Actually, this board seems to function as an advertising and cheerleading venue for King and Wilson. That's okay I suppose, but it's important also to bear that in mind.
I've read the book, but there are some serious issues regarding sources and speculation, and that King and Wilson may have been too reliant particularly on questionable Soviet sources.
I have a question for Ms. Wilson -- Assuming, ma'am, that, as your book relates, poor Alexei was that brutally slain, the attempt to cremate him failed, and he was buried where he lay, how would the Bolsheviks have explained the whereabouts of whatever sister was later said to have been burnt with him?
Given the inability of search parties to locate the remains, then a third pathway, so to speak, has to be considered in the absence of any credible evidence.
Penny,
There are lots of ideas.
But they aren't worth anything until the DNA matter is properly resolved, which will settle a lot of questions.
The best way to settle the matter a least as it concerns the Imperial girls, would be independent retesting of a number of maternal line descendants of Queen Victoria; the more, the stronger the resolution. It is preferrable that they be closer related to her than further. A GG grandchild has a better chance of providing a clean model of QVs mtDNA than a GGGG grandchild, for a number of reasons.
One subject is insufficient by today's standards to establish identity in a case of this gravity. Gill and Ivanov only allegedly tested Prince Philip to establish identity of the girls, and the chain of custody, so on and so forth, has not been properly documented and established. end quote
Rodger: You are incorrect as to the Victorian mtDNA in several respects. Gill and Ivanov tested Prince Philip's mtDNA to confirm the identification of Alexandra and her three daughters. While the chain of custody of the Koptyaki remains is highly questionable, the chain of custody of PP's test is, I am told, properly documented and established. (I am accepting the word of scientists on these points, as I am not a scientist.)
Second, there have been numerous tests of mtDNA of maternal line Victorian descendants and I know of only one case where the results did not match that of all the others. Whatever you may think of Gill and Ivanov, I understand the work of scientists at Brown University in the US is highly regarded. These scientists were, I believe, the first to test and document the Victorian mtDNA. Their subject was Princess Katherine (Mrs. DeSilva) of Yugoslavia. As it happens, the Gill and Ivanov results for PP exactly matched hers, and their results exactly matched the purported remains of Alexandra and her daughters.
Third, the only non-matching mtDNA was that from a finger purported to be from Grand Duchess Elizabeth. The fact there was no match leads me to believe that the finger was not from GDE.
From what I understand, the evidence is pretty overwhelming that the mtDNA sequence from QV is accurate and has been replicated so many times that it may be used to exclude those who allege descent but whose profiles do not match.
Penny:
What I surmise is that the two missing ones perished of their wounds - and their bodies may be near the home of a friendly guard - or wherever the "White Officer" was staying.
Coming back to the lost remains Penny, all this subject seems a never ending story. The fact is that there are two missing bodies and as you have already told many testimonies are fully contradictory and sometimes are motivated to stop any possible especulation of surviving romanovs. And if those people involved lied once(testimonies differs openly), why not do it a second time...Since all the surrounding area has been searched looking for the remaings and nothing is found we must assume that they were lying(yurovsky and co.)and then everything is possible, isn´t it? I do not mean that A. Anderson was Anastasia or Alexey survived(this i consider impossible). But could not be that they were carried somewhere by some soldier trying to save them and they died due to the injuries sometime afterwards? Were it the case i suppose we´ll never find their bodies.
This could seem perhaps somehow absurd but in this subject you never know for sure: If the grave would have been in fact opened in 1928 to confirm the murder, could they have taken the remains of whom they belived to be Alexey or Anastasia? They could have used them as a proof against Romanovs pretenders if necessary...
What do you think???
Antonio.
As we presented in FOTR, the whole murder/disposal of the bodies operation was nightmarishly chaotic for Yurovsky. Given that they had to do most of the work under cover of night, in a forest, in situations which sometimes required bodies being unloaded from the truck and "tossed in the grass," or left in the back of the truck with a skeleton guard, SNIP
The single item of evidence that most makes me believe that the two kids DID go missing is that Kudrin -- and I think at least one other -- speaks of counting the bodies on several occasions. It seemed like a piece of overkill. They were protesting too much.
Penny - you say that two of the bodies went missing during the night...
the last all-accounted for 'body count' is Sukhorukov at the mine when they were removed by Sunegin and others, no?
He says they burned the heir and 'the youngest Anastasia'...
