals for which they were fighting just go out of the window in blood lust and greed for power.  
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 08, 2005, 10:46:36 AM
"Mob" mentality is very scary, and people tend to do things in mobs that they would normally not ever be able to do individually. Psychologically, they don't feel responsible for what they are doing, so it makes it a lot easier... besides the things you mentioned, I want to add the KKK, which very much operated in mobs.

I think in a way, this is kind of what happened in that basement too. Something like 10-11 people were shooting all at once, that's different than one person shooting and taking full responsibility for what is happening. It's like they are all responsible and yet no one is...
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Georgiy on February 08, 2005, 02:15:11 PM
That's a very good point. I think that any shooters who may have been slightly hesitant at first would have very quickly fallen into the mob mentality once the first shots rang out.

I agree that N & A would have expected a trial, would have done their best to show their innocence, but fully knowing that they would be killed. They may have had worries about their children also. Their last few weeks were so confused and they would have little idea about what was going on around them. They may have wondered while they were waiting in the basement, but the last time N and A were moved it was at night also. Nicholas's asking 'What?' rings true. I have also heard elsewhere that he said "May God forgive you." but I doubt he would have had the time. Nevertheless, we know from a letter from Olga that he had forgiven everyone everything.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 08, 2005, 03:52:16 PM
Quote
I have also heard elsewhere that he said "May God forgive you." but I doubt he would have had the time.


I think that legend has it that he said "Lord forgive them, they know not what they do", but I am very skeptical about that one... simply because he probably had no idea what was happening for a few moments and then he was dead.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Georgiy on February 08, 2005, 04:01:28 PM
I agree, and even if he said words to that effect, it would have been either in his heart or quietly - it's not the sort of thing you about shouting in a loud voice. I doubt anyone would have heard what he said. A panicked or incredulous "What?" I think is far more likely.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: moonlight_tsarina on February 08, 2005, 04:32:07 PM
Quote

I think that legend has it that he said "Lord forgive them, they know not what they do", but I am very skeptical about that one... simply because he probably had no idea what was happening for a few moments and then he was dead.


I agree with  both of you... that's most likley the more fictionalized version of what he said...I almost always just read him saying "What? What?".
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: moonlight_tsarina on February 08, 2005, 04:33:49 PM
Quote
Thanks. I just often wonderwhat happened to them...all those aristocrats going to the guillotine, their children must have gone somewhere. Perhaps other people raised them as 'Citizens' instead.
It is, though, as in Russia, the barbaric behaviour when 'the mob' suddenly seizes power. It is always, IMO, worse than any previous tyranny (Hitler's 'mobs', the Roman 'mobs,' the French Revolutionary 'mob'...the Russian 'mob') The ideals for which they were fighting just go out of the window in blood lust and greed for power.  


Yeah, i beleive that the guillotine was saved for mostly the aristocrats who the people thought "really deserved it".
There are records and pics depicting mulitple executions from the guillotine, but it would take too long to execute a ton of people...
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Georgiy on February 08, 2005, 04:56:49 PM
I don't know...I understand the guillotine was horribly efficient :(
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: bluetoria on February 08, 2005, 05:05:33 PM
Quote
I don't know...I understand the guillotine was horribly efficient :(


And it was still OFFICIALLY in use until FAIRLY recently wasn't it? (Someone will, doubtless, know the exact date, but it was well into the 20th century.)

Returning to the main point - the gloss about 'Father forgive them...' does seem too unlikely. However a devout a Christian he was his first thoughts - had he had TIME to think (which he clearly didn't) would have been for his family, wouldn't you think? If he had had time to think, he might have forgiven them - who knows?
The daughters are always depicted as blessing themselves - I do believe that is likely. It would seem an automatic thing for a 'pious' person to do in a time of great stress, perhaps, particularly since they would probably have been accustomed to doing so.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Georgiy on February 08, 2005, 05:14:14 PM
Yes, I have also heard that it was still officially able to be used until some time last century (but not sure when abolished). Whether it was ever used or not in the 20th century is  a different matter though.

The children and Alexandra certainly had time to cross themselves, and that would be a natural reaction. No doubt Nicholas would have done so too had he had time.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Denise on February 08, 2005, 05:17:42 PM
Here you go: history of the guillotine.  Last official use 1977 in France.

http://www.metaphor.dk/guillotine/Pages/Guillot.html
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: bluetoria on February 08, 2005, 05:21:54 PM
Thanks, Denise! :)  Even later than I thought! I wonder when they last USED it? I'll follow the thread (& promise not to go off at a tangent on this one! ;))
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 08, 2005, 05:25:43 PM
Maybe we now need a giulloitine thread!  ;D
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Georgiy on February 08, 2005, 05:29:29 PM
I might just set one up! (Subtley hidden under a Franco-Russian History thread) ;D
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: amendris on January 26, 2006, 09:10:16 AM
does anybody know alot of the details (i'm ok with gore).  My library does not cary the fate of the romanovs, so i can't read it.  I was hoping that if anybody had any in depth details, that they could tell me.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Margarita Markovna on January 26, 2006, 11:26:52 AM
Amendris: check your PM box. ;)
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Mander on January 26, 2006, 10:05:44 PM
A lot of libraries will order a book for you if they don't carry it. Have you tried asking them?
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: BetteDavisEyes on January 12, 2007, 03:55:48 PM
I too would like to know the details, I know much about the Romanovs, but very little about their deaths, so any information (no matter how gory) is fine by me! thank you.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: imperial angel on January 16, 2007, 11:57:08 AM
Well, there is much on the threads. With the Romanovs death you can get pretty detailed in the end, but there are many books that get into the details. In my opinion, there are so many details on different things ( like the discovery of the bones, their deaths, and escape plots, imposters, alleged survivors, etc, their last months), that it depends what you are most interested in.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Penny_Wilson on January 16, 2007, 12:54:31 PM
The Fate of the Romanovs is available on-line at Questia -- Questia is a site you have to pay to belong to, but they do offer a trial period, so if you are a fast reader, it could work for you.  ;D

~Penny
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Sarushka on January 19, 2007, 10:33:41 AM
Books really are the way to go for the details of the execution. There is a lot of information on various threads around here, but most of it was extracted from these books in the first place:

Fall of the Romanovs (http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/books.html?sku=7)
Fate of the Romanovs (http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/books.html?sku=8)
Romanovs: The Final Chapter (http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/books.html?sku=38)

Some of the executioners' testimony is available online as well:
Yurovsky's 1934 account (http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/yurovmurder.html)
Yurovsky's 1922 statement (http://www.kingandwilson.com/FOTRresources/yurovsky1922.htm)
Other statements (http://www.kingandwilson.com/FOTRresources/index.htm)

I also have Ermakov's (somewhat falsified) account of the murder from the book Seven League Boots. PM me if you'd like the file.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Amanda_Misha on April 18, 2007, 08:16:58 PM
I think very much in that it had  past if  they had not hurt them when I look at OTMA's so nice faces that of the little angel Alexei in such a sweet and sincere love that Nicholas and Alexandra had, i ask myself for that they did it to them, that men's class mercilessly not even heart they were capable of hurting and killing to so innocent creatures. :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
That turns a man into a savage?
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: susana on December 24, 2008, 02:16:57 PM
Is it possible to buy a copy of Gleb Panfilov's fairly recent film? Where?
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: rosieposie on December 25, 2008, 11:17:51 PM
I think very much in that it had  past if  they had not hurt them when I look at OTMA's so nice faces that of the little angel Alexei in such a sweet and sincere love that Nicholas and Alexandra had, i ask myself for that they did it to them, that men's class mercilessly not even heart they were capable of hurting and killing to so innocent creatures. :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
That turns a man into a savage?

As mentioned I think before, forgive me I just got home from Christmas.  Anyways, Misha, The men were ordered to kill the family.  It wasn't cause of their looks, their personalities etc.  It was cause of the name, bloodline and former titles.   

I think originally they were going to just take Nicholas from Tobolsk (and in my idea formed from others opionions were going to execute Nicholas and let the others go to exhile in the Crimiea and then on to Denmark or some other European country).    Of course Alix didn't want to leave Nicholas and thus sent the chain of events which had sent the rest of the family to their final destination.

I read somewhere the men had sat with Yurovsky while he drew up the plans for the execution.  The night it happened the men were drunk.  Some I think had regrets after the event, others were gleeful that they had killed the Tsar.

To them it was a job, which had earning a mention of being one of the top events in the 20th century.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: tom_romanov on December 26, 2008, 04:22:41 PM
sometimes i stand against a wall in my house and look forward i imagine what it must have been like,what they must have thought but of cousre its very hard. Although the murder was horrific i suppose it would have been better than a public execution. i mean they might not have (hanged/ whatever else they had in mind) OTMAA but they probably would have had to watch their parents die a slow painful, public death (whereas in the cellar they saw their parents die but at leats it was quick)
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Mexjames on December 29, 2008, 09:11:53 AM
It was quick but they suffered nonetheless.  If the information we all have is true, some were bayoneted to death and someone was shot straight in the head when the initial round of bullets failed.  And for what we know, someone might have well been in agony even as the bodies were taken to the Pig's Meadow.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Sarushka on December 29, 2008, 09:16:04 AM
Is it possible to buy a copy of Gleb Panfilov's fairly recent film? Where?

As far as I know, the DVD/VHS is no longer in print. However, you can watch the film here (http://www.frozentears.org/Pages/Romanovy.html).
Title: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on January 20, 2009, 09:57:58 AM
As I've read in Wikipedia, while the dead bodies of the IF together with Demidova, Trupp and Botkin, one girl screamed or droned a cry. Hearing where the cry was, the soldier who piled another body to the truck clubbed the girl's head. The girl became silent and so, the soldier thought she was dead.  She was believed to be the last one to die.Who could this girl be?
I was in options of Anna Demidova, Anastasia and Maria. Has somebody clarified this already here? Sorry for re-posting.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on January 20, 2009, 10:18:38 AM
Does it really matter?  In my opinion, I think we are again verging on the earlier wide-eyed "EXACTLY HOW did they die?" topic, which was extinguished here (no pun intended) some time ago....   They are accounted for.  Let them rest.  AP
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Ally Kumari on January 20, 2009, 12:28:41 PM
This story came from a girl on youtube, who claims to be a distant relative of Alexandra and to own some diaries. She also claims Anastasia over grown Maria and that Tatiana was probably raped.... I think she´s simply got too active imagination.....

As for the discussion itself, I agree totally with aleksandr pavlovich. Even if it wasn´t so morbid, what is the point in knowing such thing?
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Robert_Hall on January 20, 2009, 01:16:15 PM
I would like to see this topic go the same way- into the abyss.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on January 21, 2009, 01:02:20 AM
This story came from a girl on youtube, who claims to be a distant relative of Alexandra and to own some diaries. She also claims Anastasia over grown Maria and that Tatiana was probably raped.... I think she´s simply got too active imagination.....

As for the discussion itself, I agree totally with aleksandr pavlovich. Even if it wasn´t so morbid, what is the point in knowing such thing?

Ally, was the topic I brought quoted by that girl in youtube, too?

It says there (in Wikipedia)that it was according to Yurovsky.
Well, anyone could post lies in Wikipedia.
I just want to ask who that girl was, the one clubbed on the head. Only that I want to clarify.. so that this topic could be closed.

P.S. I want to know if that's true because I'm story-telling my classmates about the murder and I said that. They were so curious of who that was. I told them I'd try to ask here so that I'd tell the right info..

Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Ally Kumari on January 21, 2009, 03:29:27 AM
I read Yurovski´s note and there´s nothing about it. the only time I heard it was from her, because she made a video named "The girl who almost survived". In the description she wrote this "anecdote", claiming it was by some witness. But I read also Ermakov, Medvedev and some other´s confessions and I found nothing like that.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Alice on January 21, 2009, 03:31:42 AM
I don't think we will ever know the answer to this question. Some accounts state that one or two of the girls were still alive when they were being carried to the truck, but they aren't named in these accounts. It could've been any of the four.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on January 22, 2009, 04:31:22 AM
aahh..Now I know...
Thanks, Ally and Alice for sharing your knowledge! Case closed.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: mona_marie on January 23, 2009, 01:42:43 PM
As I've read in Wikipedia, while the dead bodies of the IF together with Demidova, Trupp and Botkin, one girl screamed or droned a cry. Hearing where the cry was, the soldier who piled another body to the truck clubbed the girl's head. The girl became silent and so, the soldier thought she was dead.  She was believed to be the last one to die.Who could this girl be?
I was in options of Anna Demidova, Anastasia and Maria. Has somebody clarified this already here? Sorry for re-posting.

I found this:  (Wikipedia)

The rest of the Imperial retinue was shot in short order with the exception of Anna Demidova, Alexandra's maid. Demidova survived the initial onslaught but was quickly murdered against the back wall of the basement, stabbed to death while trying to defend herself with a small pillow she had carried into the sub-basement that was filled with precious gems and jewels.


Anastasia and Maria were said to have crouched up against a wall covering their heads in terror until they were shot down by bullets, recalled Yurovsky. However, another guard, Peter Ermakov, told his wife that Anastasia had been finished off with bayonets. As the bodies were carried out, one or several of the girls cried out and were clubbed on the back of the head, wrote Yurovsky.

...At least two of the Grand Duchesses were said to have survived the initial attack on the Imperial Family. Two of the Grand Duchesses, Maria and Anastasia, "sat up screaming" when they were being carried out to a waiting truck. They were then attacked again.[48] There have been claims made that Maria was the Grand Duchess who survived. A man named Alex Brimeyer claimed to be Maria's grandson "Prince Alexis d'Anjou de Bourbon-Condé Romanov-Dolgoruky...He said Maria had escaped to Romania, married and had a daughter, Olga-Beata. Olga-Beata then allegedly married and had a son named "Prince Alexis". Brimeyer was sentenced to 18 months in prison by a Belgian court after he was sued in 1971 by the Dolgoruky family and the Association of Descendants of the Russian Nobility of Belgium.


According to one account of the murders, Maria ran from the assassins and began banging on the door of a storage room and crying for help. She was then shot in the thigh by drunken military commissar Peter Ermakov, who also tried to stab her with a bayonet and shoot her in the head, but may have failed to aim properly. Maria somehow fainted and remained alive until the bodies were inspected to check for pulses.She screamed, causing Ermakov to try and stab her again. When his attempt failed to kill her, he struck her in the face until she was silent.


I hope for it I was able to help it
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on January 24, 2009, 01:45:31 PM
That's what I've read, mona marie!

I was deceived by that text that's why I asked this question.
Anastasia and Maria were said to have crouched up against a wall covering their heads in terror until they were shot down by bullets, recalled Yurovsky. However, another guard, Peter Ermakov, told his wife that Anastasia had been finished off with bayonets. As the bodies were carried out, one or several of the girls cried out and were clubbed on the back of the head, wrote Yurovsky.

...At least two of the Grand Duchesses were said to have survived the initial attack on the Imperial Family. Two of the Grand Duchesses, Maria and Anastasia, "sat up screaming" when they were being carried out to a waiting truck. They were then attacked again.[48]

According to one account of the murders, Maria ran from the assassins and began banging on the door of a storage room and crying for help. She was then shot in the thigh by drunken military commissar Peter Ermakov, who also tried to stab her with a bayonet and shoot her in the head, but may have failed to aim properly. Maria somehow fainted and remained alive until the bodies were inspected to check for pulses.She screamed, causing Ermakov to try and stab her again. When his attempt failed to kill her, he struck her in the face until she was silent.


I hope for it I was able to help it



Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: rosieposie on January 26, 2009, 03:23:10 AM
The last to die, it is hard to know who died last.  Only those that killed them would know.    As for them clubbing the people with the butts of their rifles and bayonetting them, it could be cause they didn't want civilisians to recognise the IF and servants.  This could be why Maria and Alexei were 20 miles away from the rest of the group.   It might have been a precaution.

However as for the girl that sighed or groaned as they were carrying the bodies to the trucks.  It could have been possible that the body was expelling air from the mouth, the bubbling of blood from their throats or noses (as a result being shot in the head) from the air escaping could make it sonld like a groan or sigh.     When the body dies air gets trapped inside.  It is well known among morticians and those that do forensic science that the body keeps gas also inside the intestines.   Sometimes they have to rub the bellies of bodies to get the gas out.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on January 26, 2009, 04:01:02 AM
Thanks for the info, rosieposie! You add knowledge to my brain!
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: rosieposie on January 26, 2009, 07:24:38 AM
Your welcome :)  I have been watching to many crime shows and read a lot of true crime magazines.   That is a theory I have thought of about after reading about the girl sighing/groaning.  Especially looking at the skulls of Olga and Tatiana/Anastasia's skulls where the bullet went through the head and excited out the nasal passage.   

It makes me think that is how the guards mistook the body for making a noise.  The air escaping.  Also I read somewhere that one of the girls arms flopped out of the sheet when they carried the body to the truck, this is likely dead weight.  Obviously many of these men had never been around dead bodies before and mistook these actions for them being alive.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on January 27, 2009, 04:36:06 AM
Your welcome again. Oh, you're really excellent!
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: rosieposie on January 27, 2009, 05:15:26 AM
I was wondering if they were holding their breath just as they were being shot?  It could be a possiblity.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Alexander1917 on January 27, 2009, 08:41:10 AM
I was wondering if they were holding their breath just as they were being shot?  It could be a possiblity.


How would you react when a group of peolple entered a room and say "now we shot you"....K. Massie descrips it very moving...
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Tina Laroche on January 27, 2009, 08:49:02 AM
I was wondering if they were holding their breath just as they were being shot?  It could be a possiblity.


How would you react when a group of peolple entered a room and say "now we shot you"....K. Massie descrips it very moving...

Well, personally, I wouldn't have hold my breath... I would have cried or shouted... or I would have done something to try and save myself... ::)
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Alexander1917 on January 27, 2009, 08:52:50 AM
like Demidova...running with the pillow....

Personally. I think, no-body would know how he/she react in such a very strange situation....
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: rosieposie on January 27, 2009, 08:58:07 AM
I was wondering if they were holding their breath just as they were being shot?  It could be a possiblity.


How would you react when a group of peolple entered a room and say "now we shot you"....K. Massie descrips it very moving...

Excuse me,  I have been on here longer then you and I think your quote is very rude. You didn't not have to be like that.       Just cause I am a boyar doesn't mean that I come on here occasionly and survey threads.

If you must know it was something I was wondering.     I have been studying the IF since 1996.   If you read A Life Long Passion there is a full eyewitness accounts from two of the men that killed the family and servants.  I don't care about K.Massie's books as there is heaps of Romanov books out there.   Also what he wrote is from third person.  He wasn't there he had to go by eye witness accounts.    

Which again if you ever get your hands on a Life Long Passion, which has diary entries, letters  from the IF and memiors from those that knew them.  This also includes the eyewitness accounts of those that killed and desposing of the family and servants in great detail which isn't a moving discription it is a gory bloody detail telling it like it was about the agonising deaths of the IF and their servants and Dr Botkin.  

They wrote that they had to finally grabbed the girls to finally shoot them in the head.  As the bullets ricchoceted of the bodices.  That doesn't mean that the girls were not shot in the shoulders, or limbs.   However in answer to your rude question Alexander
"If I was in their position, when the men grabbed me, I would hold my breath and squeeze my eyes waiting for the blast."
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: amartin71718 on January 27, 2009, 04:18:18 PM
FOTR is another book that has a very detailed description of the murders, if you are interested. Oh, and also, 'moving' is definately not the best word to describe the murder accounts. The first time I read the FOTR account, it made me sick to my stomach, it was that detailed.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: rosieposie on January 27, 2009, 11:34:44 PM
FOTR is another book that has a very detailed description of the murders, if you are interested. Oh, and also, 'moving' is definately not the best word to describe the murder accounts. The first time I read the FOTR account, it made me sick to my stomach, it was that detailed.

Hi Marty that is how I felt too when I read the recounts of the two guys.  It was so disgusting even to when they were stripping the bodies and one of the men grabbed Alexandra's breast and gloated that now he could die peacefully cause he touched her breast.

It's not moving it is gory.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Alexander1917 on January 28, 2009, 08:15:47 AM
[
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on January 28, 2009, 08:21:55 AM
]It was so disgusting even to when they were stripping the bodies and one of the men grabbed Alexandra's breast and gloated that now he could die peacefully cause he touched her breast.

Um...it wasn't her breast. 'Nuff said?

Incidentally, it appears to be Massie who first mentioned this detail in his book, The Final Chapter -- years before FOTR and Lifelong Passion.


And please don't snap at people. I admit Alexander1917's question *could* be interpreted as sarcastic, but your response was blatantly rude. Being a longtime member is no excuse for this sort of behavior.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Alexander1917 on January 28, 2009, 08:23:07 AM
I was wondering if they were holding their breath just as they were being shot?  It could be a possiblity.


How would you react when a group of peolple entered a room and say "now we shot you"....K. Massie descrips it very moving...

Excuse me,  I have been on here longer then you and I think your quote is very rude. You didn't not have to be like that.       Just cause I am a boyar doesn't mean that I come on here occasionly and survey threads.

If you must know it was something I was wondering.     I have been studying the IF since 1996.   If you read A Life Long Passion there is a full eyewitness accounts from two of the men that killed the family and servants.  I don't care about K.Massie's books as there is heaps of Romanov books out there.   Also what he wrote is from third person.  He wasn't there he had to go by eye witness accounts.    

Which again if you ever get your hands on a Life Long Passion, which has diary entries, letters  from the IF and memiors from those that knew them.  This also includes the eyewitness accounts of those that killed and desposing of the family and servants in great detail which isn't a moving discription it is a gory bloody detail telling it like it was about the agonising deaths of the IF and their servants and Dr Botkin.  

They wrote that they had to finally grabbed the girls to finally shoot them in the head.  As the bullets ricchoceted of the bodices.  That doesn't mean that the girls were not shot in the shoulders, or limbs.   However in answer to your rude question Alexander
"If I was in their position, when the men grabbed me, I would hold my breath and squeeze my eyes waiting for the blast."


Was it rude? I mean it as an question.... no-one knows how he or she would react in advance, at the very prestent moment, you will know..

if massie wrotes 3rd or 4th hand is not so importent for me, as I also read it in Yourovsky file...and the main points are the same...with moving I don't mean that I love to read it.. I cry..because may I'm to emotionel, but I saw this seen in my mind....

I got A lifelong Passion in German, but read it some years ago...Die Zarenmörder - Vernichtung einer Dynastie J. Buranov, V. Chrustaljov got also Yurovsky's and other murder files in it.

"When all were assembled, Yurovksy re-entered the room, followed by his entire Cheka squad carrying revolvers. He stepped forward and declared quickly, " Your realtions have tried to save you. They have failed and we must now shoot you".
Nicholas, his arm still around Alexej, began to rise from his chair to protect his wife and son. He had just time to say "what...?" before Yurovksy pointed his revolver directly at the Tsar's head and fired. Nicholas died instantly. At this signal, the entire squad of executioners began to shoot. Alexandra had time only to raise her hand and make the sign of the cross before she too was killed by a single bullet. Olga, Tatiana and Marie, standing behind their mother, were hit and died quickly. Botkin, Kharitonov and Trupp also fell in the hail of bullets. Demidova, the maid, survived the first volley, and rather than reload, the executioners took rifles from the next room and pursued her, sabbing with bayonets. Screaming, running back and forth along the wall like a trapped animal, she tried to fend them off with the cushion. At last she fell, pierced by bayonets morethan thirty times. Jimmy the spaniel was killed when his head was crushed by a rifle butt. The room, filled with smoke and strench of gunpowder, became suddenly quiet. Blood was running in streams from the bodies on the floor. Then there was a movement and a low groan. Alexej, lying on the floor still in the arms of the Tsar, feebly moved his hand to clutch his father's coat. Savagely, one of the executioners kicked the Tsarevich in the head with his heavy boot. Yurovsky stepped up and fired two shots into the boy's ear. just at that moment, Anastasia, who had only fainted, regained consciosness and screamed. With bayonets and rifle butts, the entire band turned on her. In a moment, she too lay still. It was ended."
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on January 28, 2009, 09:29:27 AM
I even was disgusted when I read the murderers undressed the IF and the loyal people killed along them. Why is that they won't just leave them dressed? I know they did it because they could be recognized as soon as the corpses are discovered. But the IF and the rest dressed like peasants then, right? There's a possibility they wouldn't be recognized as the missing IF.

Or the Bolsheviks are just to scared to reveal truth. Just my opinion..
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: nena on January 28, 2009, 09:53:51 AM
It is so, so terrib for me to talk about this. I know Aleksei wasn't undresses by Yurovsky and his men. Yes, and remains found 2 y. ago, also on boy's body, there are remains of textile, a famous blue-white shirt he wore under uniform in that night.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on January 28, 2009, 10:03:26 AM
Thanks for the info, nena. Aleksei's buried with Maria, right? Was she stripped of her clothes? If she was, my hate for the Bolsheviks would grow about 1000000000000000 light years!
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on January 28, 2009, 10:04:25 AM
Why is that they won't just leave them dressed? I know they did it because they could be recognized as soon as the corpses are discovered. But the IF and the rest dressed like peasants then, right? There's a possibility they wouldn't be recognized as the missing IF.

Even though their clothes were becoming somewhat shabby, I think there would have been a noticeable difference between the IF's clothing and a peasant's. Nicholas & Aleksei still wore the field khaki of Russian soldiers (though probably not their imperial epaulettes), and the women's clothes would have been tailored, well made, and of good quality material. In spite of being threadbare, I think the workmanship and style of the IF's clothing would have at the very least alerted investigators that the victims were well-to-do.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: nena on January 28, 2009, 10:06:07 AM
Russians believe Maria is missing one, also buried with Heir 70 meters away from others.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on January 28, 2009, 10:20:07 AM
Why is that they won't just leave them dressed? I know they did it because they could be recognized as soon as the corpses are discovered. But the IF and the rest dressed like peasants then, right? There's a possibility they wouldn't be recognized as the missing IF.

Even though their clothes were becoming somewhat shabby, I think there would have been a noticeable difference between the IF's clothing and a peasant's. Nicholas & Aleksei still wore the field khaki of Russian soldiers (though probably not their imperial epaulettes), and the women's clothes would have been tailored, well made, and of good quality material. In spite of being threadbare, I think the workmanship and style of the IF's clothing would have at the very least alerted investigators that the victims were well-to-do.

So that it is, Sarushka. Thanks for the information, Sarah and nena!
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: nena on January 28, 2009, 10:23:13 AM
Oh, forgot to add that I read that servants were dressed properly, and elegant/fine. In black dress, Trupp, I think.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Alexander1917 on January 28, 2009, 07:46:49 PM
I know, it's only a movie.. but the last szene in "Nicholas & Alexandra" comes near what they would wore during the last month...as said, well cut, good fabrics...but simple style..(could be also seen when other royals photographed in this period, "off-duty")..and they would not only be recognized by the dressing, but also the jewellery (rings, crosses etc)..remember the many items found and later sent in the suitcase.....
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on January 29, 2009, 03:29:28 AM
Thanks for the information, nena and Alexander.
They were still wearing then their gold bracelets, right ( I think those are unremovable). If they did, how did the murderes get rid of those?
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on January 29, 2009, 08:32:08 AM
They were still wearing then their gold bracelets, right ( I think those are unremovable).

I would presume so. AOTMA were all allowed to keep their gold bracelets when Yurovsky sealed the rest of the jewelry.


Quote
If they did, how did the murderes get rid of those?

By brute force, IMO. If hurting the bracelets' owners was no longer a concern, there are lots of...um...options.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Alexander1917 on January 29, 2009, 08:34:05 AM
Thanks for the information, nena and Alexander.
They were still wearing then their gold bracelets, right ( I think those are unremovable). If they did, how did the murderes get rid of those?

Alexandra wore a emerald cross (gift of MF)...her pearl studs and so on... with tongs, brutal power...they also cut the bones etc..and the jewels in the corsets fall out...some were pressed into the earth by boots..and later recoverd...
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on January 29, 2009, 08:38:53 AM
Alexandra wore a emerald cross (gift of MF)...her pearl studs and so on... with tongs, brutal power...they also cut the bones etc..and the jewels in the corsets fall out...some were pressed into the earth by boots..and later recoverd...

I'm not 100% certain, but I don't think the IF's bones were cut until the remains were recovered and studied by the forensic teams. The only dismemberment I'm aware of was caused by the grenades thrown into the first grave.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Alexander1917 on January 29, 2009, 08:42:52 AM
I don't know.. I was not there :-)

this was found:

Regarding the box:

In January of 1919 Nicholos Sokolov assisted by the tutors of the Tsarevitch, Gillard and Gibbs found the remains of the cremation attempt. At that site they collected:

. the belt buckles of the Tsar and Tsarevitch

. Empress Alexandra's emerald cross from Empress Marie

. one of a pair of pearl earrings always worn by Empress
 Alexandra

. the Ulm cross presented to the Empress by her guards

. fragments of a saphirre ring of the Tsar "too tight to be
 ever removed"

. the Tsars metal pocket case in which he carried his
 wife's picture

. 3 small icons worn by the Grand Duchesses

. the Empress' spectacle case

. 6 sets of corset fasteners

. fragments of the military caps of the Tsar and
 Tsarevetich

. shoe buckles of the Grand Duchesses

. Dr. Botkin's eyeglasses and false teeth

. charred bones with marks of acid, axe and saw

. melted bullets

. a severed human finger of a middle-aged woman,
 slender and manicured like the Empress's

. a collection of odds and ends always carried in the
 pocket of the Tsarevitch
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: nena on January 29, 2009, 08:54:21 AM
Exactly! I know what belt buckles Aleksei wore. Same ones at Mogilev Train Station. See?:

(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x139/nemanjapr/Romanov/Stavka%20u%20Mogiljevu/thread/th_mogilevtrain2.jpg) (http://s185.photobucket.com/albums/x139/nemanjapr/Romanov/Stavka%20u%20Mogiljevu/thread/?action=view&current=mogilevtrain2.jpg)

Thank you, Alexander17 for list.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on January 29, 2009, 09:18:34 AM
Thanks for the list, Alexander!

Exactly! I know what belt buckles Aleksei wore. Same ones at Mogilev Train Station. See?:

(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x139/nemanjapr/Romanov/Stavka%20u%20Mogiljevu/thread/th_mogilevtrain2.jpg) (http://s185.photobucket.com/albums/x139/nemanjapr/Romanov/Stavka%20u%20Mogiljevu/thread/?action=view&current=mogilevtrain2.jpg)

Thank you, Alexander17 for list.

So, that's what he wore the day he was killed, nena? Not only the buckles but the entire uniform?
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: nena on January 29, 2009, 09:19:52 AM
He was uniformed, and wore those belt buckles. Which uniform exactly, I don't know.  :-[
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Alexander1917 on January 29, 2009, 09:30:04 AM
Thanks for the list, Alexander!

Exactly! I know what belt buckles Aleksei wore. Same ones at Mogilev Train Station. See?:

(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x139/nemanjapr/Romanov/Stavka%20u%20Mogiljevu/thread/th_mogilevtrain2.jpg) (http://s185.photobucket.com/albums/x139/nemanjapr/Romanov/Stavka%20u%20Mogiljevu/thread/?action=view&current=mogilevtrain2.jpg)

Thank you, Alexander17 for list.

So, that's what he wore the day he was killed, nena? Not only the buckles but the entire uniform?

I think he wore this one.. but without the epauletts
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on January 29, 2009, 09:31:35 AM
The epaulettes symbolize their imperial status that's why those were taken away (am I right?)
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: nena on January 29, 2009, 09:36:09 AM
You are right - in february of 1918, they removed epaulettes from Tsar and Tsarevich's uniforms.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on January 29, 2009, 09:45:19 AM
The guards at Tobolsk addressed the Tsar as Colonel although he must not be because he already abdicated the throne. That's when I knew the guards are still good to them regardless of their condition then.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: nena on January 29, 2009, 09:54:29 AM
That's when I knew the guards are still good to them regardless of their condition then.
At Tsarskoe Selo and early captivity at Tobolsk guards were more tollerant, till Kobilinsky/Yakovlyev arrived by end of 1917 or 1918.

Tsar wrote : 'That their 'trait' I won't forget' (removing epaulettes).
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on January 29, 2009, 10:01:33 AM
The more evil attitude of the guards toward the IF hinted a little of the end of their Empire.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on January 29, 2009, 11:30:54 AM
Some of the guards' attitudes changed, but mostly, the guards themselves were replaced as time went on. Here's a brief summary:

At Tsarskoye Selo and Tobolsk, Colonel Kobylinsky and the 4th regiment remained sympathetic to the IF, while the 1st and 2nd regiments were more antagonistic.

Commissar Pankratov was sympathetic to the family, while his assistant, Nikolsky, was not. They were in charge of the governor's house from September 1917 to February 1918, when the soldiers of the 2nd regiment demanded their resignation.

On 19 February/4 March, the 4th regiment departed for Petrograd. They were replaced by less sympathetic guards from the former capital.

22 Feb/7 March: head of Special Detachment telegraphs Moscow demanding back pay & replacement of Kobylinsky

10/23 March: 100 Red guards arrive from Omsk for garrison duty

26 March/8 April: More red guards arrive from Omsk, headed by Extraordinary Commissar Demianov/Dementiev

9/22 April: Yakovlev arrives and inspects the house the following day

28 April/11 May: Kobylinsky removed from authority

1/14 May: Kobylinsky replaced by Rodionov

3/17 May: Rodionov's guards from Yekaterinburg take over


I can post similar info about the Ipatiev guards later if anyone's interested.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Tina Laroche on January 29, 2009, 11:41:15 AM
Thanks, Sarushka! Well, I'm interested (and I'm sure I'm not the only one), so if you can... post the info you have about the Ipatiev guards... :)
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on January 29, 2009, 05:11:07 PM
All the Ipatiev House guards were drawn from Verkh-Isetsk and Makarov Factories, as well as a few Red Army soldiers. Initially, NAM found two guards who were friendly toward them: Glarner (the chief of the guards) and Ukrainitsev (first deputy commandant). Maria recognized Ukrainitsev, who had served GD Mikhail Alexandrovich on hunting trips in the Crimea. For the first week or so, the two men chatted and even played cards in NAM's drawing room in the evenings. NAM didn't care much for Commandant Avdeyev, but for all his bravado among the guards, it seems he was civil in the IF's presence.

26 April/9 May: Ukraintsev was removed, and a man named Alexander Moshkin appointed in his place. Moshkin was a crude fellow who enjoyed invited his girlfriends and fellow factory workers into his study to drink and carouse after Avdayev left in the evenings. (These guests did NOT come into contact with the imperial prisoners.) The same day Moshkin was appointed, a contingent of Magyar POWs arrived for guard duty.

1/14 May: 30 men recruited from the Syssert factory for guard duty (11 are Bolsheviks)

17/30 May:  Zlokazov Factory requested to supply ten soldiers for guard duty at Ipatiev House. 14 Zlokazov workers arrive to form new guard, joining Syssert, Makarov, and 15 Verkh-Isetsk Factory workers.  In all, thirty new guards are added on this day.

19 May/1 June: All Verkh-Isetsk and Makarov Factory workers dismissed from service at Ipatiev House, with arrival that week of Zlokazov men, and Syssert men the week before

29 May/11 June: Interior guard reinforced by 13 additions -- Zlokazov workers, according to Medvedev

21 June/4 July: Yurovsky takes command

25 June/8 July: All Syssert and Zlokazov workers transferred to Popov House, replaced by ten “Letts from the Cheka” who move into basement of Ipatiev House; New guards assume duty on all upper floor posts and the old guards are restricted to exterior duty only


(The majority of this information comes from an article in Atlantis Magazine.)
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Tina Laroche on January 29, 2009, 05:37:28 PM
Thanks one more time, Sarushka, for posting this info. :)
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on January 29, 2009, 06:24:44 PM
You're welcome.

I forgot one pertinent item in the Ipatiev timeline:

30 Apr/13 May: Glarner relieved of duty
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on January 29, 2009, 11:21:58 PM
What a great effort, Sarushka! Thank you so much.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: nena on January 30, 2009, 09:39:03 AM
Was name of comander chief Avdayev or Avdeyev? I think Avdeyev. And famous 'drunkness, falling on Ipatiev steps', and conflict of Nicholas II and Avdeyev.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on January 30, 2009, 11:20:33 AM
Was name of comander chief Avdayev or Avdeyev? I think Avdeyev.

Transliteration varies, but in Russian it's "Авдеев."

Quote
And famous 'drunkness, falling on Ipatiev steps', and conflict of Nicholas II and Avdeyev.

That's the traditional view of Avdeyev, but there's some interesting testimony by a nun who had known him since childhood that suggests the portrayal of Avdeyev as a cruel drunk is exaggerated (see pages 118-119 of FOTR). It's possible that he played the role of boastful brute in public and in front of the guards, but was actually accommodating to the IF in private. King and Wilson say Avdeyev had a habit of loudly denying the IF's requests at first, then secretly acquiescing behind the scenes.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: nena on January 30, 2009, 11:25:20 AM
Yes - you are right. In English 'a' sometimes says as a 'e' (swam, for example). That is why tranlstion varies. Originaly -- it is Avdeyev.

Yes he was oftenly drunk, I have heard Nikulin brought one woman to IH and she sang or played piano? Do you know? Yes, nuns from near Church, which oftenly brought food into IH. Also, they were written(thier names, I mean) in Yurovsky's or in guards' book, as I have read.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on January 30, 2009, 02:59:22 PM
Those nuns sent heavenly gifts for baby such as macaroni,eggs and milk.
But, I've never heard about what you typed, nena. Thank you so much.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on January 30, 2009, 04:58:51 PM
You're welcome.

I forgot one pertinent item in the Ipatiev timeline:

30 Apr/13 May: Glarner relieved of duty


Another small addition: under Avdeyev's tenure, only he and his three senior aides were permitted free access to the imperial family's rooms. The other members of the guard were restricted to the stairwell and its landing, the basement, and the exterior of the house. [source: Rappaport]
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on January 30, 2009, 06:03:38 PM
Thank you so much Sarushka! (",)

Are those windows on IH painted black thrown away after the house's destruction? (Or were those in display now?)
What a pity they weren't able to see what's happening outside (referring to IF). The guards jeer at them once they were caught sneaking outside.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: nena on January 30, 2009, 06:11:07 PM
I have never heard of black - painted windows, only of white ones, that is why IF couldn't see anything outside, maybe a top of Church. They could see IH courtyard, when they left outside, at 4.p.m.

IH was destroyed in summer of 1977. After House's destruction, a some kind of memorial was made, people made their walking every year on July 16/7th to that place. In 2003, I think, Cathedral on Blood was built. I am not sure for year. 

EDIT : White coloring by guards are mentioned in NII or Alexandra's diary, I am not sure which one.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on January 30, 2009, 06:19:46 PM
I got that info from "unreliable" Wikipedia (sorry wikipedia editors)
So it's white painted, not black. Thanks for the immediate reply, nena.

Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on January 30, 2009, 07:24:18 PM
Alexandra's diary 2/15 May 1918:

"An old man painted all the windows white fr. outside, so only at the top can see a bit of sky & it looks as tho' there were a thick fogg, not at all cosy."

Nicholas's diary:

"Establishment of the 'prison regime' continued and was evident  when an old housepainter came and whitewashed every window in every room. Now it's like a fog looking in at every window. [....] Only the dining room was improved, because they took down the rug covering the windows!"
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: nena on January 30, 2009, 07:44:47 PM
Exactly -- thanks!

To back to topic -- I've always wondered who is the girl which cried and sat after that massacre? I am sure they knew who, but didn't want to find out which one. I am sure they knew their names, expect some ones.

And, like it is been said on beginning, it is hard to talk about this event for some people, and try to be heedful to them. 

And we can consider that might be a woman, because there were 6:5 female/male ratio, and more chances for woman to be 'last one'.

edit: Agreed with Marty_94, according to executioner's testimonies.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: amartin71718 on January 30, 2009, 07:48:46 PM
I think it was either Anastasia, Maria, or Demidova.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on January 31, 2009, 12:29:55 PM
And that's what I'm confused with.
As said on the first replies, this story isn't true. This story just popped out from a girl in youtube.
That's the reason why I closed the talk.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on January 31, 2009, 02:44:13 PM
And that's what I'm confused with.
As said on the first replies, this story isn't true. This story just popped out from a girl in youtube.
That's the reason why I closed the talk.

Actually, that incident is not an urban legend attributed to Youtube. FOTR quotes both Strekotin and Voikov as recalling that one or two of the female victims sat up and/or screamed after the execution. See page 313. Massie also mentions it on page 6 of Romanovs: The Final Chapter.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: nena on January 31, 2009, 06:41:42 PM
Excatly that I have read, but one girl for sure. Then they were bayoneted. Terrib. It could be one Grand Duchess at least and maybe Demidova. I am not sure if it is Voikov or Volkov. Thanks.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on January 31, 2009, 07:14:54 PM
m not sure if it is Voikov or Volkov. Thanks.

Voikov was involved in the execution.

Volkov was Alexandra's valet. He accompanied OTAA to Ekaterinburg but was not admitted to the Ipatiev House. His memoirs are here (http://www.alexanderpalace.org/volkov/).
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: nena on January 31, 2009, 07:19:41 PM
Absolutely -- you are right, hmm, it seems I easy forget Romanov facts in last time....Wonder why?

If I find those memories/quotes on Russian web, about July 17th, I 'll post it.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on January 31, 2009, 10:14:55 PM
And that's what I'm confused with.
As said on the first replies, this story isn't true. This story just popped out from a girl in youtube.
That's the reason why I closed the talk.

Actually, that incident is not an urban legend attributed to Youtube. FOTR quotes both Strekotin and Voikov as recalling that one or two of the female victims sat up and/or screamed after the execution. See page 313. Massie also mentions it on page 6 of Romanovs: The Final Chapter.

I don't have that book =( 
But thank you so much, Sarah. That's indeed true. (and that's what I always think of even the first replies tell me that story's not true)
And thanks for Volkov's memoirs link. I'll read it and it's seems so interesting!
Absolutely -- you are right, hmm, it seems I easy forget Romanov facts in last time....Wonder why?

If I find those memories/quotes on Russian web, about July 17th, I 'll post it.

I thank you, nena ,in advance for the efforts it will take you to find these information. Thank you!
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Ally Kumari on February 01, 2009, 03:49:12 AM
I know there were accounts of girls screaming while beaing carried to the truck. But the girl from youtube insists Marie was moaning while already in Koptiaky. That´s something I´ve never heard before and it also seems highly unlikely to me.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: nena on February 01, 2009, 04:34:25 AM
You are welcome. That version of story, Ally, can be faound in Robert Alexander's The Kitchen boy. But also it seems unlikely for me.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Ally Kumari on February 01, 2009, 05:46:44 AM
Isn´t Kitchen boy a fictional book?
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: nena on February 01, 2009, 05:50:31 AM
Of course, but some parts are true, R. A used historial facts, and state Maria and Aleksei were indeed buried separately from others (true), but on end, a narrator is husband of GD Marie N. Very suprising end!

It is worth of reading, describes last months at Ipatiev House.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Ally Kumari on February 01, 2009, 05:52:29 AM
Thank you for info nena. Just another book not available in my country.... :(
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: nena on February 01, 2009, 05:57:56 AM
Ah,  no worries. Glad to be useful and helpful. Anyway, it is first book I read about Ro-vs. Try to find it in library on online somewhere, I am sure you'll find something. It cointain very touching murder descriptions -- I cried. And in that book maid Demidova died last. No, Marie Nicholaievna, and it describes Aleksei burial near 3 white birch by nun and L. Sednev (the kitchen boy). I knew that story will be finished soon. And it was, on my birthday, reamins were dicovered.

I am in off -topic, don't you think?
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on February 06, 2009, 06:45:15 AM
That ending made the Kitchen Boy indeed a fiction. Anyway nena, you're not too off topic. How did those fiats which accommodated all the corpses look like?
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: amartin71718 on February 07, 2009, 12:19:48 AM
Probably something like this:
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/pol/Pol-PolskiFiat621L-twoandhalf-tontruck-PiotrSmolinski.jpg
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on February 07, 2009, 02:55:11 AM
Thank you, Allison!
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: amartin71718 on February 07, 2009, 08:31:20 AM
Happy to help!
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: clockworkgirl21 on February 07, 2009, 11:14:10 AM
I'm sorry, but I have to ask about the guard who bragged about grabbing Alix's breast. Did you mean, Sarushka, that he didn't call the body part by the appropriate name, or that he touched her somewhere else? I've only read about that in the Last Chapter.  :-\
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: nena on February 07, 2009, 11:19:55 AM
I heard about that guard too. I think it is better to don't know details. Trucks were old ones, like used during WW1.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on February 07, 2009, 01:53:46 PM
I'm sorry, but I have to ask about the guard who bragged about grabbing Alix's breast. Did you mean, Sarushka, that he didn't call the body part by the appropriate name, or that he touched her somewhere else? I've only read about that in the Last Chapter.  :-\

My understanding is that he touched her elsewhere. I think this is mentioned in Helen Rappaport's Ekaterinburg.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on February 07, 2009, 03:34:07 PM
Did that really happen or was it feigned?
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on February 07, 2009, 03:45:31 PM
To be honest, I'm not entirely certain. Reputable authors have quoted the incident in their books, but I've never pinpointed the original source of that guard's claim.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on February 07, 2009, 04:00:57 PM
Thanks Sarushka for that immediate reply.

P.S. Factual Information don't find their way easy to everybody as it needs to be thoroughly searched.
I understand those authors. I think they got a bit tired to search some supporting details to such kind of quotes.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on February 07, 2009, 05:51:40 PM
Thanks Sarushka for that immediate reply.

P.S. Factual Information don't find their way easy to everybody as it needs to be thoroughly searched.
I understand those authors. I think they got a bit tired to search some supporting details to such kind of quotes.

You're welcome.

I don't think the authors were negligent -- their books were for popular, not scholarly reading, and non-fiction for general audiences often doesn't contain specific source notes. Just because they didn't include a discussion of the source doesn't mean the information wasn't thoroughly researched.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: nena on February 07, 2009, 06:07:33 PM
To be honest, I'm not entirely certain. Reputable authors have quoted the incident in their books, but I've never pinpointed the original source of that guard's claim.

I can only agree. Never read, heard that any of them said something like that. Or they did say. If they did, there are two possibilities -- it is true or it is not.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on February 07, 2009, 07:08:36 PM
Uhum...I see. Thanks Sarushka and Nena foi clearing it out.

About how many were the guards present on Ipatiev House on the morning of murder?
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: nena on February 07, 2009, 07:26:36 PM
Over 50, I'd quess. I have read it somewhere.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on February 07, 2009, 07:38:33 PM
About how many were the guards present on Ipatiev House on the morning of murder?

If I recall correctly, there were 10 guard posts at the Ipatiev House. I'm not sure how many men were assigned to each post, though.

Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on February 07, 2009, 11:08:58 PM
Oh, so many guards. they really don't want the IF to escape!
In the cellar room, were the guards designated to kill about the same number as the prisoners' number?
(I 'm so annoying 'coz I ask many questions)
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on February 08, 2009, 12:01:46 AM
In the cellar room, were the guards designated to kill about the same number as the prisoners' number?

Yes. There was one assassin per victim. (But many of them ignored their assignments and first took aim at the tsar.)
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on February 08, 2009, 12:22:25 AM
If they aimed at Nicky, I suppose there are more than two bullets that hit him.
But as I see on forensic studies, there are just two (?) bullets that hit him.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: nena on February 08, 2009, 04:58:46 AM
In chest and head -- he died first.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on February 08, 2009, 08:31:47 AM
If they aimed at Nicky, I suppose there are more than two bullets that hit him.
But as I see on forensic studies, there are just two (?) bullets that hit him.

Forensic data on skeletal remains can only show injuries to bone. It's likely the tsar suffered many more bullet wounds to soft tissue. Also, many of the skeletons' rib bones were missing, so the full extent of injuries to the tsar's torso would be difficult to pinpoint.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Grand Duchess Jennifer on February 08, 2009, 07:10:36 PM
People must have REALLY hated the Tsar.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on February 09, 2009, 02:47:12 AM
Indeed, they do hate him partly unreasonably.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Tina Laroche on February 09, 2009, 11:40:44 AM
Indeed, they do hate him partly unreasonably.

Well, he was not Russia's best emperor, but I agree with you. :-\
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on February 18, 2009, 12:09:16 PM
I reread the Yurovsky's account and I caught one mistake of him. He mistook Maria as Demidova there (when he said who the two corpses removed are).
And because of Sokolov, the idea of using ties came to Yakov the moment they're doing the final part of the burial!

Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Ally Kumari on February 18, 2009, 12:14:52 PM
Indeed, they do hate him partly unreasonably.

Imagine you´re hungry a incredibly poor. Your children are crying of hunger and you´re cold in winter. Then war comes and your husband and elder sons die. No, I can understand why people hated Tsar, or rather tsarist regime. they couldn´t have known he was a gentle man and loving father. He was a symbol of something that they blamed for their endless misery.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Grand Duchess Jennifer on February 18, 2009, 03:44:59 PM
The poor people didn't know that he was more of a "family" man then a Tsar. They just looked at the palace and the formal photos, and thought it wasn't fair that he was rich and they were poor. That's part of the reason why the revolution started.

And sometimes I can't help but agree with them about justice back then. I don't mean that the Tsar and his family should have been killed, I just think that they [meaning the peasants] deserved more rights. Maybe if the Tsar had done that, there might still be a Romanov dynasty today.

But that's just my opinion.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: clockworkgirl21 on February 18, 2009, 11:43:53 PM
Quote
And sometimes I can't help but agree with them about justice back then. I don't mean that the Tsar and his family should have been killed, I just think that they [meaning the peasants] deserved more rights. Maybe if the Tsar had done that, there might still be a Romanov dynasty today.

Exactly. Nicholas may have been a loving father, but he was a horrible tsar, so you can't really blame the peasants for hating him. Because of this, I'm not too crazy about N&A myself. They lived in palaces while their people starved. But I don't believe they deserved to die because of it.

And there still would have been a revolution eventually. Peasants were already angry, among other people, before Nicholas was coronated. Even with nice rulers, there are people who want them gone. Look at the British royal family. They aren't tyrants, and they don't even hold any real power, yet a third of the country wants them gone. It's the fact that they're given money by the taxes of the normal people.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on February 19, 2009, 06:03:15 AM
I hae to agree with all of you. Knowing how to live poorly (as I'm poor), I could of course say that at the back of my mind.
 
The poor people didn't know that he was more of a "family" man then a Tsar. They just looked at the palace and the formal photos, and thought it wasn't fair that he was rich and they were poor. That's part of the reason why the revolution started.

And sometimes I can't help but agree with them about justice back then. I don't mean that the Tsar and his family should have been killed, I just think that they [meaning the peasants] deserved more rights. Maybe if the Tsar had done that, there might still be a Romanov dynasty today.

But that's just my opinion.

I do feel this on rich people who have pompous lives inspite of the increasing poverty around our country.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on February 24, 2009, 03:01:07 AM
After reading Buxhoeveden's "The Life And Tragedy of AF", I realized the only mistake Nicholas II made was to trust the people who mismanaged their affairs. I think he fully believed on them seeing their past performances (who knows those wrong people made good things before that's why they got Nicky's trust). I pity the Tsar for he didn't know beforehand whom he appointed would eventually destroy the empire. The mismanagement brought much downfalls which were directly blamed to the Tsar. If the people had known who all the real culprits are (those who made up the government), the Russian Empire would have been saved and July 17, 1918 must have not marked itself on our heads and calendars. Anyway, that's just my opinion.

P.S. Sorry for the wrong grammar.

Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Ally Kumari on February 24, 2009, 03:13:12 AM
I believe Nicolas and Alexandra made more mistakes than Buxhoeveden mentions in her book. Although it´s a good book as a source for information on everydays life of Imperial family, I wouldn´t trust it where political matters are concerned.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on February 24, 2009, 03:20:23 AM
I have to agree with you since we know she lived as isolated as the IF. She wouldn't know the truth that had happened outside.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Ally Kumari on February 24, 2009, 07:28:31 AM
Or as a loyal friend she wouldn´t write much about it.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on February 24, 2009, 09:22:58 AM
Possibly yes.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on March 01, 2009, 12:35:43 AM
At the beginning of the IF’s imprisonment in Tsarskoe Selo, Nicky got his bicycle. I was in deep disgust with the man of the sentry who put his bayonet through the wheel of the bike while Nicky was passing by them. Thank God Nicky was very keen of biking that he saved himself from a bad accident. The sentry laughed loud guffaws eventually at him! Such swine, aren’t they?
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Tina Laroche on March 01, 2009, 02:35:07 AM
Yes, they certainly are.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on March 02, 2009, 03:17:13 AM
Were there caricatures  criticizing the Tsar and his family? 
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Ally Kumari on March 02, 2009, 03:27:47 AM
There were ugly pictures of Alexandra with Rasputin drawn on the walls of the toilet in Ipatiev house.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: nena on March 02, 2009, 05:51:58 AM
Yes, and during war also some caricatures were made about Rasputin and Tsarina, Vyrubova, Tsar....
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on March 02, 2009, 09:17:26 AM
Were there some photos of those? I can't see such on Google.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Tina Laroche on March 02, 2009, 09:25:36 AM
There were ugly pictures of Alexandra with Rasputin drawn on the walls of the toilet in Ipatiev house.

Really? I had no idea. I've never seen any pics too. It'll be nice if someone has photos.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on March 02, 2009, 09:43:50 AM
In fact,according to Sophie Buxhoeveden, guards who were in A.Palace in the first months of the imprisonment drew coarse doodlings in any wall of the palace.
Of course,the IF and the others remained silent.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on March 02, 2009, 10:02:45 AM
In fact,according to Sophie Buxhoeveden, guards who were in A.Palace in the first months of the imprisonment drew coarse doodlings in any wall of the palace.
Of course,the IF and the others remained silent.

I don't recall that. Do you have a quote?


There were ugly pictures of Alexandra with Rasputin drawn on the walls of the toilet in Ipatiev house.

Really? I had no idea. I've never seen any pics too. It'll be nice if someone has photos.

I've never seen photos of the graffiti on the upper floor or the guards' quarters of the Ipatiev house. Most of it was in the guards' quarters. I've only seen photos of the words written on the wall of the murder room after the IF was killed. However, there are photos of the cartoons and caricatures of N&A and Rasputin at the time of the revolution. Peter Kurth's book shows a few more of them.

(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y285/sarahelizabethii/Romanov/Rasputin/th_images.jpg) (http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y285/sarahelizabethii/Romanov/Rasputin/?action=view&current=images.jpg)  (http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y285/sarahelizabethii/Romanov/Rasputin/th_rasputinjpg.jpg) (http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y285/sarahelizabethii/Romanov/Rasputin/?action=view&current=rasputinjpg.jpg) (http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y285/sarahelizabethii/Romanov/Rasputin/th_RUSrasputin2JPG.jpg) (http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y285/sarahelizabethii/Romanov/Rasputin/?action=view&current=RUSrasputin2JPG.jpg)
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Tina Laroche on March 02, 2009, 10:08:53 AM
Thanks for the pics, Sarushka! :) They're new for me.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on March 02, 2009, 10:10:21 AM
Really coarse ( I don't want to open one!)
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: nena on March 02, 2009, 02:24:28 PM
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y285/sarahelizabethii/Romanov/Rasputin/th_RUSrasputin2JPG.jpg) (http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y285/sarahelizabethii/Romanov/Rasputin/?action=view&current=RUSrasputin2JPG.jpg)
Voeikov and Vyrubova are painted too....The first one is from 1916. I doubt about middle one, looks like modern one. I believe in those Ipatiev caricatures too.



Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on March 03, 2009, 04:49:50 AM

I don't recall that. Do you have a quote?

Here it is from The life and Tragedy of AF....

All the benches and the walls were scribbled over with the coarsest insults. The officers tried to get the men back into the guard- room, but usually with little success. When the party came back, they were again standing to watch them pass. The Emperor and Empress pretended neither to see not hear, but often, when the Empress's chair was drawn up under some shady tree, the lines on her face and her flushed cheek would show that she had heard what was said. It hurt her beyond words to see the men's disrespect to the Emperor.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on March 03, 2009, 07:46:36 AM
Thanks. I thought when I read your first post that this happened inside the AP, but it was outside the palace.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on March 04, 2009, 04:01:23 AM
I think it happened inside the palace (maybe my perception is wrong). It's not the whole text. Here are the sentences before that passage.Just read this and tell me where it really happened on your opinion.Thank you. 0:-)
(the ending continues on my last post)
After Easter the tedium of the long days was a little relieved by the whole Household's taking a share in the Imperial children's lessons. Only M. Gilliard was left of their regular teachers, and their parents did not want their education to lapse. The Emperor undertook to teach his son history, of which he himself had always been a student, the Empress taught him the Catechism, Mlle. Schneider mathematics, and Dr. Botkin Russian. Countess Hendrikov started art lessons with the Grand Duchess Tatiana, and I was entrusted with piano lessons for all the three younger Grand Duchesses and English lessons for them and Alexei Nicholaevich. It helped to while away the time, and in this way the whole day could be occupied. In April, as the spring advanced, the Imperial Family were allowed to stay out longer in the garden. They had all suffered greatly from want of air and exercise. Every day, from three till four-thirty or five, the Imperial Family, with their suite and any servants who wished, were allowed to go into the garden set apart for their use. Sentries were posted round it at short distances from one another, and in addition a detachment of soldiers, with one or two officers in command, kept close to them during the whole time they were out. It would have been a pleasant change, if it had not been for the conduct of many of the soldiers. Notwithstanding this their Majesties went out every day, the Empress being wheeled in her bath-chair. She was not allowed to use her balcony, the door leading to which was sealed by order of the soldiers. The men seemed to be particularly irritated by her chair and her sad face, and swore loudly at her for not being made to walk. They always insulted the servant who pushed her chair, and once when he was replaced by the Tsarevich's sailor attendant, Nagorni, the men were so incensed at his serving "the Tyrant's wife" that he got letters from the men of his company, condemning him to death. All the inhabitants of the Palace assembled before these outings in the semi-circular hall. The guard and officers arrived, and, after unlocking the doors with much ceremony, made the Imperial party and the servants file out before them, the soldiers bringing up the rear. There was often deliberate delay with the key. Once it could not be found, the officer of the preceding guard having gone away with it, and the Emperor and Empress were ordered back to their rooms. When they went out there was generally a band of soldiers loitering about, who made insulting remarks, gibing at the family as they passed. All the benches and the walls were scribbled over with the coarsest insults.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on March 04, 2009, 08:02:39 AM
IMO, it happened outside -- if it happened at all.

"When they went out there was generally a band of soldiers loitering about, who made insulting remarks, gibing at the family as they passed. All the benches and the walls were scribbled over with the coarsest insults."

To my knowledge, the majority of the soldiers were not allowed to roam freely inside the palace during the Romanovs' house arrest in Tsarskoye Selo.

I said "if it happened at all" because I think Buxhoeveden is prone to exaggeration and melodrama. Gilliard also writes of the soldiers lining up to watch the Imperial Family come outside every day, but he makes no mention of habitual insults or graffiti on the walls and benches. Instead, Gilliard singles out occasional humiliations which stand out from the guards' overall decent behavior. Other accounts also tell of how the tsar faithfully greeted each soldier as the family filed past, which seems an odd thing to do if the guards were in the habit of making insulting remarks every day.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Olga Maria on March 04, 2009, 08:06:49 AM
Oh,I see. Thanks for telling me so.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: JStorey on March 05, 2009, 07:12:00 PM
Let us return to the original question and examine from a somewhat different point of view.  I do apologize in advance for the graphic nature of the content; if it makes you uneasy, please don't read further.  However the topic is of interest to some, and I think - in the right context - worthy of discussion.

To determine some semblance of truth (the precise nature of which can never be known) we must examine both the original source material and the motivations of the various characters providing testimony.  We must also examine the irrefutable facts, few that there are, and determine if we can glean anything meaningful from them.

Let's start with the irrefutable facts.

One thing we know for certain is that virtually any Bolshevik soldier in Russia, at that time, would have eagerly accepted the task of killing the Tsar. 

Even the most ardent Bolshevik, however, would have been unwilling to shoot innocent women and children.

We therefore can establish premeditation in the intent to murder the entire family from the moment the 10 "Letts" entered the house.  Why?  Because the arrival of the "Letts" signified a job had to be done for which no Russian - Bolshevik or otherwise - was willing.  Remove the intent to murder the entire family, including women and children, and logically you must remove the "Letts" as well.  (This is one of the reasons I find the "Ekaterinburg Soviet acted alone" theory to be rubbish:  premeditation of several weeks infers communication with Moscow).

The botched "execution" (i.e.; murder) is much better understood in this context.  For the Letts, even under orders, were also not inclined to shoot women and children.  When the moment arrived, they all fired at the Emperor.  Following this logic their secondary targets (regardless of what they had been instructed) were the remaining men:  Botkin, the cook Khartinov, Trupp.  After that they probably shot indiscriminately.

This is precisely how Yurovsky recounts the execution in his various testimony.

Within seconds of these initial volleys, we know that due to the nature of the confined space (~20 souls crammed into a small room, firing pistols) the murder scene became smoke-filled, chaotic, and mortally dangerous to the executioners themselves due to ricochet.  It seems logical then that they quickly ceased fire.

At this point, in his memoirs, note, etc., Yurovsky implicates one man:  Ermakov.  It is Ermakov who reenters with a bayonet and savagely finishes off the injured.  Not coincidentally, when we learn later about the burial, the lorry, it is the same Ermakov that has screwed it all up.  And of course, when we read about Ermakov we discover he a hideous alcoholic with a history of violence, a common criminal, etc.  In short, a very unlikeable fellow.  A beast.

The problem with this is that by creating a demonic caricature of Ermakov - by turning him into an animal and sending him in alone to do the dirty work, so to speak - Yurovsky and the remaining executioners are thereby exonerated from the most unsavory, immoral and inhumane elements of the crime.  We, as readers, are in a sense exonerated ourselves, for only a hideous creature could do such a thing, not a person. 

If you have read the recreation of the murder in FOTR, this "Id=Ermakov" phenomenon is something Mr. King exploits to the hilt (irresponsibly, in my opinion). 

In fact, by implicating Ermakov, Yurovsky himself conveniently emerges a far less guilty man.  Motive!  We therefore must be suspicious of his testimony, and any testimony in which the subject has murdered the Tsar firsthand, while his nefarious accomplices are responsible for the remaining innocents.  I'm afraid that covers virtually every shooter's testimony.  Ermakov himself "proudly handed over his Mauser revolver, no. 16174, to the Museum of the Revolution in Sverdlovsk, along with a short note claiming that with it he had personally killed Nicholas II." (FOTR p.512).

I suspect that Yurovsky, Ermakov, and very likely several other of those ultimately responsible for the "successful" outcome of the operation, returned to the room and finished off the remaining survivors.  It surely had to have been a terrible, gruesome scene.  Ermakov certainly doesn't distinguish himself, but neither does anyone else.

Given all this - the nature of the wounds, the protection of the corsets, the reluctance to shoot women in particular - it seems plausible that while still dying some of the victims moaned or moved while being transported out to the lorry.  It seems implausible they could have lived beyond that.

I bring this up because Mr. King seems rather fond of Yurovsky, when it was Yurovsky who planned the execution in such a way that - even given the horrible injustice of the act itself - was absolutely inhumane in every sense of the word.

Perhaps most sad of is that all of the actors in this tragedy were human beings.  I am reminded of this quote:

"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, not between classes, nor between political parties, but through every human heart." - A. Solzhenitsyn
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Mexjames on March 05, 2009, 07:55:22 PM
I disagree with you when you say that "Even the most ardent Bolshevik, however, would have been unwilling to shoot innocent women and children".

Communists don't have any values whatsoever.  If in their opinion, a person went against the "revolution", whatever that means, they had no second thoughts and in the best scenario, the "dissident" was shipped to a gulag.

Communists have been known for not placing any value to human life, as they proved time and again not only in Russia, but in all of Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, etc.





Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on March 05, 2009, 08:34:08 PM
I disagree with both of your generalities -- 
Mexjames: "Communists don't have any values whatsoever"
JStorey: "Even the most ardent Bolshevik, however, would have been unwilling to shoot innocent women and children."

IMO, both of those statements are far too broad to take at face value.

However, I find JStorey's analysis of the executionists' testimony intriguing:
Quote
In fact, by implicating Ermakov, Yurovsky himself conveniently emerges a far less guilty man.  Motive!  We therefore must be suspicious of his testimony, and any testimony in which the subject has murdered the Tsar firsthand, while his nefarious accomplices are responsible for the remaining innocents.  I'm afraid that covers virtually every shooter's testimony.  Ermakov himself "proudly handed over his Mauser revolver, no. 16174, to the Museum of the Revolution in Sverdlovsk, along with a short note claiming that with it he had personally killed Nicholas II." (FOTR p.512).

I think you may have a very good point there.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: JStorey on March 05, 2009, 11:59:29 PM
You're right.  "Unwilling" is too strong a word to use.

The point I'm trying to make is that at the time any Bolsheviks (especially in Ekaterinburg) would have considered it an honor to shoot the Tsar.  To shoot women and children, however, was another matter altogether.  It was a dirty job, and they knew it would be far earlier than has been suggested by some.  Thus if the intent was to shoot the Tsar only, then it would not have been necessary to bring "Letts"; they could have picked from a long line of eager volunteers.   

So the timing of the arrival of the Letts allows us to place a minimum date of premeditation: the intent to murder the entire family was established at least two weeks prior.  This connects the murders more directly to Lenin and Moscow, rather than to the Ekaterinburg Soviet acting alone (a central "thesis" of FOTR).  This also eliminates arguments regarding poor telegraph connections, etc. because there was ample time to exchange orders.

I believe Yurovsky's arrival was not due to Avdayev's mismanagement.  His presence signaled their already decided fate; from there it was just a matter of when. 

The connection to Moscow just makes too much sense.  Lenin was a chess player; he was making a shrewd and ruthless move.  Eliminating the Romanov name eliminated the possibility of restoration of the monarchy.  And while it seems simplistic, Lenin's own brother's hanging at the hand of Alexander III is an undeniable element that helps explain what ultimately happened.  This was on some level an act of revenge. 
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on March 06, 2009, 07:55:23 AM
I believe Yurovsky's arrival was not due to Avdayev's mismanagement.  His presence signaled their already decided fate; from there it was just a matter of when. 

In your opinion, was Yurovsky's arrival also connected to excessive fraternization between the Romanovs and the Special Detachment, as King & Wilson suggest?
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: JStorey on March 06, 2009, 09:24:57 AM
No.  I think that the "relationship" between Maria and the fellow over the birthday cake is wildly overstated, as well as the "flirtatious" nature of the girls in general, and the sympathy of the original guards.  It makes a good story, not much more.

When a Grand Duchess spoke cordially to a soldier, to him - growing up in a village or industrial town at the turn of the century - that alone constituted flirtation.  To her it was just good manners.  "She smiled at me!  She likes me!"  That sort of thing. 

It is another case of thinking carefully about the motivations of those providing testimony.  As a soldier, it would be nice to believe that sparks were flying, and that these very famous and striking women found them attractive. 

It would also be a very good idea to portray yourself as sympathetically as possible to a White Army-backed investigation!

In truth, the family of course was suffering deeply.  Olga had grown distant and detached, Tatiana had stepped up into a role of ambassador and spokesperson (essentially being helpful for her family), the others were younger and just trying to make the best of it.  So I think they were adept at interacting in a friendly way with their captors in order to make their lives more livable and humane, to temper the hostility and rigidity of the rules.  It was the only way to survive.

The original guards, in contrast to the "Letts" and Yurovsky, appear far more humane because Yurovsky didn't really look at the IF as people at all.  The IF were objects to Yurovsky - they had to be because in short while he was going to "liquidate" them all.  The new guards were killers, and most didn't even speak Russian.

So in this light, even a coarse remark or a lewd comment is a relief; it means the person thinks of you as human!  Avdeyev's style - while crude - is also consistent with viewing the IF as people and treating them roughly accordingly.  His job was to imprison, not to murder; that's the difference.

Certainly over time the original guards probably began to see the IF as a real family (because they were) rather than an abstract symbol of hatred/opulence/etc., but from there it is quite a jump to fraternization and true sympathy.

It is yet another example in King and Wilson of romantic storytelling, abandoning and stretching facts along the way.  The original soldiers come out looking like near-monarchists, ready to participate in a rescue mission!  I don't think so.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on March 06, 2009, 11:04:35 AM
No.  I think that the "relationship" between Maria and the fellow over the birthday cake is wildly overstated, as well as the "flirtatious" nature of the girls in general, and the sympathy of the original guards.  It makes a good story, not much more.

IMO, the romantic connotations of the birthday cake incident have definitely been exaggerated. However, it still seems to me that a guard and a prisoner sharing a snack and birthday greetings - no matter how innocently - is still significant in terms of indicating the security of the Ipatiev house.

Overall, I'm inclined to think of the Skorokhodov incident as more of the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of security -- especially if it was indeed witnessed by Beloborodov and Goloshchokin -- than a shocking revelation of romantic involvement between Bolsheviks and Romanovs. (And frankly, I think the romance occurrs in readers' minds more than in K&W's prose.)


Quote
When a Grand Duchess spoke cordially to a soldier, to him - growing up in a village or industrial town at the turn of the century - that alone constituted flirtation.  To her it was just good manners.  "She smiled at me!  She likes me!"  That sort of thing. 

It is another case of thinking carefully about the motivations of those providing testimony.  As a soldier, it would be nice to believe that sparks were flying, and that these very famous and striking women found them attractive. 


The testimony I've been looking at in Ispoved' Tsareubiyts (http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/books.html?sku=91) leaves me with a different interpretation. In their statements collected in the 1930's and later, the guards' recollections I've read give the impression that they perceived the girls as naive and overcome with bordeom rather than deliberately flirtatious. One in particular characterizes the GDss habit of chatting with the guards at the doorway as "distracting" and "difficult." To my mind, that's rather vague -- "distracting" could indicate a range of reactions spanning:

A) Oh my gosh, I can't even think straight with such pretty girls talking to me
B) I wish these silly kids would quit babbling and leave me alone

Likely, we'll never know which extreme is closer to the truth -- just as we'll likely never know the GDss intentions.

And yet one incident I found particularly striking describes how during their walks in the garden the GDss would sometimes flop into a hammock and say "Push me." If one of the guards approached, the man said, the grand duchess would invariably greet him with "I'm bored." Again, it's all quite innocent, but to me that type of interaction still indicates an unmistakable level of familiarity between prisoner and guard.


Quote
It would also be a very good idea to portray yourself as sympathetically as possible to a White Army-backed investigation!

That's a valid point, but the majority of the testimony I've been browsing through is held in Bolshevik archives, and was recorded during the Soviet era. In these statements, the guards don't give the impression of being star-struck, so to speak, by the imperial family. Although I do find it interesting how candid some of the statements are about how the men's preconceptions of the imperial family contrasted with the reality.


Quote
In truth, the family of course was suffering deeply.  Olga had grown distant and detached, Tatiana had stepped up into a role of ambassador and spokesperson (essentially being helpful for her family), the others were younger and just trying to make the best of it.  So I think they were adept at interacting in a friendly way with their captors in order to make their lives more livable and humane, to temper the hostility and rigidity of the rules.  It was the only way to survive.

I agree to an extent, but I'm not sure how conscious an effort this would have been on the part of the younger children. They'd grown up with little pretention regarding their rank, and were accustomed to being surrounded by attentive soldiers. I believe it would have felt natural for them to speak to men in uniform -- particularly men so close to their own age. Oddly enough, one of the guards singles out Tatiana as the daughter who spent a lot of time chatting in the doorway. Either he was mistaken, or we don't know Tatiana as well as we think we do.


Quote
The original guards, in contrast to the "Letts" and Yurovsky, appear far more humane because Yurovsky didn't really look at the IF as people at all.  The IF were objects to Yurovsky - they had to be because in short while he was going to "liquidate" them all.  The new guards were killers, and most didn't even speak Russian.

I can definitely agree with that. Interesting that even being deliberately distanced from the IF, some of the Letts refused to execute the women and children on priciple.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Mexjames on March 06, 2009, 02:49:16 PM
I disagree with both of your generalities -- 
Mexjames: "Communists don't have any values whatsoever"
JStorey: "Even the most ardent Bolshevik, however, would have been unwilling to shoot innocent women and children."

IMO, both of those statements are far too broad to take at face value.



Sarushka, Communism doesn't have any values whatsoever.  The moment a human being depends on the State, is subordinated to the State, and must act in the best interests of the State, the moment that values stop to exist.  Human life wasn't respected at all, as Communist countries don't value the lives of their citizens.  Achievement isn't rewarded unless it benefits the State.  Freedom doesn't exist.  Equality which is very much promoted, is a myth.  People don't have rights to defend themselves against the State.  Love as an emotion is suppressed, until not long ago, public displays of affection in Commie China were a no-no. I could go on and on an on, but I don't want to hijack this thread.

I think that JStorey made a remarkable analysis on the facts that we have.

Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on March 06, 2009, 03:39:09 PM
Communism doesn't have any values whatsoever. 

I'm a notorious hair-splitter, but I draw a distinction between Communism (the government) and communists (followers and/or citizens of that government). That's where I take issue with your statement about communists having no values.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: JStorey on March 07, 2009, 10:28:46 AM
Sarushka - You make very good points.  Here are my thoughts:

Quote
In their statements collected in the 1930's and later, the guards' recollections I've read give the impression that they perceived the girls as naive and overcome with bordeom rather than deliberately flirtatious. One in particular characterizes the GDss habit of chatting with the guards at the doorway as "distracting" and "difficult."

The doorway you're referring to was adjacent to the commandant's room, and to me was was very, very important in understanding the spatial divisions of the Ipatiev House:  it defined the barrier between the "Romanov space" and the outside world of their captors.

Quote
Oddly enough, one of the guards singles out Tatiana as the daughter who spent a lot of time chatting in the doorway. Either he was mistaken, or we don't know Tatiana as well as we think we do.

I don't find it odd at all.  Because - as the "spokesperson" for her family - chatting had a valuable function:  to establish rapport, gather information, and ultimately negotiate for concessions, however minor.  She was in effect humanizing her family for her captors.  "It was so hot and stuffy last night.  I could barely sleep.  I do wish they could open a window for us."  That sort of thing, which would have made it "difficult" for the guard on duty, because she was tacitly asking for something only the commandant could provide.  Tatiana at the doorway was Tatiana in the role of family ambassador.

It was Tatiana who became the person the Tsar and Tsarina asked to negotiate and gather info on their behalf.  She was taking on a responsibility that Olga - because of her nature - could not.  In this way Tatiana was performing an invaluable role, and seemed to be growing into someone that would have ultimately made a good leader.  Her behavior under extreme duress shows, to me, her emerging character.  She has my admiration for it. 

But don't let me get too carried away.  Because surely the children were bored.  There was nothing to do; they were prisoners.  And there is no question that from a security point of view, things seemed fairly casual.  Thus there was interaction and a generally lax environment.

So, with the approaching danger, the need to tighten and professionalize security was absolutely a factor in Yurovsky's arrival.  But that need was eclipsed by the true shadow of his presence:  to plan and execute the murder of an entire family (enter "Letts").  In terms of the larger Bolshevik objectives, one has far greater weight than the other.

Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on March 08, 2009, 11:54:13 AM
I don't find it odd at all.  Because - as the "spokesperson" for her family - chatting had a valuable function:  to establish rapport, gather information, and ultimately negotiate for concessions, however minor.  She was in effect humanizing her family for her captors.  "It was so hot and stuffy last night.  I could barely sleep.  I do wish they could open a window for us."  That sort of thing, which would have made it "difficult" for the guard on duty, because she was tacitly asking for something only the commandant could provide.  Tatiana at the doorway was Tatiana in the role of family ambassador.

I find these accounts of Tatiana's behavior at the doorway interesting because other guards characterize her as haughty, reserved, and very much like her mother. According to these men's recollections, while the Little Pair were more indiscriminate about interacting with the sentries, Tatiana most often chose to speak to Avdeyev and the guards to make a request on the family's behalf, chatting only if they were behaving in a way she deemed appropriate. So to my mind, there's some contradiction among the guards' testimony regarding her behavior toward them.

Because of those contradictions, I've been toying with the possibility lately that perhaps a few of the guards mixed up Olga and Tatiana in terms of birth order. More than one of the courtiers' memoirs mention that Tatiana, rather than Olga, displayed the typical demeanor and attitude of an eldest child, and would easily be mistaken as the eldest by an outside observer. So it seems possible to me that some of the Special Detachment, given their limited contact with the IF, could have mistakenly assumed Tatiana was the eldest. In fact, some of the statements do not refer to all the children by name, instead saying things like "the eldest," "the heir," and "the younger ones."


Quote
It was Tatiana who became the person the Tsar and Tsarina asked to negotiate and gather info on their behalf.  She was taking on a responsibility that Olga - because of her nature - could not.  In this way Tatiana was performing an invaluable role, and seemed to be growing into someone that would have ultimately made a good leader.  Her behavior under extreme duress shows, to me, her emerging character.  She has my admiration for it.


I wish we could determine how much of Tatiana's negotiating with their captors was of her own initiative -- whether N&A asked Tatiana specifically to undertake these errands, or if Tatiana regularly volunteered in response to a general complaint/request. She certainly had acquired a reputation for being the natural leader amongst her siblings, yet at the same time N&A had a habit of sending their daughters to ask for information from the authorities. For example, on the train from Tobolsk to Ekaterinburg, Maria was sent to ask Yakovlev where they were headed. King & Wilson believe this was a calculated move -- choosing the most sympathetic and attractive member of the party to intercede. I'm not sure if I agree with them; given Nicholas's passivity and the empress's haughtiness, sending Maria may have simply been the route of least resistance.


Quote
But don't let me get too carried away.  Because surely the children were bored.  There was nothing to do; they were prisoners.  And there is no question that from a security point of view, things seemed fairly casual.  Thus there was interaction and a generally lax environment.

That strikes me as a fair assessment.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: nena on March 08, 2009, 12:00:14 PM
You are right.. for someones Tatiana was the o(e)dest one. Beacuse of her height and behavior, I think. And, I don't believe they didn't know names of members of IF. Just didn't want to say....But it is quite possible. Tatiana asked to see Lewka Sednev, according to Yurovsky's 1922 memories, so possibly she was the one 'in guards' eyes' mostly.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on March 08, 2009, 01:58:22 PM
And, I don't believe they didn't know names of members of IF. Just didn't want to say....But it is quite possible.