Bob
With regard to Grand Duchess Maria's getting "too friendly" with the guards, how much did the rest of he family turn away from her for this? .... Do you think there was a lot of anger towards her from Alexandra and Olga or merely distrust?
I was surprised to find that she didn't have any jewels on her after the execution.
If it is possible I wonder if either one of you could share with us your thoughts when writing this chapter. Again, I can't imagine your anquish at having to pen this information.
You can also ask Penny for their special edition of some material not included in the book.
Penny: How can I get your "specail edition" copy? What kind of un-published information is included?
Thanks!
Deshka
Greg,
This special issue sounds very interesting and I would love to purchase a copy! I know that Penny has said that not all of the "Atlantis" backissues are ready for purchase yet, however. Do you know if this one is available? Thanks!
Greg and Penny,
How many years of research did you spend in collaboration on "Fate of the Romanovs?" What would you say was the most difficult process in writing your work?
I know, I am far too eager and curious for a Hobbit ;)
Much obliged! :D
We both started on our own projects about the same time-round 1990; we joined together to do a single book in 2000, and spent the next 3 years working together.
The most difficult part was probably that the writing was all done, with a few exceptions, by each of us and exchanged in emails; living in different states, we would spend what time we could together, researching in Russia and Europe, and a few months together here to assemble materials and discuss them.
Greg King
Deshka
I found it interesting that you found so much information on the once "mysterious" Vassili Yakovlev plus a photograph. According to your footnotes, the person who was your main source was Yaklov Yurovsky.
Where was the photograph found?
AGRBear
Love, Power and Tragedy, though theirs bears official stamps and seals, and ours does not.
Penny
Love, Power and Tragedy is just a fabulous picture book on the last Romanovs. Probably my favorite in the picture book category.
Those Romanovs cost me a lot of money ;D
Yes, this is a book. Its complete title is The Romanovs: Love, Power, and Tragedy by A. N. Bokhanov et al. It was published by Leppi Publications. You can find it on Amazon.com or through the publisher's website (they are located in the UK) at http://www.leppi.com.
Picked it up for $48 from amazon used book section.
-----
Back to Myachin/Yakovlev. Was it in his memiors about his various deeds and alliases...? And, how do you or other researchers confirm that these papers are authenic and not something placed there by the communists just like they did for Halliburton whom you mention on p. 19 -20?
For those who don't have their book, King and Wilson talked about American journalist who was given the oportunity to talk to Ermakov. And I quote: >>"In fact, Soviet authorities had carefully managed the entire Ermakov "confession." His translator, the mysterious Walter, was later discovered to have been an agent of the GPU. successor to the Cheka. Many year later, Stoneman speculated the entire affiar had been designed to "feed" Halliburton, as an unsuspecting dupe, "with Moscow's prepackaged 'facts.'"<<
AGRBear
While you have to exercise ordinary caution, I think suggesting that anything that originates from Russian archives or from a Soviet source is suspect is simply imposing personal prejudice.
Greg King
....
I never knew that Maria was flirting with the guards in Ipatiev house-- when you say that she was "caught" with Skorokhodov-- what exactly was she doing? No other books give mention of this... very interesting, gosh!
....
Here is an easy question: does anyone have a picture of a truck that looks similar to the Fiat that was supposed to have carried the bodies? I always wondered what a 1918-era Fiat truck looked like.
As for the truck, I'm wondering if it really could carry eleven bodies .... Does anyone have a photo?
AGRBear
And, how do you or other researchers confirm that these papers are authenic and not something placed there by the communists just like they did for Halliburton whom you mention on p. 19 -20?