No, I think you're right. I don't mean to suggest that the guards didn't know the girls' names. Only that they may not have realized Olga was older than Tatiana. When they don't use the girls' names in their statements, it's hard to be absolutely sure who they presumed was "the eldest." Also, some of this testimony was given years or decades later, so it's possible they made mistakes.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: JStorey on March 09, 2009, 02:28:07 PM
Because of those contradictions, I've been toying with the possibility lately that perhaps a few of the guards mixed up Olga and Tatiana in terms of birth order. More than one of the courtiers' memoirs mention that Tatiana, rather than Olga, displayed the typical demeanor and attitude of an eldest child, and would easily be mistaken as the eldest by an outside observer. So it seems possible to me that some of the Special Detachment, given their limited contact with the IF, could have mistakenly assumed Tatiana was the eldest. In fact, some of the statements do not refer to all the children by name, instead saying things like "the eldest," "the heir," and "the younger ones."


That sounds very plausible to me - perhaps a key in deciphering inconsistencies in testimony (and translation). 

Quote
I wish we could determine how much of Tatiana's negotiating with their captors was of her own initiative -- whether N&A asked Tatiana specifically to undertake these errands, or if Tatiana regularly volunteered in response to a general complaint/request. She certainly had acquired a reputation for being the natural leader amongst her siblings, yet at the same time N&A had a habit of sending their daughters to ask for information from the authorities. For example, on the train from Tobolsk to Ekaterinburg, Maria was sent to ask Yakovlev where they were headed. King & Wilson believe this was a calculated move -- choosing the most sympathetic and attractive member of the party to intercede. I'm not sure if I agree with them; given Nicholas's passivity and the empress's haughtiness, sending Maria may have simply been the route of least resistance.

Probably a combination of both (her own initiative and at the request of her parents).  Her role as family negotiator and ambassador I think emerged in captivity and then expanded as conditions worsened.  Thus by the Ipatiev House, Tatiana became the name we hear most often in interacting with their captors.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: nena on March 10, 2009, 09:45:20 AM
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y285/sarahelizabethii/Romanov/Rasputin/th_RUSrasputin2JPG.jpg)

Full:

(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x139/nemanjapr/Romanov/Pisma%20i%20umetnost/th_filespj.jpg) (http://s185.photobucket.com/albums/x139/nemanjapr/Romanov/Pisma%20i%20umetnost/?action=view&current=filespj.jpg)

Rasputin, Vyrubova, NII, Voeikov, Suhomlinov, Alexandra.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: JStorey on March 11, 2009, 03:17:06 PM
Sorry guys I've been a bit lazy and have been writing things from memory...  So I went back and reread FOTR last night...  Many thoughts.

We've touched on a number of different topics:  Tatitana's role, the demonized Ermakov, possibility of survival beyond room, etc.  I'll address those most relevant to the original subject.

Quote
Interesting that even being deliberately distanced from the IF, some of the Letts refused to execute the women and children on principle.

In rereading I understood both the order of the killings and the sequence of events much better.  I think the above principle protected the women and children far more so than the jewels sewn in the corsets.  I believe the "jewels in the corsets=bullet-proof vest" to be more myth than fact; at the most the corsets may have inhibited bayoneting after the initial rounds of shooting.

We know two of the Letts (Lepa, Verhas) were dismissed in the moments before the murder for unwillingness to shoot women and children.  Therefore (though it seems obvious) we have proven the principle was present, even among the "Letts".

We know from Yurovsky and other's testimony that despite orders the Emperor was the initial target of all eleven shooters.

King and Wilson imply that Botkin, Kharitonov, and Trupp were shot next because of where they were standing relative to the Emperor.  It seems to me they were shot next because they were all adult men.

The Empress, an object of intense hatred, was also shot in the initial volleys (by Ermakov, surprise, surprise).

At this point according both to testimony and logic, the shootings stopped due to mortal danger to the shooters themselves and heavy smoke.  (In fact, a few were indeed injured by ricochet.)  I would conclude that it is likely, in the initial volleys, that the Grand Duchesses, Alexei, and Miss Demidova - if injured at all - had been hit by stray bullets and were not the actual target of any shooter.  Precisely because of this hesitation to shoot women and children, not because of corset protection.

So Yurovsky, Kudrin, Nikulin, Ermakov, and Kabanov reenter the room to "finish the operation."

There is no need to go into detail here, except to say it was here the corsets seemed to play a more significant role, not earlier.

Enter Ermakov.  The language in which Ermakov is presented very much supports the idea that a horrific murder becomes more palatable to a morally-conscious audience when it is committed by a beast and not a human being.  The "drunken, powerful, wild-eyed" Ermakov shoots at the women, stabs the Tsarevich, etc.  while Yurovsky looks on in "horror"...  Ermakov:  "Drunk and crazed... slashing frenziedly... swinging out in delirium... stabbing viciously... continued to thrust repeatedly..." etc. etc. etc.  In a nutshell:  if it is really, really bad, Ermakov did it.

Meanwhile, the remaining original, "fraternizing" guards stationed outside look on in utter shock.  They are vomiting; when they enter they shout accusations of "Murderers!" "Butchers!"; they flee their posts in disgust, etc.

The point is that from a standpoint of psychology and storytelling, the FOTR account is very appealing to a sympathetic audience (us).  It allows us to hate Ermakov; to distance ourselves from him (he is not human), and at the same time to identify with the friendly, loyal guards outside, looking on in horror.  By casting a tacit moral judgment on the terrible events of that evening, those events become - in a sense - more palatable.  There can be no shade of gray; the characters that need to appeal to us are made more appealing, the ones we need to abhor are made more abhorrent. 

I believe that this inevitable element of "storytelling bias" must be considered when it comes to discerning the actual facts.  I think it is fair to say there were kernels of truth to Ermakov's behavior and state of mind (he didn't emerge from the ether, after all), but it is too convenient to pin it all on him, so to speak.  Yurovsky in particular deserves none of the moral leeway King and Wilson seem so eager to give him. 

Similarly, I think the sympathies of the guards outside are overstated.  Again, kernels of truth that have blossomed over time into a flowery myth.  It was certainly in their interest to decry the execution to a White army investigation, and their role as "us" - the sympathetic, horrified audience - is ultimately essential to the story.  While there may have been some pangs of regret, particularly in retrospect, let us not forget these were Bolshevik soldiers in the heart of the Red Urals.





 
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: JStorey on March 11, 2009, 03:30:07 PM
One last note for Sarushka:

Gibbes desc. of Tatiana: "A tall elegant girl you could hardly find anyone so thin...Tatiana was haughty and reserved, dutiful and pensive..."

Netrebin desc. of Olga on night of execution: "arrogant as her mother and all skin and bones"

Were I a betting man I'd put money on Olga/Tatiana "eldest" confusion in guards memory & translations
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on March 11, 2009, 04:34:57 PM
Enter Ermakov.  The language in which Ermakov is presented very much supports the idea that a horrific murder becomes more palatable to a morally-conscious audience when it is committed by a beast and not a human being.  The "drunken, powerful, wild-eyed" Ermakov shoots at the women, stabs the Tsarevich, etc.  while Yurovsky looks on in "horror"...  Ermakov:  "Drunk and crazed... slashing frenziedly... swinging out in delirium... stabbing viciously... continued to thrust repeatedly..." etc. etc. etc.  In a nutshell:  if it is really, really bad, Ermakov did it.
[...]
The point is that from a standpoint of psychology and storytelling, the FOTR account is very appealing to a sympathetic audience (us).  It allows us to hate Ermakov; to distance ourselves from him (he is not human), and at the same time to identify with the friendly, loyal guards outside, looking on in horror.  By casting a tacit moral judgment on the terrible events of that evening, those events become - in a sense - more palatable.  There can be no shade of gray; the characters that need to appeal to us are made more appealing, the ones we need to abhor are made more abhorrent. 

I believe that this inevitable element of "storytelling bias" must be considered when it comes to discerning the actual facts.  I think it is fair to say there were kernels of truth to Ermakov's behavior and state of mind (he didn't emerge from the ether, after all), but it is too convenient to pin it all on him, so to speak.  Yurovsky in particular deserves none of the moral leeway King and Wilson seem so eager to give him. 

Interesting that in this light, Yurovsky's part in Aleksei's death almost becomes humane -- he finishes the boy off with shots to the head after Ermakov's savagery fails to do the job. Yurovsky's role is essentially to put the tsarevich out of his misery, like shooting a horse with a broken leg.


Quote
Similarly, I think the sympathies of the guards outside are overstated.  Again, kernels of truth that have blossomed over time into a flowery myth.  It was certainly in their interest to decry the execution to a White army investigation, and their role as "us" - the sympathetic, horrified audience - is ultimately essential to the story.  While there may have been some pangs of regret, particularly in retrospect, let us not forget these were Bolshevik soldiers in the heart of the Red Urals.

But many of the guards were not Bolsheviks, nor soldiers. They were factory workers eager for extra pay who didn't want to go to the front. According to King & Wilson, only about 15 of them are known Party members. Seven had no Party affiliation, and the politics of the rest are unknown. (Based on the information given in FOTR, I've compiled a database of the guards' names, birth and death dates, Party affiliation, dates of service at the Ipatiev house, and factory of origin. Anyone who would like the Excel file is welcome to it -- just PM me with your email address.)

Again, much of the testimony used by King & Wilson was not relayed directly to White investigators immediately following the fall of Yekaterinburg -- it was recorded in the Soviet era:

Nikulin: 1964
Medvedev (Kudrin): 1957, 1963, 1964
Kabanov: 1965
Yurovsky: 1922, 1934
Rodzinskiy: 1964
Strekotin: 1928, 1934
Efremov: 1955
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on March 11, 2009, 04:37:15 PM
One last note for Sarushka:

Gibbes desc. of Tatiana: "A tall elegant girl you could hardly find anyone so thin...Tatiana was haughty and reserved, dutiful and pensive..."

Netrebin desc. of Olga on night of execution: "arrogant as her mother and all skin and bones"

Were I a betting man I'd put money on Olga/Tatiana "eldest" confusion in guards memory & translations

Just to compound the possibility for confusion -- Tatiana was also the tallest of her sisters. I think perhaps we're onto something.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: nena on March 11, 2009, 05:01:10 PM
I have Nikulin's 1964 record, from a documentary. His voice, also, his sentences can be read on a Russian web.

And, sorry, I don't thik any killing of man calling human. I know what you mean, Sarushka, perfectly, but for me, it can't be human. I think murderers made it lless painful in memories.

Aleksei was shot in throat, by Yurovsky in head, stabbed by Ermakov, and firstly shot by Nikulin. according to Mr. Meyer.   :(

Also, Yurovsky made 1920 and 1927 short conversation/memories about murders too.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: JStorey on March 11, 2009, 06:21:16 PM
Quote
Interesting that in this light, Yurovsky's part in Aleksei's death almost becomes humane -- he finishes the boy off with shots to the head after Ermakov's savagery fails to do the job. Yurovsky's role is essentially to put the tsarevich out of his misery, like shooting a horse with a broken leg.

Similarly, when Yurovsky shoots Tatiana in the back of the head.

Quote
But many of the guards were not Bolsheviks, nor soldiers. They were factory workers eager for extra pay who didn't want to go to the front. According to King & Wilson, only about 15 of them are known Party members. Seven had no Party affiliation, and the politics of the rest are unknown. (Based on the information given in FOTR, I've compiled a database of the guards' names, birth and death dates, Party affiliation, dates of service at the Ipatiev house, and factory of origin. Anyone who would like the Excel file is welcome to it -- just PM me with your email address.)

I think this is overstated too - because when King & Wilson say they were not Bolsheviks, what they mean is they weren't members of the Bolshevik party.  This seems irrelevant to me (as far as "fraternization" and sympathy is concerned) because the sentiment at the time - particularly in the "Red Urals", and particularly among factory workers - was extremely anti-Romanov, be you Bolshevik or otherwise.  Everyone was babbling pseudo-marxist jargon even if they didn't really understand it; it was the language and spirit of the time.

That is not to say the original guards weren't very distinct from Yurovsky, his cronies, and the Letts.  It is just to show that their reaction to murders and relationship to IF has been distorted, to some extent, into a sort of warm and fuzzy caricature - in order to serve a moral storytelling function. 

The opposite end of the spectrum is someone like Prince Lvov, who distorted guard's testimonies just as absurdly in the direction of abuse, neglect, harassment, and so forth.

The truth likely lies somewhere in the middle.   

Quote
Again, much of the testimony used by King & Wilson was not relayed directly to White investigators immediately following the fall of Yekaterinburg -- it was recorded in the Soviet era

Most of what I'm referring to (regarding guards behavior outside and in after murders) was from Yakimov, Medvedev, given 1919 or earlier.  I understand that with the later testimonies the need to appease the Whites can be removed, but the need to reconcile one's role in a murder - whatever it may have been - must then be added, aided by the the sometimes halcyon quality of memory.
Title: Re: The Last To Die on July 17, 1918
Post by: Sarushka on March 11, 2009, 08:00:20 PM
Quote
But many of the guards were not Bolsheviks, nor soldiers. They were factory workers eager for extra pay who didn't want to go to the front. According to King & Wilson, only about 15 of them are known Party members. Seven had no Party affiliation, and the politics of the rest are unknown. (Based on the information given in FOTR, I've compiled a database of the guards' names, birth and death dates, Party affiliation, dates of service at the Ipatiev house, and factory of origin. Anyone who would like the Excel file is welcome to it -- just PM me with your email address.)

I think this is overstated too - because when King & Wilson say they were not Bolsheviks, what they mean is they weren't members of the Bolshevik party.  This seems irrelevant to me (as far as "fraternization" and sympathy is concerned) because the sentiment at the time - particularly in the "Red Urals", and particularly among factory workers - was extremely anti-Romanov, be you Bolshevik or otherwise.  Everyone was babbling pseudo-marxist jargon even if they didn't really understand it; it was the language and spirit of the time.

In contrast with the population of Tobolsk, which was overwhelmingly loyal, and seemed rather pleased to be "hosting" the imperial family.

I think what you've said about party affiliation and the marxist spirit of the times is probably true. King & Wilson make a distinction between no party affiliation and unknown political views, and the vast majority of the Special Detachment falls into the "unknown" category. Nevertheless, I suspect those men who were not formally on record as Bolsheviks likely had more malleable opinions of Nicholas II and his family than official Party members.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: ninagudowna on March 19, 2009, 10:57:32 AM
Sorry if this was posted before, I'm new here:-) I'd like to ask you about the execution. Who was shot first and last? Who lived after the first bullets? What do they do (cross singn etc.) Do you know anything in exactly?

Best
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Sarushka on March 19, 2009, 04:07:43 PM
If you browse through the threads in this section, you'll find all the answers to your questions. There have been many discussions about the execution. There is also a detailed account of the execution in chapter 23 of Fate of the Romanovs (http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/books.html?sku=8), by Greg King and Penny Wilson.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: nena on March 19, 2009, 04:32:33 PM
Sarushka is correct. If I may add, Nicholas was first to shot, but last one...There is whole thread of it here. Look around.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: ninagudowna on March 20, 2009, 06:02:53 AM
One version of who stand where...very well done I think.

http://www.romanov-memorial.com/Drama.htm
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: RomanovsFan4Ever on March 20, 2009, 08:35:02 AM
Excellent web site, I remember that I have read for the first time the detailed story of the execution on this site.
Horrible tragedy!  :o
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: ninagudowna on March 20, 2009, 11:53:35 AM
I find this video quite depressing but I think it's a good version of the execution for imagine. Maybe you have already seen it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3rUcRyQ32I&feature=related
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: RomanovsFan4Ever on March 20, 2009, 12:01:27 PM
Yes, is from the Russian movie "Romanovy - Ventsenosnaya semya"...this is a very beautiful movie, maybe the best movie about the Romanovs of all the time, but the murder scene is very depressing.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: ninagudowna on March 20, 2009, 12:06:43 PM
Ah.... thanks. I was looking for that movie but didn't know it's name. Thanks a lot ;)

In my opinion it's the best scene of the execution of all the movies about the IF.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: RomanovsFan4Ever on March 20, 2009, 12:12:16 PM
I'm agree, it's the best scene of the execution of all the movies about the Romanovs (but so sad  :( of course).
You can see the entire movie in www.frozentears.org
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Sarushka on March 20, 2009, 12:41:02 PM
I hate to be an old grouch, but could we please move this conversation to one of the many existing threads about the execution and/or films about the imperial family?
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: RomanovsFan4Ever on March 20, 2009, 12:46:29 PM
Oh you're not an "old grouch", you are totally right. ;-)
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Geniebeanie on July 12, 2009, 10:17:21 PM
During the french revolution, babies had their heads dashed in on the base of the guillotine.    Children were killed with their parents.  I took a history course on the french revolution in college.
It was a very cruel time, one that I am glad that I did not live in.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Grand Duchess Jennifer on July 15, 2009, 06:20:13 PM
During the french revolution, babies had their heads dashed in on the base of the guillotine.    Children were killed with their parents. .

Oh, this is awful! I am also glad that we do not live in times like that anymore.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: LisaDavidson on July 18, 2009, 07:42:59 PM
During the french revolution, babies had their heads dashed in on the base of the guillotine.    Children were killed with their parents. .

Oh, this is awful! I am also glad that we do not live in times like that anymore.

Oh, but we do, unfortunately! There are still far too many cases of human on human cruelty.

I remember reading about Olga saying she was glad she did not live in such barbaric times, either. Poor girl!
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 18, 2009, 07:59:44 PM
History and current events are full of such horrors. Try reading a newspaper or news website.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Father Gregory on August 12, 2009, 07:11:48 AM
Does anyone know if Russia's current president is any relation to the Medvedev that was one of Nicholas II's executioners?
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: nena on August 12, 2009, 09:30:55 AM
It seems unlikely. Medvedev is very common surname in Russia.

Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Anastasia Spalko on November 02, 2009, 08:50:15 PM
Does anyone know if Russia's current president is any relation to the Medvedev that was one of Nicholas II's executioners?
                                                                    ^
At least I'm not the only one who noticed that.  /

I feel really strange about this subject.  I've learned that people like Adolp Hitler and Josef Stalin killed millions of innocent people like you and me, and I've accepted it.  I've learned that Empress Sissi was assasinated  and I've accepted it.  I've learned that Eva Peron died of cancer at an unfairly young age and I've accepted it.  Why is it that you can give me so much evidence and information that the Romanovs were killed that night, yet it seems more like a clip from movie or a paragraph from a book that isn't true?  Somehow, I feel that that isn't what happened.  Maybe I should have listened to that ignorant teacher last year.   Maybe I need to stop day-dreaming and see the truth.  but either ways, I still feel like it couldn't have happened.  Cally me crazy, but that's just how I feel. 

If I'm wrong and all of you guys have been right all  along (which is most likely the case), it's so saddening.  Underneath all of the grandeur, the jewels, and the power, they were human.  They ate, they slept, they bled, they cried, they laughed, and they died.  Why must history be so cruel?  Why is it the innocent and the perfect couple must die?  When shall we know the answers to these question?  Nevermore.

(P.S.  If you like my poetry and writing, tell me)
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Princess Juliana on December 04, 2009, 08:17:41 PM
Does anyone know if Russia's current president is any relation to the Medvedev that was one of Nicholas II's executioners?
                                                                   ^
At least I'm not the only one who noticed that.  /

I feel really strange about this subject.  I've learned that people like Adolp Hitler and Josef Stalin killed millions of innocent people like you and me, and I've accepted it.  I've learned that Empress Sissi was assasinated  and I've accepted it.  I've learned that Eva Peron died of cancer at an unfairly young age and I've accepted it.  Why is it that you can give me so much evidence and information that the Romanovs were killed that night, yet it seems more like a clip from movie or a paragraph from a book that isn't true?  Somehow, I feel that that isn't what happened.  Maybe I should have listened to that ignorant teacher last year.   Maybe I need to stop day-dreaming and see the truth.  but either ways, I still feel like it couldn't have happened.  Cally me crazy, but that's just how I feel.  

If I'm wrong and all of you guys have been right all  along (which is most likely the case), it's so saddening.  Underneath all of the grandeur, the jewels, and the power, they were human.  They ate, they slept, they bled, they cried, they laughed, and they died.  Why must history be so cruel?  Why is it the innocent and the perfect couple must die?  When shall we know the answers to these question?  Nevermore.

(P.S.  If you like my poetry and writing, tell me)

I feel the same way. I think it is the countless photographs of them that make them more real to us.  Being a mother, my heart breaks looking at their pictures sometimes, especially their early photos of them, as babies and young children, much like my own.

Seeing those gorgeous children and knowing that in a decade, or more or less, they are going to suffer a horrible murder, and they had no idea.

It makes me go into denial, too. One time when I first visited the site, I saw a photo of OTM, when O and T were just little and M a baby, about one year old. I remember thinking, "No. It's not them. These are not the Romanovs, they are someone else's kids. Some other cute kids of a century ago- and they live in America or England, and they will all live to be ninety or a hundred, and will have happy lives. Just, no!" I was almost in tears, and sometimes I have to stop looking at Romanov photos because they do depress me. It makes me feel that God had no mercy.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: blessOTMA on December 04, 2009, 09:51:56 PM
[quote
I feel the same way. I think it is the countless photographs of them that make them more real to us.  [/quote]

I agree with this. Photographs impart something on a subconscious level as well as simply capturing a moment in time.
When one sees as many of this group of people as even the average Romanov fan has...it's something. It creates a body  of knowledge and certainly,  feeling. It's like getting a message in a bottle. Even though there is no return message...communication
of a sort has been established.

I also think that part of the thrill of seeing a new to one's self  Romanov photo. At least for me., I feel ah... that's another moment stolen from the cellar....good.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: RHB on December 04, 2009, 10:14:07 PM
I agree. Just looking at photos it makes you kinda wonder sometimes "hmm... i wonder what's going on at that particular moment? What are the girls thinking about at this moment? You know what I'm saying?
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Holly on December 26, 2009, 12:10:11 AM
Why is it that you can give me so much evidence and information that the Romanovs were killed that night, yet it seems more like a clip from movie or a paragraph from a book that isn't true?  Somehow, I feel that that isn't what happened.  Maybe I should have listened to that ignorant teacher last year.   Maybe I need to stop day-dreaming and see the truth.  but either ways, I still feel like it couldn't have happened.  Cally me crazy, but that's just how I feel. 

If I'm wrong and all of you guys have been right all  along (which is most likely the case), it's so saddening.  Underneath all of the grandeur, the jewels, and the power, they were human.  They ate, they slept, they bled, they cried, they laughed, and they died.  Why must history be so cruel?  Why is it the innocent and the perfect couple must die?  When shall we know the answers to these question?  Nevermore.


"All of you guys have been right all along-" ? What do you mean? Their bones are lying underground as we speak. What more proof could you need?
If you realize all of these aspects of them to be so human, how can you not believe that they can be murdered? Nicholas and Alexandra were not "the perfect couple". Maybe it's this romanticism about that's keeping you from seeing the truth. As Robert_Hall said, terrible things happen every day. You just don't pay as much attention to them.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: victoriakin on December 29, 2009, 11:21:22 AM
Does anyone know if Russia's current president is any relation to the Medvedev that was one of Nicholas II's executioners?

It's my general belief that those who had historical causes for political gains kept those gains in the families and profited from them; therefore I would more assume there to be a relation than not.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: victoriakin on December 29, 2009, 11:29:42 AM
Does anyone know if Russia's current president is any relation to the Medvedev that was one of Nicholas II's executioners?
                                                                    ^
Why is it that you can give me so much evidence and information that the Romanovs were killed that night, yet it seems more like a clip from movie or a paragraph from a book that isn't true?  Somehow, I feel that that isn't what happened.  Maybe I should have listened to that ignorant teacher last year.   Maybe I need to stop day-dreaming and see the truth.  but either ways, I still feel like it couldn't have happened.  Cally me crazy, but that's just how I feel. 

If I'm wrong and all of you guys have been right all  along (which is most likely the case), it's so saddening.  Underneath all of the grandeur, the jewels, and the power, they were human.  They ate, they slept, they bled, they cried, they laughed, and they died.  Why must history be so cruel?  Why is it the innocent and the perfect couple must die?  When shall we know the answers to these question?  Nevermore.

(P.S.  If you like my poetry and writing, tell me)

One must be aware, as you seem to be, that the reasons for the news outweighted the accuracy for the news. Anyone I ever speak with conversationally offline reminds me that the winners are the writers of the history. I've studied journalism in school and I've seen the journalists who think they are reporting news, and I see the questions that arise in our daily lives even now, where we can't reconcile what is presented as facts, with the facts as we may logically understand them. There are many issues that evade truth. If this is one of them, surely there are ways to mete out the truth but only if and when those who care about the truth are open to receive it. It's not religion, even as the Romanovs are Saints. It is politics, and political powers, and the foibles of the caretakers of what serves as history.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Sarushka on December 29, 2009, 11:46:57 AM
Does anyone know if Russia's current president is any relation to the Medvedev that was one of Nicholas II's executioners?

It's my general belief that those who had historical causes for political gains kept those gains in the families and profited from them; therefore I would more assume there to be a relation than not.

I disagree. I believe Medvedev is a fairly common name in Russia.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: victoriakin on December 29, 2009, 12:02:07 PM
Does anyone know if Russia's current president is any relation to the Medvedev that was one of Nicholas II's executioners?

It's my general belief that those who had historical causes for political gains kept those gains in the families and profited from them; therefore I would more assume there to be a relation than not.

I disagree. I believe Medvedev is a fairly common name in Russia.

It may be a common name, but it is far from a common distinction in a far from common privileged center of society. Do you truly believe that commonality wins over heritage where such favors are concerned in that bureacracy?
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: jehan on December 29, 2009, 10:55:36 PM
I doubt that there is any relationship.  The executioners were hardly privileged- can you name any other families that might have profited from the executions nearly a hundred years later?  I don't think Medvedev's family has a histoy of privilege- why start now?
 
Medvedev is about number 30 in the most common surnames in Russia.  It literally means "Bear".  Many of the most common Russian surnames that are not patronyms (ie Ivanov, Petrov etc) are animal names- Voronov (Crow), Sokolov (falcon), Volkov (wolf), Lebedev (swan) etc.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: victoriakin on January 18, 2010, 09:38:39 AM
I doubt that there is any relationship.  The executioners were hardly privileged- can you name any other families that might have profited from the executions nearly a hundred years later?  I don't think Medvedev's family has a histoy of privilege- why start now?
 
Medvedev is about number 30 in the most common surnames in Russia.  It literally means "Bear".  Many of the most common Russian surnames that are not patronyms (ie Ivanov, Petrov etc) are animal names- Voronov (Crow), Sokolov (falcon), Volkov (wolf), Lebedev (swan) etc.

It isn't about names. If you believe that political structures are not privileged, you don't know much about politics.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Sarushka on January 19, 2010, 08:04:04 AM
Wandering off topic, folks...

If you'd like to discuss this further, I'll split the relevant posts into a new thread. Just let me know. Otherwise, please let's return to the original subject.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: LisaDavidson on January 19, 2010, 03:44:55 PM
Thank you, Margarita - you are correct. On topic or thread will be locked.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: victoriakin on January 20, 2010, 12:19:17 AM
Wandering off topic, folks...

If you'd like to discuss this further, I'll split the relevant posts into a new thread. Just let me know. Otherwise, please let's return to the original subject.

I don't think any further discussion is needed. I don't think the question I replied to was on topic as it was. Best to let it be.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: RomanovMartyrs on February 03, 2010, 05:40:01 AM
I have a question.

In most accounts you hear that there were two chairs brought into the room: One for Alexei and one for the Tsaritsa. I just read the final chapter of Nicholas & Alexandra (by Massie) where it's stated there were three chairs, and that the Tsar sat also.

What's true? Two chairs, or three?
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Belochka on February 03, 2010, 05:51:17 AM
Two chairs were brought in. Nikolai II stood.

Margarita
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: RomanovMartyrs on February 03, 2010, 06:29:46 AM
Thanks! :)

I've been reading many of the accounts and it's very frustrating that many of them differ so. In any case, one almost has to pick and choose what and who to believe.

Even Yurovsky contradicts himself between his two accounts! Is there any one account by any witness that is thought to be the most reliable? If so, can someone post it in it's entirety? Or, can anyone summarize the event in detail for me here, in a way that combines many accounts to become the most accurate/accepted one?

Much appreciation to anyone who does!
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: ElizavetaRose on February 18, 2010, 10:48:32 PM


Quote
It seems that a few of them were awared about the coming events as Olga, Alexei, Doctor Botkine and AF.. Alexandra called in her diary of "the angel" (the death angel in fact) .. she writted "the angel is coming up"..

 Nicholas and his other daughters seems to have been more optimistics..

That seems to be more of their nature. Nicholas IMO probably did not want to think of what COULD happen,but instead be at peace with himself. GD Tatiana I'm sure (seeing that she was called "The Governess") tried to make the best of everything for her family.GD Maria was naturally caring and sweet,and some have said very brave,so she probably had a hand in keeping people hopeful (or at least tried) .GD Anastasia was just a prankster and had always been able to make people laugh,so I imagine she gave everyone a reason to laugh every once in a while. 
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: JStorey on February 19, 2010, 01:26:04 AM
I've been reading many of the accounts and it's very frustrating that many of them differ so. In any case, one almost has to pick and choose what and who to believe.

Even Yurovsky contradicts himself between his two accounts! Is there any one account by any witness that is thought to be the most reliable? If so, can someone post it in it's entirety? Or, can anyone summarize the event in detail for me here, in a way that combines many accounts to become the most accurate/accepted one?

The most thorough account is provided in King and Wilson's Fate of the Romanovs.  What you must do (if you want to gain as comprehensive an understanding of the event as one can from the testimony) is read the source material of each reference, then draw your own conclusions.  The advantage of the source material is that it is relatively thin - there really isn't much of it - and it is also relatively (in terms of history) recent.

Unfortunately the account by King and Wilson simply takes all the varying testimony, throws it in a blender, and spits out what I consider a wildly embellished fable. 

To illustrate what I mean, King and Wilson infer that after hearing the order Nicholas II said "Lord, oh my God!  Oh, my God, what is this?  Oh, my God, no!"  Then turned back to Yurovsky and said, "I can't understand you.  Read it again, please."  Yurovsky somehow finds the time to read it again, to which Nicholas responds, "What? What?"  and Yurovsky says, "This!" and starts shooting. 

That seems utterly absurd to me - a very drawn out dramatization of what was surely less orchestrated.  And of course when we look at the original material, each quote comes from a different source; therefore we can conclude that these are different accounts of what was likely the same pithy utterance.   Nicholas probably had a moment to say "What?  What?" (if that) and the shooting started.  It does not seem plausible to me that Yurovsky read the order twice, nor that Nicholas launched into soliloquy.  In any case, King and Wilson take each account and add it like sliding a bead of an abacus until they have a rather hefty sum suitable for both drama and their [dubious] theories.

In fairness, however, I do recommend the King and Wilson account because they very meticulously list each source and allow the curious independent sleuth to discover the history on their own.  It is also, as I mentioned, the most thorough and comprehensive (if you can ignore the embellishment to the point of travesty) account.

In some respects it really doesn't matter.  They were brutally murdered.  Period. 

But for those of us who are fascinated with this family and those that remained loyal to them to the very end, precisely how the events unfolded really does matter.  My suggestion is to read the source material and use common sense; Occam's razor most certainly applies here.  Do not allow yourself to become enthralled by bizarre scenarios, but remain rigorous in your analysis of the details which, more often than not, hold the most salient clues.

Good luck!
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: blessOTMA on February 19, 2010, 01:30:45 AM
Excellent advice JStorey...and well said
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Sarushka on February 19, 2010, 07:51:09 AM
Unfortunately the account by King and Wilson simply takes all the varying testimony, throws it in a blender, and spits out what I consider a wildly embellished fable. 

To illustrate what I mean, King and Wilson infer that after hearing the order Nicholas II said "Lord, oh my God!  Oh, my God, what is this?  Oh, my God, no!"  Then turned back to Yurovsky and said, "I can't understand you.  Read it again, please."  Yurovsky somehow finds the time to read it again, to which Nicholas responds, "What? What?"  and Yurovsky says, "This!" and starts shooting. 

That seems utterly absurd to me - a very drawn out dramatization of what was surely less orchestrated. 

That's exactly what I thought initially. The part about Yurvosky saying "This" as he opened fire struck me as especially melodramatic and far-fetched. However, Yurovsky's testimony in Ispoved' Tsreubiits (http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/books.html?sku=91) supports this scenario -- so we can't put the blame for the dramatic embroidery solely at King & Wilson's feet.

Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: victoriakin on February 19, 2010, 03:30:18 PM
I've been reading many of the accounts and it's very frustrating that many of them differ so. In any case, one almost has to pick and choose what and who to believe.

Even Yurovsky contradicts himself between his two accounts! Is there any one account by any witness that is thought to be the most reliable? If so, can someone post it in it's entirety? Or, can anyone summarize the event in detail for me here, in a way that combines many accounts to become the most accurate/accepted one?

The most thorough account is provided in King and Wilson's Fate of the Romanovs.  What you must do (if you want to gain as comprehensive an understanding of the event as one can from the testimony) is read the source material of each reference, then draw your own conclusions.  The advantage of the source material is that it is relatively thin - there really isn't much of it - and it is also relatively (in terms of history) recent.

Unfortunately the account by King and Wilson simply takes all the varying testimony, throws it in a blender, and spits out what I consider a wildly embellished fable. 

To illustrate what I mean, King and Wilson infer that after hearing the order Nicholas II said "Lord, oh my God!  Oh, my God, what is this?  Oh, my God, no!"  Then turned back to Yurovsky and said, "I can't understand you.  Read it again, please."  Yurovsky somehow finds the time to read it again, to which Nicholas responds, "What? What?"  and Yurovsky says, "This!" and starts shooting. 

That seems utterly absurd to me - a very drawn out dramatization of what was surely less orchestrated.  And of course when we look at the original material, each quote comes from a different source; therefore we can conclude that these are different accounts of what was likely the same pithy utterance.   Nicholas probably had a moment to say "What?  What?" (if that) and the shooting started.  It does not seem plausible to me that Yurovsky read the order twice, nor that Nicholas launched into soliloquy.  In any case, King and Wilson take each account and add it like sliding a bead of an abacus until they have a rather hefty sum suitable for both drama and their [dubious] theories.

In fairness, however, I do recommend the King and Wilson account because they very meticulously list each source and allow the curious independent sleuth to discover the history on their own.  It is also, as I mentioned, the most thorough and comprehensive (if you can ignore the embellishment to the point of travesty) account.

In some respects it really doesn't matter.  They were brutally murdered.  Period. 

But for those of us who are fascinated with this family and those that remained loyal to them to the very end, precisely how the events unfolded really does matter.  My suggestion is to read the source material and use common sense; Occam's razor most certainly applies here.  Do not allow yourself to become enthralled by bizarre scenarios, but remain rigorous in your analysis of the details which, more often than not, hold the most salient clues.

Good luck!

In general, and in contemporary terms, I find Occam's Razor to be troublesome, and I do not believe its place is properly defined for those who may choose to utilize it. Occam's Razor is too brief in its summation, apparently having fallen on its own blade. So let me be precise in my meaning, without worrying about not being simple enough.

It is my belief that there is an appropriate usage of the principle of simplicity that is fostered in the banner of Occam's Razor, but where it fails is where the simplicity is at the expense of pertinent facts. In the full text of the original Occam's Razor principle, this is included. The "Razor" is not to eliminate those complexities which may be attributed to an alternative interpretation. Therefore, Occam's Razor is not quintessionally anti-complexity, but it is anti-redundancy of complexities. If there's a loose piece of the puzzle that has not been reconciled, this is not meant to be omitted from the interpretation, but included, because it is unresolved. That which is unresolved has the great potential for altering the interpretation. However, for those things which are not pertinent, or can be resolved, there is no need for stating something that has no bearing.

Whether who sat in what chair, I mean honestly. The only ones present were the executioners. Pfff.

Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: JStorey on February 19, 2010, 05:48:34 PM
No offense, but this sort of tangential meandering is precisely why I rarely post.  Omit the expression Occam's Razor if it so troubles you
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 20, 2010, 11:10:10 AM
I've been reading many of the accounts and it's very frustrating that many of them differ so. In any case, one almost has to pick and choose what and who to believe.

Even Yurovsky contradicts himself between his two accounts! Is there any one account by any witness that is thought to be the most reliable? If so, can someone post it in it's entirety? Or, can anyone summarize the event in detail for me here, in a way that combines many accounts to become the most accurate/accepted one?

The most thorough account is provided in King and Wilson's Fate of the Romanovs.  What you must do (if you want to gain as comprehensive an understanding of the event as one can from the testimony) is read the source material of each reference, then draw your own conclusions.  The advantage of the source material is that it is relatively thin - there really isn't much of it - and it is also relatively (in terms of history) recent.

Unfortunately the account by King and Wilson simply takes all the varying testimony, throws it in a blender, and spits out what I consider a wildly embellished fable. 

To illustrate what I mean, King and Wilson infer that after hearing the order Nicholas II said "Lord, oh my God!  Oh, my God, what is this?  Oh, my God, no!"  Then turned back to Yurovsky and said, "I can't understand you.  Read it again, please."  Yurovsky somehow finds the time to read it again, to which Nicholas responds, "What? What?"  and Yurovsky says, "This!" and starts shooting. 

That seems utterly absurd to me - a very drawn out dramatization of what was surely less orchestrated.  And of course when we look at the original material, each quote comes from a different source; therefore we can conclude that these are different accounts of what was likely the same pithy utterance.   Nicholas probably had a moment to say "What?  What?" (if that) and the shooting started.  It does not seem plausible to me that Yurovsky read the order twice, nor that Nicholas launched into soliloquy.  In any case, King and Wilson take each account and add it like sliding a bead of an abacus until they have a rather hefty sum suitable for both drama and their [dubious] theories.

In fairness, however, I do recommend the King and Wilson account because they very meticulously list each source and allow the curious independent sleuth to discover the history on their own.  It is also, as I mentioned, the most thorough and comprehensive (if you can ignore the embellishment to the point of travesty) account.



As I have (probably!) pointed out here before, the murder chapter of FOTR was one of the chapters most extensively reworked after submission - at publisher request - for the sake of providing a dramatic narrative structure deemed for a mainstream audience. The manuscript original was quite different in its treatment of the varied evidence. I don't know what "dubious theories" you suppose are being promoted in this narrative, but I can tell you that Greg was somewhat concerned that the flow of it would detract from its plausibility. Every point in it, though, is supported by the evidence, whether or not one considers these embellished and boastful accounts of the murderers themselves to be plausible.

But, again, thank you for your balance in recommending the book.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: JStorey on February 21, 2010, 01:03:50 AM
As I have (probably!) pointed out here before, the murder chapter of FOTR was one of the chapters most extensively reworked after submission - at publisher request - for the sake of providing a dramatic narrative structure deemed for a mainstream audience. The manuscript original was quite different in its treatment of the varied evidence. I don't know what "dubious theories" you suppose are being promoted in this narrative, but I can tell you that Greg was somewhat concerned that the flow of it would detract from its plausibility. Every point in it, though, is supported by the evidence, whether or not one considers these embellished and boastful accounts of the murderers themselves to be plausible.

But, again, thank you for your balance in recommending the book.

Hi Janet - Yes, well his concern was prescient.  As we've discussed before I make no mystery of my ambivalence for their book, but do so knowing that whenever I bring it up here it hopefully helps sell a few copies for them.  And indeed they very much deserve balance because FOTR is a well-researched and meticulously referenced work.  Invaluable.

I might describe the approach of "providing a dramatic narrative structure deemed for a mainstream audience" - one that "shatters the mythology surrounding the murder" etc. - as the book's (sensational) fatal flaw, but I won't get into that in this thread.

Regarding dubious theories, I'll stick for the purposes of this conversation to those specific to the execution (but I could list quite a few).  Aside from the potpourri of assembled testimony, I specifically dislike the manner in which Ermakov is portrayed - as a sort of drunken, bloodthirsty beast doing all the dirty work - in contrast to Yurovsky who does noble things like check pulses and intervenes when Ermakov goes mad.  Yurovsky takes the higher road while Ermakov is the guilty man, all while the "loyal soldiers" outside vomit in abhorrence (along with the reader).

Now why does this bother me (aside from the fact that it simply isn't accurate)?

It is not to say Ermakov that wasn't a drunken beast; his name did not emerge from the ether.  But the effect of such a dramatized and distorted portrayal is ultimately to dehumanize an act that was filled with very culpable human characters, not animals.  When we create a demonic caricature of evil, we ultimately pardon ourselves from the crime and thus can learn nothing from it.  Solzhenitsyn's famous quote comes to mind: 

"If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"

In short, "shattering a mythology" by creating a new (and dramatic!) mythology most certainly warrants criticism.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 21, 2010, 07:37:32 AM


Hi Janet - Yes, well his concern was prescient.  As we've discussed before I make no mystery of my ambivalence for their book, but do so knowing that whenever I bring it up here it hopefully helps sell a few copies for them.  And indeed they very much deserve balance because FOTR is a well-researched and meticulously referenced work.  Invaluable.

Yes, I think it would be naive not to recognise that this forum has a beneficial effect on book sales generally!


Regarding dubious theories, I'll stick for the purposes of this conversation to those specific to the execution (but I could list quite a few).  Aside from the potpourri of assembled testimony, I specifically dislike the manner in which Ermakov is portrayed - as a sort of drunken, bloodthirsty beast doing all the dirty work - in contrast to Yurovsky who does noble things like check pulses and intervenes when Ermakov goes mad.  Yurovsky takes the higher road while Ermakov is the guilty man, all while the "loyal soldiers" outside vomit in abhorrence (along with the reader).

Now why does this bother me (aside from the fact that it simply isn't accurate)?

It is not to say Ermakov that wasn't a drunken beast; his name did not emerge from the ether.  But the effect of such a dramatized and distorted portrayal is ultimately to dehumanize an act that was filled with very culpable human characters, not animals.  When we create a demonic caricature of evil, we ultimately pardon ourselves from the crime and thus can learn nothing from it.  Solzhenitsyn's famous quote comes to mind: 

"If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"


I can't remember if we've discussed this point before, but I certainly don't think that there was any intention to create the idea that ERmakov was exclusively responsible and that with him gone the deed would not have taken place. Rather the reverse, in fact - the introductory section of the book, which harps a lot on Nicholas's misdeeds as Tsar, was intended specifically to attack the idea of a saintly Tsar destroyed by an aberrant evil and instead depict him as he would have seemed to contemporaries who were his subjects - as well as of course to others who saw him through the medium of the foreign press. Evil begets evil, and in that situation some very ordinary individuals found themselves able to commit a murder which otherwise revolted them, because they believed they were serving a bigger good. Ermakov emerges as the one person who took a pleasure in it, as there will always be people who enjoy bloodshed for its own sake, but he certainly did not act alone.

As to learning lessons from history - I don't know what lesson the murder of nicholas II can teach, beyond the very fact that it was part of an endless cycle of violence and not - as historians such as Pipes have argued - the beginning of it. Do people ever really learn anything from history, I wonder?
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: blessOTMA on February 21, 2010, 11:21:25 AM
As to learning lessons from history - I don't know what lesson the murder of nicholas II can teach, beyond the very fact that it was part of an endless cycle of violence and not - as historians such as Pipes have argued - the beginning of it. Do people ever really learn anything from history, I wonder?
Janet , well said. It often seems  there is a set curiculum here on earth.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: JStorey on February 21, 2010, 03:23:34 PM
I can't remember if we've discussed this point before, but I certainly don't think that there was any intention to create the idea that ERmakov was exclusively responsible and that with him gone the deed would not have taken place. Rather the reverse, in fact - the introductory section of the book, which harps a lot on Nicholas's misdeeds as Tsar, was intended specifically to attack the idea of a saintly Tsar destroyed by an aberrant evil and instead depict him as he would have seemed to contemporaries who were his subjects - as well as of course to others who saw him through the medium of the foreign press. Evil begets evil, and in that situation some very ordinary individuals found themselves able to commit a murder which otherwise revolted them, because they believed they were serving a bigger good. Ermakov emerges as the one person who took a pleasure in it, as there will always be people who enjoy bloodshed for its own sake, but he certainly did not act alone.

As to learning lessons from history - I don't know what lesson the murder of nicholas II can teach, beyond the very fact that it was part of an endless cycle of violence and not - as historians such as Pipes have argued - the beginning of it. Do people ever really learn anything from history, I wonder?

All good points.  Besides I think I've criticized FOTR enough anyhow...  It was certainly important to dispel what I call the "Massie monarchist" mythology, and this book was one of the first to portray a more well-rounded view of the Imperial Family, which personally I find makes them all the more human. 

Janet your posts are always quite balanced and judicial - well-reasoned and thoughtful too; thank you!
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 23, 2010, 07:02:36 AM

All good points.  Besides I think I've criticized FOTR enough anyhow...  It was certainly important to dispel what I call the "Massie monarchist" mythology, and this book was one of the first to portray a more well-rounded view of the Imperial Family, which personally I find makes them all the more human.  



It's been very influential on that score too - both Helen Rappaport's book and Wendy Slater's study of "The many deaths of Nicholas II" are clearly influenced by the FOTR portrayal of the family. Wendy Slater's chapter about the "secular saints" and their modern historigraphy is particularly indebted to it, I think, down to using similar quotes.
In the end, my favourite parts of the completed book were the chapter on the funeral and the afterword, which talks about the creation of the myth.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: JStorey on February 24, 2010, 12:00:53 PM
Helen Rappaport's book was excellent; one I'd highly recommend, particularly to balance out the perspectives surrounding the final days of the Romanovs.  And her writing approach is less "over-the-top" as they say. 

(Slater's I was far less impressed by - her conclusion an anachronistic projection related more to the present than the past).
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: blessOTMA on February 24, 2010, 11:38:53 PM
One of the things I liked particularly  about Helen Rappaport's fine  book was she tells us about Ekaterinburg at length. I had no idea it was a city of 10,000 or that the British consul was across the street etc.....really put it into context for me
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 27, 2010, 04:58:38 AM
Helen Rappaport's book was excellent; one I'd highly recommend, particularly to balance out the perspectives surrounding the final days of the Romanovs.  And her writing approach is less "over-the-top" as they say. 

(Slater's I was far less impressed by - her conclusion an anachronistic projection related more to the present than the past).

Do you mean her last chapter? - I look upon Slater's book as quite a different beast to most works on Nicholas II's death, because it is more an academic examination of the narratives and portrayals than an attempt to get to the bottom of what happened - though obviously she has a view. The one things hat irked me was that she referred to Atlantis magazine as though it was one of those Romanov-adoring websites, which seemed a peculiar error to make when she had asked me for a copy of my article from it on Nicholas II in fiction, and cited that in the bibliography. Even in looking at the website she should have seen that it was a page advertising a print magazine and nothing more. But that's a minor personal quibble....It would have been easier to stomach though if her own book had been less indebted to FOTR, because she was well aware that Atlantis was run by the authors of that book.

I bought Helen Rappaport's book because people spoke so highly of the way she evoked the atmosphere in the Ipatiev House, and was just porrfing my own novel on Alexandra and wanted to compare. I'd certainly had no intention of buying any more Romanov murder books - but it was truly excellent; it flows very well and I read it one sitting.

Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: JStorey on March 01, 2010, 06:11:21 PM
I look upon Slater's book as quite a different beast to most works on Nicholas II's death, because it is more an academic examination of the narratives and portrayals than an attempt to get to the bottom of what happened - though obviously she has a view.

She makes a straightforward summary of how the secrecy and criminal nature of the Tsar's execution gave rise to Romanov pretenders, martyrdom, romanticism, myth, etc.,  But then she takes this summary and projects it backwards, as if the actors then had some notion of what might happen now (Were that so then no one would have bothered with a revolution to begin with).  For instance she claims that Lenin would never have ordered the execution because he would have known this modern outcome, and further he would have cared!  It is, in my humble opine, a preposterous idea.

I bought Helen Rappaport's book because people spoke so highly of the way she evoked the atmosphere in the Ipatiev House, and was just porrfing my own novel on Alexandra and wanted to compare. I'd certainly had no intention of buying any more Romanov murder books - but it was truly excellent; it flows very well and I read it one sitting.

I was equally skeptical, particularly by the title which seemed rather cheeky.  I really liked it. 

With that in mind I'm going to stay on topic by recommending three titles for new readers interested in the details of the execution and final days in Ekaterinburg:

1.  Last Days of the Romanovs - Wilson 1920. 
The circumstances of an execution on the eve of losing a city to the whites makes Wilson's book a fascinating - albeit heavily and sometimes alarmingly biased - account.  The reason I recommend it is because the testimony within (particularly that by my favorite fellow Iakimov) is so frequently manipulated (err, I mean cited) by contemporary writers.  So it helps to read it on your own, and then dive into the other accounts.  It gives you a leg up, so to speak, without having to investigate every primary source (though that helps too!).

2.  Fate of the Romanovs - King & Wilson
Yes, controversial.  I am not a fan; I make no attempt to disguise that.  Nevertheless it is thorough and meticulously referenced.  Cull through the more sensational conclusions (hint - where King falls into persuasion, read very critically) and draw your own.

3.  Last Days of the Romanovs: Tragedy at Ekaterinburg - Helen Rappaport
Provides balance to #2, a mildly different perspective, and generally well written account.  No citations, but sources are essentially the same. 

From these three sources alone you will receive a well-rounded enough picture, or enough at least - for most of us on this board - to whet the appetite!
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Janet Ashton on March 03, 2010, 03:02:50 PM

She makes a straightforward summary of how the secrecy and criminal nature of the Tsar's execution gave rise to Romanov pretenders, martyrdom, romanticism, myth, etc.,  But then she takes this summary and projects it backwards, as if the actors then had some notion of what might happen now (Were that so then no one would have bothered with a revolution to begin with).  For instance she claims that Lenin would never have ordered the execution because he would have known this modern outcome, and further he would have cared!  It is, in my humble opine, a preposterous idea.

Maybe, but in MY humble opinion it's rather incidental to the book. Whether they expected it to or not (and I personally feel they must have had some inkling, based on the history of royal murders), the secret murder did produce all sorts of tales etc, and they themslves are the focus of Slater's work.


2.  Fate of the Romanovs - King & Wilson
Yes, controversial.  I am not a fan; I make no attempt to disguise that.  Nevertheless it is thorough and meticulously referenced.  Cull through the more sensational conclusions (hint - where King falls into persuasion, read very critically) and draw your own.


King and Wilson please! :-) With two authors, both should share blame or credit.....and I think the general idea is that people draw their own conclusions; perhaps that's what so many of the critics on here (and I don't mean you) couldn't stomach.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: JStorey on March 03, 2010, 07:26:26 PM
King and Wilson please! :-) With two authors, both should share blame or credit.....and I think the general idea is that people draw their own conclusions; perhaps that's what so many of the critics on here (and I don't mean you) couldn't stomach.

But Janet, I am giving Wilson credit by attributing the more sensational elements of the book to King!  I'd much rather throw him under the bus.  In any case, if the general idea of FOTR is that people draw their own conclusions, then criticism, analysis, etc. of its contents should be welcome.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Janet Ashton on March 05, 2010, 06:48:57 AM
King and Wilson please! :-) With two authors, both should share blame or credit.....and I think the general idea is that people draw their own conclusions; perhaps that's what so many of the critics on here (and I don't mean you) couldn't stomach.

But Janet, I am giving Wilson credit by attributing the more sensational elements of the book to King!  I'd much rather throw him under the bus.

Ouch! I almost freaked out at this, but then I realised you were probably winding me up...:-) !

Seriously, based on his previous output, I don't think anyone has any basis for accusing Greg of being responsible for what they deem "sensationalism". Rather, he has tended to go the oposite way, and to try to take the melodrama out of subjects but looking at them sanely. Viz: his book on the Duchess of Windsor, a very calm counterpoint to Charles Higham's nonsense.