Then they say that hanging on the outside of the truck were the others (Soames, Lacher, Verhas). Telling us this was Kudrin / Michael Medvedev....Was he, also, on the truck?...then off the truck rolled toward the Four Brother's Mine.... at five to ten miles an hour... Two hours for ten miles....I really think it would have taken them at least more than three or four hours. If they started at three in the morning that would have made it about six or seven in the morning....they unloaded the bodies and placed them into "carts they brought"...Brought? On the truck? If not where did Yurovsky and Ermakov find them and how long had this taken, I wonder? p. 321-2 "It was nearly seven in the morning..." when the bodies, which had been placed in carts, stopped at the shafts known as the Four Brothers....Since I know King and Wilson took great pains to add up all the events and matched them with the time slots, I wonder, if they should have given these men more time just to get to this point in time. If they do, does that mean certain things could not have happen by the time Yurovsky returned to Ekaterinburg by noon? AGRBear
You can read Yurovsky's own specific account here:
www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/Yurovmurder.html
Similarly, there was the revelation of Alexei as a sometimes downright spoiled brat. For instance, an eyewitness who lived near Livadia described how the heir “liked to greet people who bowed to him with a bloody nose by hitting them in the face as they bowed,” and when he was not allowed to do that, he greeted them with “very bad language” instead. I had read this account before and it does not make the child seem very likeable, but I know that he eventually outgrew such behavior and was generally an agreeable and sensitive person. Although somewhat disappointed at Alexei’s bad behavior, I cannot fault him for it, because what else would you expect from a child who felt so exalted and indulged from his earliest years, and who was rarely punished or disciplined.
I myself chocked this anecdote up to the same sort of bad press the family got from Princess Catherine Radziwill and others who stood on the outside of the Imperial Family looking in. I cannot imagine an invalid child actually punching, biting or otherwise assaulting another person like this.
In the days before people were taken to court for defamation of character, slander, libel, misrepresentation and plagiarism, people could write anything and get away with it. Look at the coarser and more hostile things the Bolshevik executioners said about the Romanovs! Can they be trusted as entirely unbiased judges of character? (Now I do realize that that's a question like a double edged sword?)
Dear Ms. Wilson,
I thank you for a most civil and well-reasoned reply. Please forgive me for what was basically a knee-jerk reaction made in defense of that member of the Imperial Family I revere the most. Unlike the Tsesarevich I do not grow in the quality of self-restraint and patience as I grow older!
BTW - For anyone wishing to read something about how well Alexei could behave when he was older, I highly recommend the latest issue of 'Orthodox Life'.
I'll do better than that in your case at least. I wish there were a link!
My questions were just about information not being cited. I had been talking about that with a few of my Romanov friends who also thought there were no sources for a lot of the information. None of them wanted to ask why, so I decided to do it (I'm more vocal than them anyway). But I plan to wake up a little earlier tomorrow and go check out the book so I can see the sources myself. And getting up an hour early to check out a book can be seen as a very weird compliment. You have no idea how hard that is for me! ;)
Well Helen, it turns out much was cited in the first chapter, however what was cited was pretty much quotes we have already read before. It didn't appear to be anything new. I can't really sit here and type it all, because that would take way too long, but I will tell you it's between pages 45 and 51. I did realize something though. Much of what was stated about Alix and OTMA comes down to one's own opinion. For example I'll go back to the glorified maid statement. I can understand how a person may or may not view it that way. I guess I can see both points of view. If that is one's take on the relationship, that's fine. However, it is my opinion that that just wasn't the case, since I don't see any real comparison between the two Alexandra's and their daughters. Infact, I see the exact opposite. As stated before, unlike Queen Alexandra and Toria, Empress Alexandra never forced any of her children to be her servants. As Gillard said, it was the girls themselves who came up with the decision to help her when she was ill. Also Empress Alexandra said she would allow all of her daughters to marry, which was the exact opposite of what Queen Alexandra (and many other royal mothers) did. So no, I don't see the comparison between the two at all. But like you said Helen, the children do seem to come more to life in this book because they come across like many teenagers and young adults we know. The bad they experienced in their home life is like many families, and I do like the fact that was added in the book since it does make them more "real." However I won't tip toe around the fact that I am disappointed that none of the good was really mentioned, and we know from the girls' letters and diaries that there was also a lot of happiness concerning their relationship with their mother as well as with the rest of their family. I will probably finish reading the rest of the book today, because the last time I read it was about 8 months ago, and all I really remember was something about bears in a hallway and Marie trying to open the cellar door.
Yes, there was good and bad in the IF like any family. But like I said, I didn't like the fact that the good was never mentioned. We have so much evidence -- from letters, to diaries, to eye witness accounts -- of not only the good between Alix and OTMA, but the family as a whole. It just would have been nice if the good had been added in there as well. It would have been balanced then and not so one-sided, truly making them like all families.
I know there are even more unpublished letters and journals out there written by the IF that do speak of the good times they had together, and I just think it would have been interesting to read that as well.
I'm still curious to know where these unpublished documents are located!
I asked Greg a couple of times in an earlier post, but he hasn't responded.