In my experience, as an aside, when people talk of "senstaionalism", particularly on royal forums, they often mean that the author touched on subjects they themselves deem off-limits, e.g. the person's sex life, which is usually a very necessary part of a serious biography. This is not the case with authors such as Higham, of course, who publishes improbable pieces of gossip (was the Duchess a hermaphrodite etc) to shock and titillate his audience rather than to enlighten on the events or person he describes. That to me is the essential difference.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: JStorey on March 05, 2010, 11:19:14 AM
Ouch! I almost freaked out at this, but then I realised you were probably winding me up...:-) !

Yes, of course!  The gender bias has always bothered me and here I fell into it myself.  What could I do but make a joke?  :)  Anyhow all good points...
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: clockworkgirl21 on April 20, 2010, 02:16:05 AM
I hope this is the thread for my question!

I was wondering if there was much light in the room during the murder. Does anyone know if lights were turned on inside the room, turned on outside and shown in, etc? I always imagined it would have been really dark, which now that I think about it, I don't know if the victims being able to see would have made it any worse or not!

But now I think there had to be a good amount of light, since Ermakov and Yurovsky went in to kill with bayonets as well as pistols.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Sarushka on April 20, 2010, 06:53:02 AM
I believe there was one ceiling fixture in the center of the room at the time of the murder. (It may have been just a bare bulb.)
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: blessOTMA on April 21, 2010, 02:46:24 PM
I believe it was just a bare bulb and one of the reasons there were two rounds of killings
with time between them , was due in part to  the poor visibility cause by the smoke of  first volley of gun fire (...along with the fumes)
I believe the lighting was considerably dimmer than is usually portrayed in film. By the time of the fruitless bayoneting, the air/smoke  would have cleared somewhat , making for better vision. Then there were mostly single shots, finishing people off, not the huge, smoke creating  firing quad barrage that happened at first .
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Павэл on May 13, 2010, 10:28:00 PM
Ok, with 20 pages so far that bit was 'difficult ' to read and follow.

Anyway, a few more things to consider. One of these points is being 'transferred' from the section on 'You know you're obsessed.. pt 2' (http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php?topic=14240.450) as this is morbid and that section is for fun stuff.

First:

In any investigation, nothing is FACT. Everything is actually an opinion that happens to have enough supporting evidence (often of other, equally opinionated people) to make it 'excessively believeable' to the point where only a major change in information may show it incorrect. Further, all investigators have 'preferences' to particular data and how it is weighted. Much of this occurs because of greater familiarity with some sources but not others, or some data may be presented in better format. As we can all appreciate I hope, small what ifs can in time be presented as fact and that enters people's assumptions. It must also be said that humans hate uncertainty and we all have to believe something as undebateable.This is even true even in the supposed certainty of science. If any of you have had the nightmare of being in an academic research group you will discover that far from being a quiet, systematic bunch of good old fellows with pipes and courdiroy jackets debating in a civilised fashion, they are often a bunch of overgrown children throwing tantrums and making the House of Commons look decent. Why do I say this? I'm a Research Chemist - it's my job to ruin previous ideas :) :). Yes, everything is OK now - I returned to my studies in time.

I am witness to feuds that last decades. One (without giving too much away) has been going on for 40 years. Two professors at the same university who once collaborated on a project while students and disagreed on what approach they will use. They haven't spoken since and if you are seen drinking with one, the other will cold-shoulder you for a fortnight. Even worse, they were both right, but were approaching different end sof the same subject. Hopeless!

Its true in Law too: Truth is constructed where probabilities outweigh rational thought:

a) The accused admitted to having a 20-year vendetta against the victim.
b) The accused owned a revolver identical to the one most likely used. He has conveniently thrown it away however during a spring clean.
c) The body was found buried in the accused's back garden.
d) The accused can give no verifiable account of his whereabouts or predicament and claims he was 40 miles away at the time. No-one else can be found to corroborate this.
e) The accused was seen just after the victim's dissapearance to be burning items of clothing in nearby woods.

But is that proof? Or just coincidence? And how many have had their necks stretched incorrectly?

Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Павэл on May 13, 2010, 10:28:50 PM
Four Brothers (FBMS) Discrepancy

My first real interest in N&A (a slight encounter when I was 8 - a story in itself) was as a teenager (see my signature at the bottom - aged 14, 10 months) and I approached the executions themselves - an historic interest, nothing more: I presumed I'd read a bit, find it interesting and then move on as I had on other areas. Never really being interested in survivor tales (of which I was aware) I found certain oddities in the four brothers site however that I noted.

It's the dog. That dog is, according to Sokoloff, the last item to be pulled out of the mine. It's been there for 11 months and is still recognisable by M. Gilliard? Ummmm...... A year later (by now fully engrossed in it all - pictures of the girls, etc.) I read similar comments made by Summers and Mangold (File On The Tsar anyone read?)*. Although I accepted swiftly the DNA test (released just before I began) on the original set of remains (and had even less time for survivor tales), it 'concerned me'. I began the proposition: What if the bodies were never at the site?.

* Tip for good academia: Never discredit or refuse a source simply because it seems silly. :)

I will simply present some 'notes' on this for your perusal:

I: Human beings - in times of 'worry' search for absolutes to calm them down even if they hate the absolute they adopt. It allows them to 'close the book' and move on. Was Gilliard suffering this?
II: Of the other items found, they could have come from any set of people. The most telling was the emerald cross and SIX corset sets. But were any other affluent families disposed of at that time (with 6 females included)? People were dissapearing left, right and centre in Yekaterinburg.

Three hypotheses can spring from this:
I: This is the fragments of the imperial family. Even if identification is 'poor' or 'emotionally driven' it may still be true. (My own conclusion).
II: This is the site of another disposal and Sokoloff was mistaken. (See further on though)
III: Sokoloff or another party had arranged it.

Seems far fetched, but who could have benfitted?

I: The Bolsheviks: To spread confusion about the next-in line. They change their story more times than I change my socks. Were they worried no-one would believe them this time? Did they instead bury the corpses straight at the 'final' site (or in another site, then remove and rebury) and later when 'admitting' their story simply 'piggy back' - use the FBMS story (a believable end) as it was convenient?
II: Kyril Vladimirovitch (KV) or an associate/supporter (with or without his knowledge.): KV was next-in line (assuming Michael Alexandrovitch was also dead) and highly ambitious. Several months pass before Sokoloff is appointed. A judge (forgotten his name) is first up and he says that they are probably alive. He is suddenly dismissed and Sokoloff appointed. The cellar room is then re investigated and additional blood splashes suddenly found! Were the original investigations simply incompetent? (Hence why the judge was dismissed?) In the concluding notes of the investigations the corset stays are refered to, but in the 'log book' of the site no entry of them being fished out of the mine is present. Is this simply an omission? This is not to say KV/an associate killed the family, but if they are declared dead that would give him plenty of time to consolidate his position. Once declared dead any 'real' survivor could easily be shut away. (In the 'hopeless coup' of 1916 he'd planned to shut the Empress in a monastery.)

Discuss! :) :)
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Павэл on May 13, 2010, 10:29:45 PM
The Unarmoured Grand-Duchess

(This was the moved part). Please see (http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php?topic=14240.450), page 31 for more.

So was Maria wearing a jewel-laden corset?

* In one of Yurovsky's reports (the old can't make up their minds again) it identifies only Olga, Tatiana and Anastasia.
* Some accounts of the night give Maria as having died quickly.
* Whether she did or didn't - did they use bayonets on all the females just to be sure? (In effect they were stabbing an already dead body). This may explain why some accounts say all four were bayonnetted.
* Alternatively, Maria was not wearing an 'armoured' corset, but still survived. A pistol/revolver round even if fired point blank to the chest will not necessarily kill and Maria was a strong lass. This also would explain the 'All four bayonetted' situation but only 3 corsets.

That should keep us all busy a while! :) :)
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Sarushka on May 14, 2010, 07:08:22 AM
* Some accounts of the night give Maria as having died quickly.

Which ones?


Quote
* Whether she did or didn't - did they use bayonets on all the females just to be sure? (In effect they were stabbing an already dead body). This may explain why some accounts say all four were bayonnetted.

Again, which ones?
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: AGRBear on May 15, 2010, 12:13:59 PM
from >>Ballistics question<<:

Quote
No, but rifle butts & bayonets will do the job in a pinch.  :P

There was extensive damage to the facial bones, remember, consistent with blows from rifle butts. Granted, we can't know how much of that damage was inflicted post-mortem. And, since we have no soft tissue to examine, it's equally impossible to know the extent of the damage inflicted by bayonets, even without the puzzle of diamond corset/armor...

If you look at the list of guns handed out by Yurovsky to the other executioners,  there are no rifles involved.

Quote

 
Quote

...[in part]...


Yourvsky's account:

p. 634 LIFELONG PASSION

>>Yurovsky  On the morning of the 16th....
Twleve revolvers were prepared, and it was decided who would shoot at whom.  Conrade Filipp [Goloschekin] informed me that a lorry would come at midnight, that the newcomers were to be admitted on giving the password, and the bodies handed over to them, to be taken away for burial."<<

....

ARBear

THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS by King and Wilson p. 297:
>>...He ordered Medvedev to collect the revolvers from al of the guards on exterior duty.  When Medvedev returned, he placed the assembled collection on the desk in the commandant's office, leaving Yurovsky to sort through the arssenal with which the crime would be committed.  Fourteen guns were used that night.  There were six pistoles: a .28-caliber** (6.43 mm) Browning; a .32-caliber (7.63* mm) Browning; two .45-caliber (11.43) American Colts; and two .32-caliber (7.63 mm) Mausers; and eight revolvers:  a .42-caliber (10.66 mm) Smith and Wesson; four .30 - caliber (7.62 mm) Nagants; and three .35-caliber (9mm) Nagants.  The most powerful weapons were the two [p. 298] Maussers, with a velocity of 1,400 feet per second.  Of the fourteen guns, nine--all of the Nagants, and the Colts --used gunpower to fire their bullets, causing a discharge of smoke and caustic fumes.  Among them, they held a total of 103 shots.<<


AGRBear

PS
*& **Error in typing corrected:
 
Quote
...[in part]...

Dear Mrs. Bear,

Using the information that you posted above, I started to research the technical specifications of the fireams that you listed. I did however find some inaccuracies in this list which may simply be explained by mistyping. For example:

.28 caliber (6.43 mm) Browning- Browning did not make a .28 cal. but rather a .25 cal. pistol.

.32-caliber (7.73 mm) Browning- Metric conversion of a .32 cal. cartridge is 7.63 mm rather than 7.73 mm.
....

David


The bayonet used by Ermakov was said to have been "detached".

There are two threads which talk just about the bayonet/bayonets used.

The smashing of faces used by rifles wasn't done until just before the nine bodies were placed into the mass grave in Pig's Meadow.  These are the kind of blows Maples mentioned to several skulls like Marie's.  I forget the number at the moment.

AGRBear




There is a section just about the bayonet used.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: TimM on May 15, 2010, 12:30:07 PM
Yurosky is said to have personally shot Tatiana through the head.

Bloody butchers, I hope they're frying in hell, the whole lot of them.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Павэл on June 11, 2010, 07:32:49 PM
Hello kiddies.

Apologies for my enforced absence and the time taken to return this post. Summer conference season is fast approaching and to cap it I've got a nasty big pile of exams to mark. Excuse me if I rant now.

Dear students - a few bits of advice. There's 268 of you on this course. There are only 2 academics - me and the boss. Do the sums yourself but if your maths isn't up to it, then A) you shouldn't be on this course B) I'll have to do it for you. Your paper takes 3 hours to sit and you all sit it at once. It takes 1.5-2 hours to mark it. Multiply this by 268. 15% of the papers are then handed to another lecturer. We've got the big pile for inorganic 1st year studies and they've got 15% of ours. There are 413 students on their course. 15% of this is 61.95, but we have actually been handed 64. This is to double check that exams are marked consistently. 268 plus 64 is 332 multiplied by 1.5 or 2 meaning that it takes between 498 and 664 hours between the two of us. There are about 12-14 available hours per day to mark them, taking out only life's necessities. Taking the lowest bound of 498 hours, divide by 2 lecturers, and then by 14 hours per day means it takes 17.8 days to mark them even if we did nothing else. The university has given us 19 days.

However this is not including that during the double check, if any mistakes are found, or the standard of marking starts slipping* the whole pile has to be done again.

* Probably due to the lecturer's suicidal tendances that start setting in after the 150th paper. A contributor to this problem comes when, after having marked several hundred they have all got the same question(s) WRONG! You then wonder if you only dreamed giving that lecture. The 'existantial conundrum' presented is very intruiging and worthy of an academic's time and thoughts suitable of a deep-seated philosophy that would rival Voltaire. All us academics love such conundrums of how we can clearly have a memory for an event that apparently didn't happen after all. But we don't have the time.

Then this has to be reconciled. This is where the marks from the double checking group are compared to the marks for the original group. Major discrepancies have to be sorted. Multiply the time for this by 2 as they reconcile our exams and we reconcile theirs.

You lot get 3 weeks of inebriacy to look forward to at the end of term. (Assuming you haven't already spent most of university so far in just such a state and so have no money left.)

Then, that finished, we have to prepare the summer conferences. You lot get 3 1/2 months off in summer, of which half of you do next to nothing while others work in various jobs. Us on the other hand..........


(And on and on.....)
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Павэл on June 11, 2010, 07:35:12 PM
Anyway. I can of course find time for some things.

Happy Birthday Tanya!

Did you think I'd forget? OK it's now the 12th in the UK, but loads of you are from america so I'll run by Los angeles time - it'll still be the 11th. I didn't get home until 9:30pm (see comments on exam marking, above) so i have an excuse. If in Petrograd time, I missed it ages ago!

I also found time to read FOTR. I went mad just before it was released. Interesting. Found a mistake in the intoduction (and questions galore throughout). K&W say that the Julian and Gregorian Calendars are out by 14 days in the 21s Century. Unfortunately it's still 13 days:

The Gregorian Calendar celebrates leap years every four years except for centenary years when they occur every 400 years. (1700, 1800, 1900 were not leap years; 2000 was; 2100, 2200, 2300 will not be; 2400 will.)

The Julian Caledar has leap years every 4 years irrespective of the centenary marks. So the Julian calendar has a Feb 29th where the Gregorian doesn't for 3 out of 4 centuries and the alignment has to be adjusted. Since 2000 was a leap year in both calendars, there is no adjustment in this year and the discrepancy remains 13 days, not 14.

The rest I need to chew on a while longer.

Anyway, Maria's death (In response to  Sarushka )

I had to surrupticiously get loads of stuff from my parent's attic (where it has been residing for a decade). This involved making lots of excuses about what boxes I needed.

Piles of notes - not in any meaningful order I'm afraid and alot still missing - stuff I didn't even remember I had.

OK - of accounts which list 3 'long' deaths and one short. Of what I can find, only one (post exhumation) book states who this was, Massie's publication in 1995 in which it was identified as Olga who died directly from a round to the head at the start. The rest simply say '3' survivors, although they then take 'random guesses' on who. The main focus of then publications was on identity of the bones.

I know I've seen one supposing Maria - I can see the page in my mind's eye, but can't find it. I've made a few pages of scribbles on a notepad that I've found however and these relate to this. I also added my own parts. In part summary part quoting my own stuff:

A ) Presuming that body number 3 is Olga, she did not possibly die swiftly as the bullet wound is near vertical (Modern note: I have a clear picture). Either her head was very low down or she was crouching/sat on the floor and someone shot her from above. But Massie's statement of Olga being shot through the head seems 'unlikely'. (Modern: then lots of extra notes stuffed in margins at funny angles: )

* Or, she was shot again later to check she was dead. (bit written at bottom of page with big arrow pointing to this bit) Why bother? Weren't they trying to have little blood? (another bit over page with arrows over) Shots fired to break acid pots. Hit some of the bodies? Could apply to any of the wounds - all bodies need this consideration!

* Or it's an exit wound.

* Or its just a hole.

* Shot through nose? - it's missing.

* Jaw bone smashed - rifle butt? (Modern note: did not consider being shot through mouth!)
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Павэл on June 11, 2010, 07:36:35 PM
I was forming different options and scenarios for further eliminations.

B ) Body 6: Yanks=Tat, Ruskies=Anast (1995 note)

Skull a total mess - on a tray in lots of little chunks. Crushed by truck? Or smacked to bits with rifle? (My mental state was all over the place at this time - my attempts to be 'neutral and dispassionate' often ended up in being blunt. I made these notes in between gazing longingly at photos. My most common one to gaze at was the one of them under house arrest of OTAA sitting by the shed when digging the vegetable garden - page 234 of Family Albums. She looks like she's about to cry.)

(Later margin note): found a pic: has a small hole in back of skull.

(Then the name of my Biology master and retired army major, useful for all sorts of stuff and unlike many teachers just tells you what he knows and doesn't bu****it to look impressive. Then, in totally different handwriting - probably made later, my handwriting changes with my mood.)

* Exit wound usually worse than entry. shot through back of head and face 'vanishes?'. (Modern note: Oooh! These pages mind you have so many variations I'd written down every possibility - bound to get one right! I'm just reconstructing the variation requested.)

* 2nd phase death. If bullet from behind then it had to be. (2nd phase means after the initial salvoes)

(page of random rubbish)

C ) Body 5 : Русские=Татьяна Американцы=Мария (At this point I had a fit of writing in cyrillic to improve fluency of alphabet writing. And because i was getting obsessed. :) )

(Lots of random notes of no merit, but)

* Skeleton largely missing. Can't see any gunshot wounds. Mind you don't have right hand side of skull picture.


(Pages and pages go on, pursuing different alternatives. Then: )

Body 3 is Olga. Looks like her as well! (Highly scientific eh! :) )
Body 5 is either Tat (My usual shorthand for T.N.) or Anastasia
Body 6 is either Maria or Tat

Body 5 is 5' 7 1/2" and #6 is 5' 5 1/2 " Grand Duke nicholas was 6 foot 6. From photo of him next to N2 (the Tsar), estimate N2 at 5 foot 4 to 5 foot 6. (A 6-page mass of geometry is found in earlier pages, due to them not standing. Its the picture of them both sat on a bench.)

Tobolsk Roof Photo: Anastasia is at least 2-3 inches shorter than her dad.

Anastasia is missing and the other two could be either of the bodies.

Are the Ruskies trying to kill off the anastasia myth? (I considered that they has decided to announce A.N.'s death irrespective of evidence because someone saying "A.N. is missing" would surely get the conspiracy theorists out in force going "We Told You So!")
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Павэл on June 11, 2010, 07:41:49 PM
Notes on idetifying #5 and #6:

Maria taller than Tat? Why not? Skull top is tapered, which better fits Maria. Olga and Tat have almost circular topped heads. ( See the photo of all 5 of them with their heads shaved hiding behind the curtain. Left to right is Olga, Tat, Nastya, Maria, Alexis. Nastya and Alexis might be swapped - it's difficult to tell but fourth is Maria.)

Inclined to believe Maples, 6 is Tatiana (dot of the 'i' was a heart :) ) and 5 is Maria.

Maria not shot in the head. Was she bayonetted? Beaten? Or died in first salvo? She didn't have armour on. Requires Olga not to be dead in first phase. Need to find out Massie's source for this fragment.

(Then I stumble on to other alternatives sending myself slowly mad. The pad of paper - 160 sheets of A4 lined - is full of jottings.)

This doesn't say anything beyond a possible variation - possible from the 1990s perpectives, that is, such as only 9 bodies et al.

Some accounts give only 3 'survivors' of the first phase from amonst the daughters. If so, who and why? Other oddities present themselves. They go to all that time to reduce the mess, then shoot people in the head anyway. If maria (assuming she is #5) then a lack of head wound may mean she was already dead (remember this was 15 years ago I was doing this).

Maria's Armour

Here's a note: All of the 'first party' to be moved are lacking in jewels (relatively, the empress does have a belt of pearls). All of the second party have jewels. In order for Maria to be stripped of her jewels, they would first have to open things up to give her some and then open it all up again to remove them from her.

The 'activity' of June 27th may be coincidence or may have caused the family not to give her anything if they were planning on sharing things. Alternatively, if Maria had no jewels anyway, then she may have been less inclined to caution!

If 'something' happened, and the guard felt her torso, he'd have felt the objects. 'Compromising situation' could mean anything but it would be more than a bit of chatting if it occurred. A bit of chatting would not exactly merit much of a mention - would it! A man's natural tendancy is to feel the female figure - below the breats and the waist/hips. He'd have felt them if they were already there and if she'd lost her jewels because of distrust, then she would have been wearing them at the time.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Павэл on June 11, 2010, 08:28:22 PM
Some day i might finish this!

Bayonets and Rifle Butts

Quote
If you look at the list of guns handed out by Yurovsky to the other executioners,  there are no rifles involved.

I've only been back at this 2 months, so material is old. I've only just finished K&W and am having to do alot of catch-up. Whether sources are reliable is up to questioning, but Massie, 1995, p6:

"Rather than reload, the executioners took rifles from the next room..."

If they were not originally planned for use, they would not be on the issue list. On top of that Yurovsky changes pieces of his story. Like to know Massie's Source though.

Why issue revolvers/pistols but not rifles? (In this I mean take notes of who got what.) Sidearm manufacture has always been far lower than Rifles. The UK during WWII for example produced 18 times more rifles and SMGs than sidarms. Sidearms are harder to build (need to fit it all in 1 small item without losing quality) and are also seen as 'status symbols'. If rifles are 'ten a penny' then why bother noting who has what because it is possible everyone had one anyway!

So the next question becomes - what access to rifles did they have? Where are they stored (even if only for the night.) Did the men enter the room where they had been given their pistols with rifles already?

More coming then I'm to bed!
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Павэл on June 11, 2010, 09:22:06 PM
I'm half-inclined to distrust some of this. In A Lifelong Passion p672, Yurovsky lists that Alexandra, Demidova, The Daughters and Alexei survived, and yet in his memoir at kingandwilson.com/FOTRresources/yurovsky1922.htm it is OTMAA plus Botkin. In the Original Protocol, it is Alexis, 3 sisters, the maid and botkin.

Is this bad memory? Or looking at different aspects of the same event in different ways? The Original Protocol reads as if it were in two distict phases - original salvos and then finishing off. Is there really such a distinct boundary? So at what point in a 'continuum' of succesive overlapping events is this break occurring? If you were to ask me 'name something memorable from your teenage years' I would talk about the Romanoffs but tell a true, but different story from if I was asked 'How did you come to encounter the Romanoffs?' The same subject but 2 very different ways of expressing it. in my own job the phraseology used towerds a collegue is different from that used to an undergraduate student and different yet again for visiting sixth formers on open days when trying to choose what degree to do and where. And yet the subject could be the same. The original protocol was writting for internal party consumption (an official report) and the memoirs are a personalised note.

K&W argue in their book (in this case the then missing 2 bodies) that Yurovsky is untrustworthy. Also, gilliard argues regarding the clean-up of the I.H. that the intent was to decieve. All of these men have at some point in the saga conspired to decieve different groups in different ways -m from conning the family into the basementto taking part in a giant cover-up. Are they still doing so long after their civil war has been won? Even - have they decieved enough so that they too can't tell what is real and what isn't? In Voltaire's words, "History is merely accepted fiction." may be relevant.

Enough! Bedtime.

Во всяком случае, Хорошие ночные дети. Не Имейте кошмары!

Пав
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: rosieposie on June 12, 2010, 05:26:02 AM
Hey Paul I am very impressed with your research and it has made me think of the scene differently.  :-)
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Romafan96 on August 19, 2012, 12:59:54 PM
Does anybody know what the executioners used to dismember the corpses in the forest? This is quite a morbid question, I know but seeing as they had so little resources I wonder how they managed to completely chop up two bodies.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Romafan96 on August 20, 2012, 10:34:17 AM
It's safe to say that Nicholas, Alexandra, Trupp and Kharitonov were the first to die. In Helen Rappaport's book "Yekaterinburg" it says that Trupp was shot in the legs whilst Kharitonov fell after his body was "riddled" with bullets. Botkin, Maria and Alexei were injured in the first volley of gunfire. The gunmen then left the room to allow the smoke which had gathered to clear, but some ended up being sick. Then they could hear moans coming from the basement floor, an indication that their work was not yet over. Yurovsky then turned on the injured Botkin who was lying on the floor and shot him in the side of the head as he turned his face away in terror.
 Meanwhile, GD Olga and Tatiana were cowering in the corner screaming for their mom. Tatiana was killed by Yurovsky after he shot her in the back of the head as she tried to get up and run, her skull basically exploding a shower of blood and brains over a hysterical Olga. Olga was killed seconds later by Ermakov as she attempted to stand. He kicked her back down and shot her through the jaw.The bullet ripped through straight to her brain. Scientists were able to determine the causes of death for Olga and Tatiana after their skulls were examined and showed the bullet holes. Alexei was killed with two shots to the head, just above his ear by Yurovsky after Nikulin's shots failed to finish him. His heamophilia proved to be a near blessing to him in the end. Anna Demidova, just like Maria, fainted but regained consciousness and fought with her attackers, going as far as to grab the bayonet with her bare hands, cutting her hands in the process. She was eventually silenced, and according to Robert Massie's book "The Last Chapter" was stabbed up to 30 times. It is not really known how Maria and Anastasia died. The remains found in 2007 are far too damaged to give any such insight, and the executioners don't name the Grand Duchesses individually when they speak of the murders. Two of the girls, probably Maria and Anastasia since Olga and Tatiana's wounds were fatal, survived the execution itself, but were later finished off by bayonets and rifle butts.

One of the guards reported that after the killings when they were checking the corpses for jewellery, he turned over the bodies of one of the Grand Duchesses. It made a gurgling sound and blood gushed from her mouth and was a sight which would 'shock the toughest of stomachs'. The murder room was described as "butchery" by one of the guards as the bodies were incredibly bloody, and some wounds severed right down to the bone. Tissue was all over the clothing. Rappaport also comments that the room was full of the smell of human waste, which was emitted from the victims in moments of extreme trauma. I read in a book about forensics that head wounds bleed profusely and with at least 5 out of the 11 executed taking a shot to the head the bodies must have been swimming in blood. Given the extent of the injuries sustained in the murder room, and the later ones caused by the grenades in the mine shaft, and the natural process of decomposition (which would have occurred faster due to the warm climate at that time) it's really no wonder that the executioners had absolutely no idea of who they burned at the Pig's Meadow.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 20, 2012, 11:02:09 AM
This has all been gone over before. What is this obsession over the details ? They are DEAD, over with and we do not need to read more details. It has all been said, published and otherwise been made public.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: edubs31 on August 20, 2012, 11:29:28 AM
Well I suppose that's a pretty good summary of the massacre. Helpful for those new to the story that want a quick run down of the tragic events without having to a read a book or sift through the conversation.

I don't mean to speak for everyone of course but I do have to question anyone who spends a lot of time on this and isn't doing it as a researcher, ala King & Wilson. What's the fascination? Reading this again made me a little sick to my stomach and I know the details.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Romafan96 on September 29, 2012, 07:24:20 AM
I guess people are just curious. But I was recently watching a documentary about the victims of the Holocaust and a very interesting thought was brought up. There are hundreds of pictures in circulation of the Jews just before they entered the gas chambers, but absolutely none show them inside. We all know that their lives ultimately ended in the chambers, but how that came about is really open to speculation. Did they cry? Did they scream? Did they catch on to what was happening? Did they accept their fate as part of God's plan or did they sink to their knees begging the guards for mercy? The man speaking then went onto say that it's a privacy that should be respected. What went on in the gas chambers should remain with those who passed away in them.

You may be wondering what this has to do with the Romanov murders, but it made me think that maybe, just like the man speaking on the Holocaust said, the fact that their deaths remain such a mystery helps to maintain a kind of privacy for the fallen victims. Even Nikulin wasn't too keen to savour the details of the killings and insisted they should remain and depart with those who were present. Everyone knows that the executioners' accounts are flawed and contradictory, and besides them, the only people who know what happened that night are now deceased. No matter how meticulous Romanov authors have researched the murder scene they will probably never get close to what really happened, simply because they weren't there. To us, reading about the murders makes it seem like it's just the ending to tragic book because we know that such a thing will never happen to us in our lifetime. but for the Romanovs, it was their reality. They wouldn't get the chance write books and accounts about the event, or even tell their loved ones and fans they're dead.

Sorry if this sounds a bit long winded, but what I'm trying to say is that perhaps the fact that we still do not know for certain what occurred in the Ipatiev House on 17th July and probably never will, could act as a mark of respect for the victims, and at last give them the privacy they were denied throughout their lifetimes.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: edubs31 on September 29, 2012, 07:51:56 PM
Your last sentence pretty well sums it up for me. I'd compare it to intellectual privacy. If there is nothing more to gain from knowing the circumstances and details off their awful fate than I'd just assume the topic be ignored. We don't need to know it anymore than we deserve to know the thoughts in a persons head.

I thank God only for the fact that the eleven victims were seemingly unaware of their fate until moments before the shots began ringing out. They were offered at least some peace of mind until the very end.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: TimM on September 30, 2012, 03:31:45 PM
Quote
I thank God only for the fact that the eleven victims were seemingly unaware of their fate until moments before the shots began ringing out. They were offered at least some peace of mind until the very

Yeah, none of them suspected what was really going on.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Lady Macduff on January 22, 2013, 03:29:34 PM
I've been researching the shooting a lot lately. I guess it's a comfort to know they had each other right to the end of their lives - Olga and Tatiana held on to each other, one of the girls screamed, "Mama!" etc. The flip side of that, which I hadn't really thought about, is they had to watch each other die, which was just as bad, if not worse, than dying themselves. Not so much an issue for Nicholas and Alexandra, but the poor children - imagine seeing the horrors that are happening to your parents and knowing they will shortly be happening to you.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Romafan96 on January 25, 2013, 03:24:32 PM
@Lady Macduff Yes, that's a horrible thing to happen to anyone. The Romanovs were close to one another in life and maybe them all dying together was the best thing for them, as the survivors would never be able to recover from losing their loved ones in such a horrific manner. The execution is difficult to forget due to the brutality of it. It's hard to imagine what they felt like during those last few moments. Believing they were going to go to a safe place, perhaps still reeling from being woken up at such an ungodly hour. Then Yurovsky comes in with his men and instead sentences them all the death. How their hearts must have dropped through the floor. Then the shots started ringing out and one by one they fall. The most daunting part of the story is the fact that Maria and Anastasia actually left the cellar alive. They must have known, during their brief revival, that the rest of their family was dead. Even though many of them died quickly, the emotional trauma the victims went through makes the story all the more tragic.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: edubs31 on January 25, 2013, 04:33:16 PM
It was easily one of the crimes of century, ushering in the Red Terror movement. It's also something of an unfortunate coincidence that the only two people in the room that it could even be argued deserved such a fate (and you won't hear that argument from me) are the one's (Nicholas & Alexandra) that got off comparatively easy.

I'd like to think that it was their destiny to die when they did and how they did, as though to teach humanity a lesson. Their reward is in the afterlife just as their killers, and those who gave the order, have also received their final judgement.

I can't imagine would what a dying Marie and Anastasia must have felt and it honestly sickens me to think about it. People often talk about shock taking over the body in times of severe drama and a feeling almost of being removed from oneself sets in. I do know Alexandra and Olga attempted to cross themselves which speaks to the idea that their thoughts were with the Lord. Obviously fear and pain and other human emotions take over in times of panic regardless of how devout one's soul. But another thing I think about sometimes is that once you die it doesn't really matter how you died. I mean this in both a physical/natural sense and also a spiritual sense...whichever you choose to believe in, or perhaps both.

Also, horrible as it was, I believe they were taken that night for a reason. And while death for some in that room was both physically and emotionally painful they had made the choice, seven family members for certain and probably their loyal retainers turned friends as well, that they'd rather die together than live alone. I'm thankful for the relative peace of mind they were granted literally moments before Yurovsky read the note and the shots began ringing out. It's my belief only but I see God's fingerprints all over the tragic events of this evening. Bless them and their sacrifice!
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Romafan96 on January 25, 2013, 06:22:18 PM
Edubs, I totally agree. I can see why people would argue that Nicholas and Alexandra deserved what happened to them, but I could never wish such a thing on even the lowest of humanity. Being gunned down right in front of your children is a death no parent would wish to endure. I'd say that Nicholas and Alexandra had the execution coming, but that doesn't mean to say that they deserved it.
I don't know if you believe in God, but I agree, God was definitely present in that execution room, just like he is there for people who go through hard trials. God just needed the family to be brave for Him during those final moments. They would soon find eternal rest with him.

The one thing that irritates me the most about these survivor stories and conspiracy theorists is that these tales are not allowing the family to rest. People believe they are doing history a favour by discrediting the DNA evidence, but when they are unable to come up feasible explanations to the survivors' whereabouts, the Romanovs become ghost figures in history. I'm still praying that the Russian Orthodox Church finally recognise those precious remains as authentic. Perhaps this will finally close the lid on any survivor stories and allow the family's uncertain ending to be put to rest. 
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Romafan96 on January 25, 2013, 06:24:53 PM
I'm really not lookng forward to reading the Fate Of The Romanovs. It's not because it's a bad book, as I've heard many great things about it, it's just the graphic content of the death scene. When I read the account of the murders in Helen Rappaport's 'Yekaterinburg' I had severe trouble sleeping for about a week. I had to move in with my parents at one point.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Sanochka on May 06, 2013, 04:30:40 AM
Hopefully, the victims were too much in shock for anything to register after the firing began.  We've had 95 to contemplate what it must have been like for the victims.  But on the night in question, events in the cellar room may have happened too fast for the minds of the victims to process. 

Personally, I've been subject to a few physically traumatic events.  I fell four floors when I was 16 and was hit by a Chevy Suburban doing 35 mph while crossing a street and thrown 30 feet when I was 38.  Mercifully, I recovered completely from both incidents.  But in each instance, there was only an initial flash of recognition that something terrible was happening to me before I blacked out and wasn't aware of anything - even pain. 

When I read gruesome details about the murder of the IF, I always hope that this was the case for each of them.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Kalafrana on May 06, 2013, 06:57:16 AM
This is a good point. When one reads people's accounts of road accidents and the like, they very often say that they don't remember much about it.

My own nearest miss was being run off with by a horse when I was 10. As is not unusual, he headed for the stable, which involved galoping full pelt for about 150 yards, then going up a ramp which was inclined to be slippery. He slipped on the ramp and came down (fortunately, because beyond the ramp was a busy road!). What I remember was being unable to stop him, wondering what was going to happen when we reached the road (that was worrying!), then the horse slipping, and me rolling on the ground alongside him. I don't remember hitting the ground, or any particular pain. I was very lucky, not least because I wasn't wearing a riding hat (nothing like as protective as the modern kind anyway). I got up, the horse got up, and everyone was more worried about him than me!

I hope it all happened for the Imperial Family and servants to register what was happening, at any rate the ones who were killed outright.

Ann
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: KaiserinIII on December 15, 2013, 04:49:35 PM
What suprises me is in all the accounts of the Romanov's death i have never heard of nicholas doing anything about Alix, what i mean is no "My Love!" or, "I love you!".
I just thought about it, and it made me sad.  :-/ :'(

Considering "what? what?" were Nicholas's last words, I think he was too much in shock to do anything. I'm sure if he had his wits about him he might have said that. Or he might have said "Spare my family!" or something along those lines. Most of the men were gunning for Nicholas as it was, so he was in no position to defend his family. We also have to keep in mind that Alix met a quick end with a bullet to the face, so it's not like he could have protected her as it was.   
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: rosieposie on December 19, 2013, 05:36:28 AM
I haven't read this thread in ages,  when something is going to happen be it a car accident, being attacked (hit into), rape  or murdered,  the victim/s there is a since of something drastic is going to happen.   

I have a feeling they might have suspected something,  any normal person would have questioned mentally why they were going to be getting their photo taken in a basement in the middle of the night, if they were going to be moved on at such quick notice.    It was understandable if they were told "We are going to be moving you on tonight as it is getting to dangerous,  the conflicts outside of town is to close and  it is best to put your safety first."   There would not have been much panic. 

However with being told they were going to have a photograph taken at that time of night, in a dim lit basement to "prove" they were still alive,  it would have raised suspicion.  Was it not easier to take photographs during the day time because the source of light is enough for a decent photograph.   I think no one wanted to voice their concerns about having their photograph taken at short notice,  they were surrounded by men with guns.    I think they knew,  something horrific was going to happen.

I read it was Olga or Tatiana who said "Forgive them for they do not know what they do."     

No one had the chance to say anything,  the initial shock would have prevented them from saying "Goodbye or I love you".    Who knows they might have said something to each other before they left the second floor.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Sarushka on December 19, 2013, 09:10:07 AM
The story about them being told a photo would be taken is most probably a myth that grew out of Radzinsky's speculations. I've not been able to uncover any references to the photography scenario prior to Radzinsky's proposal of it in The Last Tsar.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Lady Macduff on December 19, 2013, 09:44:49 AM
I agree with Sarah. The fact that Yurovksy used to be a photographer has led some scholars to the conclusion, "Well, all the ingredients are there so it MUST have happened." That kind of logic is dangerous; it's the same type of thinking that feeds speculation that the grand duchesses were raped.

One of the major flaws in The Romanovs: An Imperial Family is that while it remains the best, most accurate film we have about the family's captivity, it asserts that they were in fact told they were going to be photographed.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: edubs31 on December 19, 2013, 12:06:38 PM
It's hard know for certain, but I'm not so sure their suspicions would have been raised, at least not until the moment guards began filling into the room.

I think the fact alone that they had been in captivity for some sixteen months probably led them to falsely assume no mass execution was likely. I could see a conversation the night or two before their murders having gone something like this...

Olga: I'm afraid they're going to kill us all.
Tatiana: Don't be ridiculous!
Olga: Well why not?
Tatiana: We've been held prisoner for sixteen months. If someone wanted us dead don't you think they would have done so already? Why wait any longer? They could have ended us all while we were still in Tobolsk.
Olga: I don't know...But I'm sure we'll never see Tsarskoe Selo again.
Tatiana: Perhaps not. But we'll live abroad. We have family all over Europe. I just pray they don't send us to Germany or Papa to Moscow first.
Olga (sigh): Yes I suppose you're right.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Kassafrass on December 22, 2013, 02:07:46 AM
There is a rumor going around that there are photos of the family after their execution. One of them is circling Tumblr and you can view it here:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/d9cbea82538d2d4d0e59318e764292da/tumblr_muboqyQ3zU1s2r21zo1_1280.png

It seems unlikely to me, but I was wondering what other members thought
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Georgiy on December 22, 2013, 03:24:19 AM
Haven't seen that before. Looks like it is from a movie or something like that.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: rosieposie on December 22, 2013, 04:48:48 AM
Looks to be from a movie or doco re-enactment.    Don't forget some of these people got shot in the face/head.  Which would have shattered their faces.   Even the clothes look to "clean" for people that had been bayonetted etc.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: KarinK on December 22, 2013, 05:20:10 AM
That is a screencap from Last Days of the Last Tsar, a Russian documentary that has the most extensive dramatisations of the murder and burial that I've seen. It also includes a brief dramatisation of the Alapaevsk murders. Wikipedia has a photo of the bodies of Ella and Ioann that I think is legitimate since their remains were discovered but I haven't wanted to look at it closely. I doubt the Tsar's family was photographed: it all became more chaotic than the killers had originally planned and they had plenty of urgent problems to deal with, and the story seems to have developed as an urban myth rather than something that can be traced to an early twentieth-century source. Perhaps it ends up in movies like The Romanovs because it has a kind of dramatic appeal: one last photograph of the much-photographed family that's known for iconic images like Anastasia in court dress or the 1913 formal photos.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Kassafrass on December 22, 2013, 01:32:12 PM
Karin - I wouldn't look at those photos too closely if you're bothered by graphic and gruesome things. Ella wasn't recognizable in the photo and it wasn't a pretty sight...

I found it to be highly unlikely that a photo would be taken of the family after their death as it was all a big secret for a while. With the way they hid the bodies out there and tried to destroy two of them, you would think that they wouldn't want to have photographic evidence of it.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Romanov_Fan19 on May 03, 2016, 12:14:40 PM
sigh  I Hate even discussing this,  But I Had a thought ,  if they had been   taken  one at a time  like   "a  special  train  will  take you  , but only one at a time".    that way they wouldn't have had to watch their  loved ones suffer
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Lochlanach on May 06, 2016, 05:01:16 AM
sigh  I Hate even discussing this,  But I Had a thought ,  if they had been   taken  one at a time  like   "a  special  train  will  take you  , but only one at a time".    that way they wouldn't have had to watch their  loved ones suffer

Maybe , but I think that may have aroused deep suspicions in the prisoners  , resulting in a situation that Yurovsky may have had difficulty controlling. Remember the familys reaction to the boy Sednev leaving earlier in the day ; it shows they weren't afraid of confronting Yurovsky when they were feeling suspicious/upset/fearful .
I think Yurovsky thought he had got it exactly right  ;  night time - plausible excuse to wake them and keep them calm - basement - plenty of shooters - over in two minutes with minimum suffering for the victims . The bloody chaos that followed was exactly what he had hoped to avoid.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Kalafrana on May 06, 2016, 07:51:47 AM
Bear in mind that Yurovsky's intention was not to minimise suffering to the prisoners, but trouble to himself and his men.

Ann
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Lochlanach on May 06, 2016, 10:24:54 AM
Bear in mind that Yurovsky's intention was not to minimise suffering to the prisoners, but trouble to himself and his men.

Ann

Indeed, and the chosen method of execution spread the responsibility among all the shooters , instead of just one or two . However, Yurovsky still wanted the killings over as quickly as possible , ipso facto, minimising the suffering of the victims .
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: TimM on May 07, 2016, 02:36:07 PM
The word "execution" always bothers me.  Let's call it for what it was, a cold blooded murder.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: nena on May 08, 2016, 12:24:06 PM
The word "execution" always bothers me.  Let's call it for what it was, a cold blooded murder.
Tim,  that is correct! The Bolsheviks and Revolutionars call that act 'execution' while the other call it murder. Whether it was execution or murder, that terrible act happened. :/
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: DNAgenie on May 08, 2016, 11:40:51 PM
Quote
The word "execution" always bothers me.  Let's call it for what it was, a cold blooded murder.

Tim I think you are mistaking the meaning of the word execution. An execution is the carrying out of an act that has been planned and agreed upon at an earlier stage, often by someone other than the executioner.  It does not only apply to execution as capital punishment, it applies to the execution of any plan. Execution is the follow-up to an earlier decision, and it can be lawful or unlawful.

Execution as killing is usually cold-blooded. In that sense the action at Ekaterinberg can properly be described as an execution.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: NicolasG on May 09, 2016, 11:05:19 AM
Quote
The word "execution" always bothers me.  Let's call it for what it was, a cold blooded murder.

Tim I think you are mistaking the meaning of the word execution. An execution is the carrying out of an act that has been planned and agreed upon at an earlier stage, often by someone other than the executioner.  It does not only apply to execution as capital punishment, it applies to the execution of any plan. Execution is the follow-up to an earlier decision, and it can be lawful or unlawful.

Execution as killing is usually cold-blooded. In that sense the action at Ekaterinberg can properly be described as an execution.


According to that definition, the Holocaust, the Holodomor, any act of terrorism can be described as "executions" because they were "the carrying out of an act that has been planned and agreed upon at an earlier stage, often by someone other than the executioner".

English is not my mother tongue, but, as I understand it, when someones uses the word "execution" in the context of people being killed, he means that they were punished with the death penalty by someone who had the authority to do it.

What happened in Ipatiev house in Ekaterinburg was not an "execution". It was a horrible murder. No other word can be used.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Lochlanach on May 09, 2016, 02:32:51 PM
Quote
The word "execution" always bothers me.  Let's call it for what it was, a cold blooded murder.

Tim I think you are mistaking the meaning of the word execution. An execution is the carrying out of an act that has been planned and agreed upon at an earlier stage, often by someone other than the executioner.  It does not only apply to execution as capital punishment, it applies to the execution of any plan. Execution is the follow-up to an earlier decision, and it can be lawful or unlawful.

Execution as killing is usually cold-blooded. In that sense the action at Ekaterinberg can properly be described as an execution.


I more or less agree . The use of the word doesn't neccessarily imply that the killers were operating within some sort of legal framework , but the Ural Soviet were a law unto themselves and applied ad hoc law (at best) in this regard, and the killers followed the orders . Does that make them executioners or murderers  ?  It was a morally reprehensible act , regardless of the bureaucratic machinery behind it or the epithet given to the killers.

 I am not  sure if someone like Ermakov could be described as cold-blooded that night . Drunk and vengeful psychopath certainly ; and I would call him a murderer but he would likely take pride in it, so I'll stick to my description.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Sarushka on May 13, 2016, 09:32:01 PM
Another accepted definition is the killing of someone as a political act. I think anyone would be hard-pressed to argue that the death of the Romanovs was not a political act. Even the grand duchesses had political significance to both the Whites and the Reds, despite their lack of political power.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: NicolasG on May 14, 2016, 07:59:39 AM
Another accepted definition is the killing of someone as a political act. I think anyone would be hard-pressed to argue that the death of the Romanovs was not a political act. Even the grand duchesses had political significance to both the Whites and the Reds, despite their lack of political power.

OK.

"Abraham Lincoln was executed by John Wilkes Booth."

"The execution of John F. Kennedy took place during his visit to Dallas."

"Martin Luther King was executed on April 4, 1968."

Does it sound right?

I simply cannot understand why some people fail to see the obvious, that the Russian Imperial Family were murdered.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Ally Kumari on May 14, 2016, 09:27:26 AM
To me, naturally, it was murder. Yet I can accept the term "execution" too, even use it sometimes. The biggest difference from the murders above to me is especially the fact that those men were all pretty much "ambushed". What happened with the Romanovs had many features of "execution". They were prisoners. They were officially enemies of the people. According to what we know they were informed about their imminent death, albeit mere seconds before it. Their deathwas decided by one or more people in power - that means the decision was within their legal rights (as sick as that sounds). None of this plays any part with Lincoln, Kennedy or King.

The Romanovs were murdered. The Romanovs were executed. Both are correct.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: TimM on May 15, 2016, 05:20:43 AM
To me it will always be murder.  Their was no trial (not even a a rigged one), the Romanovs were not given the chance to speak in their own defense, they were not given legal counsel of any kind.

To be, what happened that day was no different than what Al Capone's thugs would do on St. Valentine's Day in 1929. 

Neither case had anything to do with justice.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: NicolasG on May 15, 2016, 10:42:31 AM
To me, naturally, it was murder. Yet I can accept the term "execution" too, even use it sometimes. The biggest difference from the murders above to me is especially the fact that those men were all pretty much "ambushed". What happened with the Romanovs had many features of "execution". They were prisoners. They were officially enemies of the people. According to what we know they were informed about their imminent death, albeit mere seconds before it. Their deathwas decided by one or more people in power - that means the decision was within their legal rights (as sick as that sounds). None of this plays any part with Lincoln, Kennedy or King.

The Romanovs were murdered. The Romanovs were executed. Both are correct.


1. The fact that they were first kidnapped instead of being "ambushed" does not add any legitimacy to the murder.


2. What does it mean that they were "officially enemies of the people"?

If there were "enemies of the people" in Russia in 1918, they were the band of revolutionaries that reached power after a coup in November 1917 and imposed terror, war, famine, misery and religious persecution on the Russian people. And where does "officially" come from? According to what law? According to what verdict?


3. "Their death was decided by one or more people in power - that means the decision was within their legal rights (as sick as that sounds)."

The Holodomor (the man-made famine which killed millions in Ukraine in 1932-33) was decided by one or more people in power in the Soviet Union.

The Holocaust was decided by one or more people in power in Germany.

The massacres in the "killing fields" were decided by one or more people in power in Cambodia.

The bombing of the Pan Am Flight 103 was decided by one or more people in power in Libya.

Gruesome beheadings in Irak and Syria are decided by one or more people in power in what they call "Islamic State"...

If a group of terrorists gain control of a building or a plane and start murdering hostages, they are not acting "within their legal rights". Sometimes terrorists gain control of a whole country. They did in 1917.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: TimM on May 17, 2016, 07:08:37 AM
Quote
If there were "enemies of the people" in Russia in 1918, they were the band of revolutionaries that reached power after a coup in November 1917 and imposed terror, war, famine, misery and religious persecution on the Russian people.

And nearly a century later, the shadow of Lenin and his thugs still hangs over Russia. 
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Lochlanach on May 20, 2016, 11:47:57 AM
To me, naturally, it was murder. Yet I can accept the term "execution" too, even use it sometimes. The biggest difference from the murders above to me is especially the fact that those men were all pretty much "ambushed". What happened with the Romanovs had many features of "execution". They were prisoners. They were officially enemies of the people. According to what we know they were informed about their imminent death, albeit mere seconds before it. Their deathwas decided by one or more people in power - that means the decision was within their legal rights (as sick as that sounds). None of this plays any part with Lincoln, Kennedy or King.

The Romanovs were murdered. The Romanovs were executed. Both are correct.

Re : your last sentence - that is correct for me also . In this particular context one ought to be able to flit between both words without incongruity or misunderstanding (one would hope) . We can split hairs ad nauseum .  It doesn't have to be either/or . It should only become objectionable if you were to argue  for 'execution' , not 'murder' (which has been thoroughly debated on the 'Murder or Execution ?' thread ) . But you aren't making that argument and neither am I.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Lochlanach on May 27, 2016, 10:50:38 AM
Quote
If there were "enemies of the people" in Russia in 1918, they were the band of revolutionaries that reached power after a coup in November 1917 and imposed terror, war, famine, misery and religious persecution on the Russian people.

And nearly a century later, the shadow of Lenin and his thugs still hangs over Russia. 

Don't ignore the horrors and iniquities of Tsarism just because what followed happened to be a lot worse. Absolute monarchy / dictatorship ;  both are as abhorrent now as they were then . Terror , war , misery and religious persecution were part of Nicholas II's reign too (see article below for instance) . Russians didn't revolt twice under his rule for a lark.

 I understand the fall and demise of the last ruling family fascinates many with its high drama and tragic ending (me too) but I cannot allow sentiment to cloud my judgement or political principles. As such , the gloss quickly wears off Nicky and Alix and the system they propped up for 23 years.

 And to be clear , I find killing as punishment for ANY crime to be totally unacceptable (unlike Nicholas) and I deplore his and his familys murder . My heart goes out to their children , less so to Nicholas and Alix , who bear some responsibility for Russia's fall into the abyss  , and whom I find to be deeply troubling , unsympathetic characters . Nevertheless , their end was unwarranted.

http://www.kingandwilson.com/AtlantisArticles/Inheritance.htm
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: GDSophie on May 28, 2016, 05:51:57 AM
To get back to the subject title and to clear it up for myself; I believe it went Nicholas, Alexandra, Trupp, Botkin, Anna (?), Olga/Tatiana, Tatiana/Olga, Alexei, Maria/Anastasia, Anastasia/Maria. (Too many sources say Olga or Tatiana died first out of the girls and Maria or Anastasia died last.)

Nicholas - Bullet wound(s) to the head/heart.

Alexandra - Bullet to the side of the head.

Anna - Bayoneted to death.

Olga - Gunshot wound to the head by either falling back or by Yurovsky when she tried to stand up. (I believe we all agree she definitely died from a bullet to the head).

Tatiana - Gunshot wound to the head by Yurovsky, bayoneted to death trying to protect Anastasia and Maria (some sources say that, don't they?) or rifle butt if you believe she was one of the girls who cried out when carried out.

Maria - Gunshot wound to the head (if you believe the body found in the 1991 burial is not Maria), or rifle butt if you believe she was one of the girls who cried out.

Anastasia - Gunshot wound to the head (if you believe the body found in the 1991 burial is not Anastasia), or rifle butt if you believe she was one of the girls who cried out.

Alexei - Gunshot wound to the head.

I do not remember hearing how Trupp and Botkin died but I do believe someone wrote somewhere Botkin survived the first round of the bullets but Trupp did not.

There was another servant with them but I cannot recall his name at this moment of time. If you think I've made some mistakes please tell me.

Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Превед on May 28, 2016, 06:49:20 AM
And to be clear , I find killing as punishment for ANY crime to be totally unacceptable

Agreed. Penal labour is one of the best legacies of Tsarism (less so the form practized in the Soviet Union), which we should apply to our modern societies instead of the death penalty or Scandinavian-style luxury short-term sentences.
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: NicolasG on May 29, 2016, 04:23:50 PM
Quote
If there were "enemies of the people" in Russia in 1918, they were the band of revolutionaries that reached power after a coup in November 1917 and imposed terror, war, famine, misery and religious persecution on the Russian people.