Did you know that Yale University Library has a collection of the IF pictures and letters that were never published (from what I understand they weren't). I would love to take a ride up there and check them out, apparently they let you literally go through them with special permission! I tried contacting Yale by email about this a while ago, but never got a response, but I still haven't given up on this.
Do you mean the Beinecke albums, Helen? You can view them online here:
http://highway49.library.yale.edu/romanov/SearchExecXC.asp
i cannot find the link that takes you to the page that had the 5 albums and you could click on them and go through all the pages. does anyone know what i mean? I used to look through the albums and it looked different. i think maybe they changed their website?
I really want to go to Yale and look through them, if they allow you to! I live in Northeast PA and Yale is about a 2 hour drive.
I call for a field trip!!!
Here is the link for the albums: http://beinecke.library.yale.edu/dl_crosscollex/romanov_album.htm
Hey, I'm down South, but not too far from y'all! I would join this field trip as well! Is it just pictures there, or documents as well?
YAYYY LANIE FOUND IT!!! :D
Now I know what I am doing tonight instead of studying for my biochemistry exam.... hahha
If there are documents there, I WILL read them, even if I have to break down the door to reach them! I'm not sure an email will cut it, I think a phone call is better. I will be more than willing to phone them and find out everything.
I as talking about the full depositions of Gilliard, Bittner, Gibbes, and Kobylinsky he said he read. But yes, I want to read their unpublished letters and journals as well.
... there is a Sokolov Dossier in Michigan, at the Henry Ford Archives.
Perhaps another road trip? 8)
FOTR should not be the first book for anyone interested in reading about the last Romanovs. It is best for people who have read the works of Massie, Kurth, and perhaps a few others. And since FOTR is about a very specific situation--the final months of imprisonment--I would hope that it would be read only by people who already are familiar with the basic story and previous viewpoints.
Another point: I think we should also consider that we bring our own history to each one of these books. If we have been reading an entire collection books that take a particular tone, then read something which challenges that tone, we are going to be brought up short. Also, it’s tough to read what we don’t necessarily want to read. That these people were three dimensional and—like us all—possessed frailties that were occasionally unendearing . . . well, again, there’s another jolt to our sensibilities!
I come from a family of four. If each of us had written a book about our family life, and then each of our friends also had written books about us—and, moreover, if each of these books by friends covered slightly different periods in our lives—you can bet there would be a dichotomy of tone and reportage.
Alas, the duo of King and Wilson will certainly not be able to get a possitive consensus on the worth of FOTR or "Fate" as I will heretofor refer to it -so as to not confuse it with "The Fall of the Romanovs"- another (and in my opinion better) book on this same topic.
Basicly King/Wilson point out some home truths about the Imperial Family, that many here might not like, they were full of human imperfections - no real news there...For the handfull of academics, scholars and hard core "rivet counters" at this site - the information that was suggested as radical, new and recently discovered is in fact information that has been availible and in print for some time!
The only minor criticisms I have of Wilson and King's book have to do with certain (possible) embellishments I detected in the murder chapter (when you read the primary sources in the original Russian, it is not at all clear that the witness, speaking 45 years after the event, is not exaggerating this or that detail, or that based on such conflicting statements, you can really state with any certainty that so-and-so was the one who did such and such) and also, the authors' argument towards the end that the deaths of Alexei and Anastasia are not an established historical fact. I think most academic historians would disagree with them on this, on the basis of the evidence provided in "Fate of the Romanovs" alone!
Abby, while it's true that the remains of Anastasia and Alexei have never been found, this doesn't mean that their deaths in July 1918 cannot be considered an established historical fact. Bodies in murder cases are not always found - and yet perpetrators have been tried and convicted for those murders.
What I questioned about the description of the murders in FOTR was, for example, how King and Wilson could know for certain that it was Maria who ran for the storage room doors (in other statements, Maria was standing with Demidova apart from the other women, already next to those very same doors),
I have just bought this book in Russian.The cover is very stylish. Dark blue.
The Russian name is "Romanovs: The Fate of the Tsar's dynasty.
ISBN: 5-699-10642-1, Moscow:EKSMO, 2005
(http://www.top-kniga.ru/annots/54000079195.jpg)
Interesting that Russian translation has 976 pages while English original only 657
My first post here!Welcome aboard!
Anyway, I'm coming at this late and I've not yet completed the book. Perhaps my opinions will change and if they do I'll be sure to make note of it.