And nearly a century later, the shadow of Lenin and his thugs still hangs over Russia.  

Don't ignore the horrors and iniquities of Tsarism just because what followed happened to be a lot worse. Absolute monarchy / dictatorship ;  both are as abhorrent now as they were then . Terror , war , misery and religious persecution were part of Nicholas II's reign too (see article below for instance) . Russians didn't revolt twice under his rule for a lark.

 I understand the fall and demise of the last ruling family fascinates many with its high drama and tragic ending (me too) but I cannot allow sentiment to cloud my judgement or political principles. As such , the gloss quickly wears off Nicky and Alix and the system they propped up for 23 years.

 And to be clear , I find killing as punishment for ANY crime to be totally unacceptable (unlike Nicholas) and I deplore his and his familys murder . My heart goes out to their children , less so to Nicholas and Alix , who bear some responsibility for Russia's fall into the abyss  , and whom I find to be deeply troubling , unsympathetic characters . Nevertheless , their end was unwarranted.

http://www.kingandwilson.com/AtlantisArticles/Inheritance.htm

Is the article by King and Wilson considered "serious scholarship" in the US?

"The Union of the Russian People was founded in 1905 by Dr. Alexander Dubrovin, a St. Petersburg physician described by one contemporary as a "coarse, repulsive animal" and a "vile parasite"

"These ominous signs led Plehve to openly support provoking the Russo-Japanese War-"a small, victorious war to stem the tide of Revolution," as he famously put it." No, he didn't. It was his enemy Witte who atributed the quote to Plehve.

"And so, Nicholas appointed the experienced, "honest" Plehve, the same man who, within a year, planned and watched with delight as the pogrom in Kishinev erupted under his direction."

"All Jews," he (Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich) publicly declared at one gathering, "ought to be crucified." Source: a book of political propaganda published in 1905 (the very same year when Grand Duke Sergei was murdered) by an author who also wrote the prologue to a book called "Erinnerungen eines Nihilisten" (Reminiscences of a Nihilist) in 1906. Credibility: 0%.

The article cannot be taken seriously.

Let's use our heads. Why would the rulers of an autocratic system who wanted above all order and stability plan, endorse or promote bouts of anarchistic violence? I have already said it and I repeat it again. Nicholas II NEVER promoted or endorsed any pogrom. He even forbade the public performance of a play on Christ's Passion by Kostantin Romanov because he thought that it might provoke violence against the Jews.

The Jews suffered discrimation in the Russian Empire. True. We can call the Russian Empire "anti-semitic", but then, in order to be fair, we would also have to call the United States of America of late XIX century- early XX century "anti-Native American", "anti-Black", "anti-Mexican", "anti-Philipphine"..., the British Empire "anti-Irish", "anti-Indian", "anti-Catholic" (A Catholic cannot be King of England, even today), the French Republic "anti-Berber", "anti-African", "anti-Vietnamese"....

And the fate of the Jews was not so dark as Mr. Wilson wants us to believe. Trotsky's father, for example, was a rich farmer (in fact, one of the richest people many miles around) in the Kherson governorate, on farm land (some of the best in the Russian Empire) that the Tsar (Nicholas I or Alexander II, I don't remember it) had granted to Jewish settlers.

On the other hand, it's also true that Jews were over represented in the revolutionary movement. At the beginning of the XX century the terrorist branch of the Socialist Revolutionaries was headed by Yevno Azef, a Jew who organized the assesination of Plehve (Minister of Interior) and Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich (Nicholas II's uncle). The assesination of Prime Minister Stolypin was commited also by a Jew, Dmitry Bogrov. Plehve "claimed that fully 40 percent of the revolutionaries were Jews" (Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution), and this was not only the product of the prejudices or fantasy of an anti-semite. "As he (Lenin) remarked to his sister Anna, Jewish activists constituted about half the number of revolutionaries in the southern regions of the Russian Empire" (Robert Service, Lenin)

It was a Teufelskreis, a vicious circle: many Jews became attracted to revolutionary groups because of the discriminatory laws against them and the (very real) abundance of Jewish revolutionaries made much more difficult to abolish those laws, as it was feared that the army, the administration, the universities could become tainted by the revolution.  
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Lochlanach on May 30, 2016, 11:31:20 AM
The last Tsars personal views on Jews and their persecution  are on record , like them or not - as is the institutional and societal anti-semitism of Russia during his reign . You are all too fond of dismissing evidence that casts him in a negative light  , yet seize upon evidence that reflects well on him , and use those as gospel truth.

 But using a couple of well known interventions he made on behalf of Jews as  'gotcha' pieces of evidence , as well as downplaying the violence by suggesting that things weren't that bad - look at Trotsky's dad , he had a farm  - will never be enough to erase this odious aspect of his character and rule , and it's in poor taste to make such arguments . Cherry picking a few quotes you dislike ,or dismiss entirely, from a lengthy non-academic , yet source filled , article - won't do it either.
To ignore or minimize the unsavoury and calamitous aspects of his  reign (of which there are many)  , and maybe even absolve him of culpability (autocracy without responsibility) ...makes little sense to me , possibly because I support nothing he represented.

Yes I would class all of those empires and nations as having strong racist overtones at the time. And I detest imperialism in all its guises past and present.

'Why would an autocratic system that wanted stability.... endorse or promote anarchic acts of violence ?'  What did it matter to the Tsar  if the victims were Jews or other perceived ' enemies' of his rule? And why even allow the Black Hundreds , the Union, etc to exist at all in that case?
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: NicolasG on May 30, 2016, 01:25:58 PM
The last Tsars personal views on Jews and their persecution  are on record , like them or not - as is the institutional and societal anti-semitism of Russia during his reign . You are all too fond of dismissing evidence that casts him in a negative light  , yet seize upon evidence that reflects well on him , and use those as gospel truth.

 But using a couple of well known interventions he made on behalf of Jews as  'gotcha' pieces of evidence , as well as downplaying the violence by suggesting that things weren't that bad - look at Trotsky's dad , he had a farm  - will never be enough to erase this odious aspect of his character and rule , and it's in poor taste to make such arguments . Cherry picking a few quotes you dislike ,or dismiss entirely, from a lengthy non-academic , yet source filled , article - won't do it either.
To ignore or minimize the unsavoury and calamitous aspects of his  reign (of which there are many)  , and maybe even absolve him of culpability (autocracy without responsibility) ...makes little sense to me , possibly because I support nothing he represented.

Yes I would class all of those empires and nations as having strong racist overtones at the time. And I detest imperialism in all its guises past and present.

'Why would an autocratic system that wanted stability.... endorse or promote anarchic acts of violence ?'  What did it matter to the Tsar  if the victims were Jews or other perceived ' enemies' of his rule? And why even allow the Black Hundreds , the Union, etc to exist at all in that case?

It is funny that you accuse me of "cherry picking" when the article by King and Wilson you posted a link to is a complete exercise in cherry picking. If Nicholas II expresses his dislike of a man he has met and the man happens to be Jewish (although Nicholas II does not mention it or makes any reference to his ethnicity), that means that he hates Jews. If a man who wrote a prologue to a book written by a revolutionary claims in another book that Grand Duke Sergei said that all Jews should be crucified, we should believe him, even if Grand Duke Sergei was already dead when the book was published and could not complain.

The article by King is non-academic. That is not a problem: most of the books I read are non-academic. The problem is that the article is rubbish.

The wealth of Trotsky's father is not just some anedoctic remark. I don't think that saying that thousands of Jews were granted in exceptionally favourable conditions good farmland to settle is a "bad taste argument". Specially if we take into account that at that time millions of Russian were serfs or former serfs freed with a minimum allotment of land and you are trying to prove that the Tsarist regime hated Jews and wanted to exterminate them. I would say it is quite relevant to the topic.

Why did "Black Hundred" exist in the Russian Empire?

First of all, because the "Black Hundred" were not a political party, with a program, offices, membership, etc... That was the pejorative name applied by revolutionaries to a myriad of groups who supported the Tsarist regime and opposed them. If a mob stormed shops owned by Jews and beat or killed Jews, they were not acting following the orders of some "Black Hundred movement" with offices in Tverskaya.

And in the Russian Empire Social Democrats (Lenin's party) were allowed to exist. And Socialist Revolutionaries, who approved the use of terrorism. They had newspapers, they took part in elections after 1905. And Constitutional Democrats (Kadets), who had called for a total boycott of the tsarist regime after the first Duma was dissolved. And Guchkov, the leader of the Octobrist Party, a man who Nicholas II detested because he had published Empress Alexandra's letters to Rasputin (which he got through monk Iliodor, a former associate of Rasputin turned into blackmailer), was a member of the Tsarist Duma instead of a prisoner in a tsarist prison.

The fact is that the Tsarist regime was not the police-state, repressive, tyranic regime that many, including Lochlanach, depict. That came later, with the bolsheviks. In fact the Russian Empire was a quite weak state.

"The Bolsheviks attacked the Russian state not because it was oppresive, but because it was weak. The Russia of 1908 did nearly as much for its citizens as the states of western Europe did for theirs. Trial by jury, equality before the law, enlightened treatment of ethic minorities, religious tolerance, cheap credits for farmers, an efficient postal and railway service, a free press, flourishing universities with leading scientists, doctor and scholars, universal (if impoverished) primary education and primary medical care, the most powerful outburst of creativity in all the arts that Europe had known since the Italian Renaissance - all this outweighted for many observers the endemic alcoholism and syphilis, the idleness and bribery, the foul roads, the idle bureaucrats, the general poverty. Russia's ills seemed curable by economic progress."

Donald Rayfield, Stalin and his hangmen, Penguin Books, 2005, p. 33.

 
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Lochlanach on May 30, 2016, 02:25:56 PM
To get back to the subject title and to clear it up for myself; I believe it went Nicholas, Alexandra, Trupp, Botkin, Anna (?), Olga/Tatiana, Tatiana/Olga, Alexei, Maria/Anastasia, Anastasia/Maria. (Too many sources say Olga or Tatiana died first out of the girls and Maria or Anastasia died last.)

Nicholas - Bullet wound(s) to the head/heart.

Alexandra - Bullet to the side of the head.

Anna - Bayoneted to death.

Olga - Gunshot wound to the head by either falling back or by Yurovsky when she tried to stand up. (I believe we all agree she definitely died from a bullet to the head).

Tatiana - Gunshot wound to the head by Yurovsky, bayoneted to death trying to protect Anastasia and Maria (some sources say that, don't they?) or rifle butt if you believe she was one of the girls who cried out when carried out.

Maria - Gunshot wound to the head (if you believe the body found in the 1991 burial is not Maria), or rifle butt if you believe she was one of the girls who cried out.

Anastasia - Gunshot wound to the head (if you believe the body found in the 1991 burial is not Anastasia), or rifle butt if you believe she was one of the girls who cried out.

Alexei - Gunshot wound to the head.

I do not remember hearing how Trupp and Botkin died but I do believe someone wrote somewhere Botkin survived the first round of the bullets but Trupp did not.

There was another servant with them but I cannot recall his name at this moment of time. If you think I've made some mistakes please tell me.



Indeed , back to the thread. Everyone has their own theory as to who is who in the two grave sites and some may dispute the details of their deaths . My own interpretation is below, based on accounts of the murders and the skeletal remains  (if some don't like reading the details of the killings then don't continue to read the post - it is for GDSophie) ;

In order ;

Nicholas - shot in chest , died instantly , (NOT in head ), and bayonetted after death .
Alix - shot in head , probably died instantly , bayonetted after death.
Trupp and Kharitonov also died in this first volley of shots ; Botkin was shot but not fatally ; Maria apparently shot in the leg , as was Demidova.

2nd round of shots /general mayhem

Botkin - already seriously injured , shot dead
Alexei - finally shot in head at close range , after being shot and bayonetted  ;   his remains are fragmentary , and as far as I know, one cannot determine cause of death from them.
Olga - shot in head and probably died instantly.
Tatiana - shot in head and probably died instantly ; probably not bayonetted ; probably in the main grave .
Maria - already injured , bayonetted , NOT shot in head ; probably finally killed by rifle butts to the head en route to to the truck in the courtyard ; probably in the main grave.
Anastasia -  bayonetted , maybe shot in head (non fatally) , probably finally killed by rifle butts to the head en route to the truck  ; probably not in the main grave ; her remains are fragmentary , and as far as I know , one cannot determine the cause of death from them.
Demidova - bayonetted , and assumed by the killers to be the final one to die , until the two youngest girls  seemingly showed signs of life as they were moved to the truck .

All faces were destroyed by rifle butts at burial site and bodies doused in acid ; two bodies , Alexei and either Anastasia (I believe) or Maria - were partially burnt and buried separately.

The Fate of the Romanovs  by Greg King and Penny Wilson , has the most complete account of the murders .
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Lochlanach on May 30, 2016, 04:20:15 PM
The last Tsars personal views on Jews and their persecution  are on record , like them or not - as is the institutional and societal anti-semitism of Russia during his reign . You are all too fond of dismissing evidence that casts him in a negative light  , yet seize upon evidence that reflects well on him , and use those as gospel truth.

 But using a couple of well known interventions he made on behalf of Jews as  'gotcha' pieces of evidence , as well as downplaying the violence by suggesting that things weren't that bad - look at Trotsky's dad , he had a farm  - will never be enough to erase this odious aspect of his character and rule , and it's in poor taste to make such arguments . Cherry picking a few quotes you dislike ,or dismiss entirely, from a lengthy non-academic , yet source filled , article - won't do it either.
To ignore or minimize the unsavoury and calamitous aspects of his  reign (of which there are many)  , and maybe even absolve him of culpability (autocracy without responsibility) ...makes little sense to me , possibly because I support nothing he represented.

Yes I would class all of those empires and nations as having strong racist overtones at the time. And I detest imperialism in all its guises past and present.

'Why would an autocratic system that wanted stability.... endorse or promote anarchic acts of violence ?'  What did it matter to the Tsar  if the victims were Jews or other perceived ' enemies' of his rule? And why even allow the Black Hundreds , the Union, etc to exist at all in that case?

It is funny that you accuse me of "cherry picking" when the article by King and Wilson you posted a link to is a complete exercise in cherry picking. If Nicholas II expresses his dislike of a man he has met and the man happens to be Jewish (although Nicholas II does not mention it or makes any reference to his ethnicity), that means that he hates Jews. If a man who wrote a prologue to a book written by a revolutionary claims in another book that Grand Duke Sergei said that all Jews should be crucified, we should believe him, even if Grand Duke Sergei was already dead when the book was published and could not complain.

The article by King is non-academic. That is not a problem: most of the books I read are non-academic. The problem is that the article is rubbish.

The wealth of Trotsky's father is not just some anedoctic remark. I don't think that saying that thousands of Jews were granted in exceptionally favourable conditions good farmland to settle is a "bad taste argument". Specially if we take into account that at that time millions of Russian were serfs or former serfs freed with a minimum allotment of land and you are trying to prove that the Tsarist regime hated Jews and wanted to exterminate them. I would say it is quite relevant to the topic.

Why did "Black Hundred" exist in the Russian Empire?

First of all, because the "Black Hundred" were not a political party, with a program, offices, membership, etc... That was the pejorative name applied by revolutionaries to a myriad of groups who supported the Tsarist regime and opposed them. If a mob stormed shops owned by Jews and beat or killed Jews, they were not acting following the orders of some "Black Hundred movement" with offices in Tverskaya.

And in the Russian Empire Social Democrats (Lenin's party) were allowed to exist. And Socialist Revolutionaries, who approved the use of terrorism. They had newspapers, they took part in elections after 1905. And Constitutional Democrats (Kadets), who had called for a total boycott of the tsarist regime after the first Duma was dissolved. And Guchkov, the leader of the Octobrist Party, a man who Nicholas II detested because he had published Empress Alexandra's letters to Rasputin (which he got through monk Iliodor, a former associate of Rasputin turned into blackmailer), was a member of the Tsarist Duma instead of a prisoner in a tsarist prison.

The fact is that the Tsarist regime was not the police-state, repressive, tyranic regime that many, including Lochlanach, depict. That came later, with the bolsheviks. In fact the Russian Empire was a quite weak state.

"The Bolsheviks attacked the Russian state not because it was oppresive, but because it was weak. The Russia of 1908 did nearly as much for its citizens as the states of western Europe did for theirs. Trial by jury, equality before the law, enlightened treatment of ethic minorities, religious tolerance, cheap credits for farmers, an efficient postal and railway service, a free press, flourishing universities with leading scientists, doctor and scholars, universal (if impoverished) primary education and primary medical care, the most powerful outburst of creativity in all the arts that Europe had known since the Italian Renaissance - all this outweighted for many observers the endemic alcoholism and syphilis, the idleness and bribery, the foul roads, the idle bureaucrats, the general poverty. Russia's ills seemed curable by economic progress."

Donald Rayfield, Stalin and his hangmen, Penguin Books, 2005, p. 33.

 

The article itself is of little importance . It is one article and it is hostile to the tsars - hence your disgust , and attempts to savage Greg King and Penny Wilson , two well respected Romanov experts. However , numerous  primary sources , letters , documents , diary entries, etc , ARE important . Nicholas condemns himself in the sources. Sorry if you disagree.

No I did not say extermination was on the Tsars mind, nor am I trying to prove so. Anti-semitic thoughts certainly were .

I questioned why , if Nicholas cared about stability , he would allow these groups to exist , unless it pleased him for them to unleash violence on perceived opponents including Jews . Not being a political party isn't relevant to me. He supported and sympathized with their aims.  Does that make him  Stalin ? Of course not . He was nowhere near as astute or as ruthless. God would see things right in the end and he would answer only to god. Standard despotic amorality coupled with fatalism - a common affliction in tyrants throughout history , as is anti-semitism. Your wish to portray him and his empire as anodyne and essentially benevolent, and even somewhat democratic and progressive , when there is ample evidence to the contrary , baffles me , as does your tendency to compare Tsarism favourably to its repugnant successor - Bolshevism . It's an easy get out clause .  Your tolerance level for Tsarism is higher than mine. Your definition of 'police state' clearly differs from mine.

The 'bad taste'  is your failure to seriously confront and condemn the Tsars personal anti-semitism and to belittle the sufferings of Jews under his rule .
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: NicolasG on May 31, 2016, 08:23:04 AM

The article itself is of little importance . It is one article and it is hostile to the tsars - hence your disgust , and attempts to savage Greg King and Penny Wilson , two well respected Romanov experts. However , numerous  primary sources , letters , documents , diary entries, etc , ARE important . Nicholas condemns himself in the sources. Sorry if you disagree.

No I did not say extermination was on the Tsars mind, nor am I trying to prove so. Anti-semitic thoughts certainly were .

I questioned why , if Nicholas cared about stability , he would allow these groups to exist , unless it pleased him for them to unleash violence on perceived opponents including Jews . Not being a political party isn't relevant to me. He supported and sympathized with their aims.  Does that make him  Stalin ? Of course not . He was nowhere near as astute or as ruthless. God would see things right in the end and he would answer only to god. Standard despotic amorality coupled with fatalism - a common affliction in tyrants throughout history , as is anti-semitism. Your wish to portray him and his empire as anodyne and essentially benevolent, and even somewhat democratic and progressive , when there is ample evidence to the contrary , baffles me , as does your tendency to compare Tsarism favourably to its repugnant successor - Bolshevism . It's an easy get out clause .  Your tolerance level for Tsarism is higher than mine. Your definition of 'police state' clearly differs from mine.

The 'bad taste'  is your failure to seriously confront and condemn the Tsars personal anti-semitism and to belittle the sufferings of Jews under his rule .


Look, it is very difficult to have a discussion with someone that cannot follow a quite simple argument.

Ok, let's accept your argument: pogroms happened because Nicholas II allowed them to happen. Therefore Nicholas II also allowed his uncle Sergei to be blown to bits, his Minister of Interior Plehve and Prime Minister Stolypin to be murdered, the cruiser Potemkin to mutiny, peasants to plunder manors in the countryside, revolutionary propaganda to be smuggled into Russia, revolutionaries to scape from their place of exile, banks to be robbed and finally, the monarchy to be overthrown.

The Tsar's being an autocratic ruler does not mean that he was all-powerful and had a total control of everything that happened in the Russian Empire. He couldn't.

Let me say what I find not "bad taste", but simply disgusting: Someone joins a forum devoted to the memory of a family that were cruelly murdered, spouts insults ("despot", "amoral" and "tyrant" just in your last post), suggests that they to certain extent deserved their fate (at least, the parents) because they "harbored anti-Semitic thoughts" and shows more sympathy for the murderers ("Yurovsky wanted to minimize their suffering") than for the victims.

If you have a minimum of intellectual honesty, could you answer with YES or NO a simple question?

Did Emperor Nicholas II or Empress Alexandra plan, promote or endorse the beating, robbery, murder or rape of their Jewish subjects? That is, did they take part in organizing pogroms?
Title: Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC
Post by: Lochlanach on June 01, 2016, 07:19:01 AM

The article itself is of little importance . It is one article and it is hostile to the tsars - hence your disgust , and attempts to savage Greg King and Penny Wilson , two well respected Romanov experts. However , numerous  primary sources , letters , documents , diary entries, etc , ARE important . Nicholas condemns himself in the sources. Sorry if you disagree.

No I did not say extermination was on the Tsars mind, nor am I trying to prove so. Anti-semitic thoughts certainly were .

I questioned why , if Nicholas cared about stability , he would allow these groups to exist , unless it pleased him for them to unleash violence on perceived opponents including Jews . Not being a political party isn't relevant to me. He supported and sympathized with their aims.  Does that make him  Stalin ? Of course not . He was nowhere near as astute or as ruthless. God would see things right in the end and he would answer only to god. Standard despotic amorality coupled with fatalism - a common affliction in tyrants throughout history , as is anti-semitism. Your wish to portray him and his empire as anodyne and essentially benevolent, and even somewhat democratic and progressive , when there is ample evidence to the contrary , baffles me , as does your tendency to compare Tsarism favourably to its repugnant successor - Bolshevism . It's an easy get out clause .  Your tolerance level for Tsarism is higher than mine. Your definition of 'police state' clearly differs from mine.

The 'bad taste'  is your failure to seriously confront and condemn the Tsars personal anti-semitism and to belittle the sufferings of Jews under his rule .


Look, it is very difficult to have a discussion with someone that cannot follow a quite simple argument.

Ok, let's accept your argument: pogroms happened because Nicholas II allowed them to happen. Therefore Nicholas II also allowed his uncle Sergei to be blown to bits, his Minister of Interior Plehve and Prime Minister Stolypin to be murdered, the cruiser Potemkin to mutiny, peasants to plunder manors in the countryside, revolutionary propaganda to be smuggled into Russia, revolutionaries to scape from their place of exile, banks to be robbed and finally, the monarchy to be overthrown.

The Tsar's being an autocratic ruler does not mean that he was all-powerful and had a total control of everything that happened in the Russian Empire. He couldn't.

Let me say what I find not "bad taste", but simply disgusting: Someone joins a forum devoted to the memory of a family that were cruelly murdered, spouts insults ("despot", "amoral" and "tyrant" just in your last post), suggests that they to certain extent deserved their fate (at least, the parents) because they "harbored anti-Semitic thoughts" and shows more sympathy for the murderers ("Yurovsky wanted to minimize their suffering") than for the victims.

If you have a minimum of intellectual honesty, could you answer with YES or NO a simple question?

Did Emperor Nicholas II or Empress Alexandra plan, promote or endorse the beating, robbery, murder or rape of their Jewish subjects? That is, did they take part in organizing pogroms?

Obviously the tsar wasn't some all controlling , all knowing , vengeful maniac responsible for every act of violence in his empire . Only a deluded, rabid anti-monarchist would believe such nonsense.  That is not MY 'simple' argument and you know it . In this case  I am pointing to evidence of his personal anti-semitism (and many would agree there is ample evidence of it) and questioning his handling of , and relationships with , anti-semitism , pogroms , terror groups, etc, in his empire  . What did he have to do to show he was anti-semitic ?  Walk down the Nevsky Prospekt with a placard stating 'I am an anti-semite' ???

On to the other 'simple' question, and what you find 'simply disgusting'. Considering what we are discussing, I find this an inappropriate moment to accuse ME of all people of behaving in a 'disgusting' manner . You are righteously indignant when people attempt to rationalize George V's decision not to rescue the Tsar , and passionately rail against any criticism of the Tsar , his prejudices and his system  - how about a similar display of passionate indignation against the Tsars anti-semitic comments, among other things ?

You wish to venerate the memory of the tsar and his family and not subject them to scrutiny  ? Fine . You can do that in your own time,  and there are plenty of Russian Orthodox Church websites for that too, and indeed your posts sometimes remind me of the uncritical literature the ROC has produced on these matters. This a forum ,not a place of veneration,  hence you have to deal with people who disagree with you . You dislike my views ? Fine . I often dislike yours . They  appear to be biased, partial and agenda-driven . And sometimes you make fair points that I agree with . Yes, that was a compliment, which you scarcely deserve after posting such a provocative hatchet job.

 I will continue to provide my views  on the forum whenever I am moved to do so ( which in fact isn't very often) or until I am told I cannot do so anymore . I defy you or  anybody else to point to any posts or comments I have made that 'cross a line ' . I also ask you to understand that not everyone on the forum views the Romanovs as sympathetically as you do, or views Tsarism as a positive force . Many didn't when it existed , and many feel that way now . 'Questioning' is not 'disrespecting'. I have said many times Tsarism was preferable to Communism , but that I fundamentally dislike both .

To deal with specifics - cruelly murdered ? Yes. Spouting insults ? I contest they were not insults but fair criticisms. Deserving their fate to a certain extent ? Absolutely not . I have made that very clear , and I will do it again - I am absolutely AGAINST the  murder or execution of ANYBODY for ANY reason . Sympathy for the perpetrators ? Why would I sympathise with a psychopath like Ermakov , or support Yurovsky shooting a boy twice in the head out of 'revolutionary duty' ? I pointed out there is little evidence Yurovsky relished the killings and that the bloody chaos that followed the botched first volley of shots wasn't his intention , that is all . I sympathize with the victims not the perpetrators.