Regards
My deep frustration with this work lies beyond its numerous "typo's" and conpositional failures to its promise of "shocking new information"... Where oh where could that information be? I still haven't found anything here I didn't already know...
I am still uncertain why King and Wilson still keep the old "Anastasia survived" dream alive...Ah well back to the book. :(
rskkiya
The only "shoking" thing in this work is the murders of the Romanov's account. Extremely sensasionalistic if I must to said it.
The book is nothing than an excuse to said how a tyrant Nicholas II was, how Alix was addeply histerycal woman, how OTMAA were normal children and more than that, bad children, in any case, not lovely children, especially Alexei who was so naughty and bad that attacked other children to have their noses bleeding (I didn't like this hypothesis a bit), and how Bolsheviks were nice guys who wanted freedom for they beloved Russia and that killed NAOTMAA for pure idealism. Ideous...Awful.
People may be blinded for their political or social views and their forget the truth.
The truth...The only thing who must be almost holy for us, historians...
RealAnastasia. :'(
In the end, to follow truth and speak truth, is to offer the excellence of what freedom is ... It's the best we have to offer present and future generations.
Tatiana
Generally, I don't agree with you Rskkiya, but in this one I MUST DO IT.
I excpected a lot of this book, since Penny Wilson and Greg King said that there was so much new information an evidence in it. I can't find it in my country, and it is not translated into Spanish ...So an excellent person from this board, Felix, send "FOTR" to me to read...And I must said I was deceived. I couldn't find anything new or shocking in the book. The only "shoking" thing in this work is the murders of the Romanov's account. Extremely sensasionalistic if I must to said it. Disgusting...Too much for me. A great deal of "blood", "body fluids", "exploding brains", and "urine" for me. I don't need it really. I don't need to know how the lovely four girls finished their lives in a mass of blood, brains and urine. I don't need to know how Alexei remained frozen in his chair, spotted with his parent's blood. Not in a book.
But beyond this unnecessary details, there is nothing more. Nothing new about a "surviving Anastasia" (not Anna Anderson, nor any of the well known "Anastasias") or a "surviving Alexei". The book is nothing than an excuse to said how a tyrant Nicholas II was, how Alix was addeply histerycal woman, how OTMAA were normal children and more than that, bad children, in any case, not lovely children, especially Alexei who was so naughty and bad that attacked other children to have their noses bleeding (I didn't like this hypothesis a bit), and how Bolsheviks were nice guys who wanted freedom for they beloved Russia and that killed NAOTMAA for pure idealism. Ideous...Awful. What can I say?
I expected to find in this book more info about AA and other pretenders. There is NOT. Now, I know that Penny Wilson and Greg King doesn't think that AA was AN anymore because the DNA, but they doesn't accept that AA was FS. And I feel I need to go vomit. They doesn't affirm this for they really think that DNA is wrong or manipulate, but for they need to sell new books and it's more suitable for their bussiness that they said that AA was really a Red Agent or something like that. I'm an historian since I had 16 years old, but only in the last four years or so I felt that I'm near the nausea. People may be blinded for their political or social views and their forget the truth.
The truth...The only thing who must be almost holy for us, historians...
RealAnastasia. :'(
RA it really makes me feel sad to know that Felix sent that book to you as a gift, and paid the postage on it, only for you to knock it to death on this forum. That is sort of like looking a gift horse in the mouth.
..Arleen
Sadly the west is yet to present an accurate portrayal of the I. F.'s final days. :-/
... a matter of the use of questionable sources and unsavory interpretations?
Have you ever considered that many posters may prefer silence rather than publically expressing their real opinion about FOTR?
I would rather not express my full thoughts of FOTR in case Penny or Greg ever decide to come back.
Respectfully, it would be unreasonable to expect that if any published author is available on this forum, then posters must either remain silent or praise the author's interpretation, simply to maintain a sense of decorum.
Amazon book reviews hardly provide an accurate assessment when friends and associates offer their "valuable" opinion.
Surely in an open forum such as this one it is reasonable to proffer one's genuine concerns which in hindsight should provide valuable information to that author?
If we all "tow the same line" and state that any book assessed on this forum is scholary, because the author might be present, then we are creating our own myth right here. :-/
Surely in an open forum such as this one it is reasonable to proffer one's genuine concerns which in hindsight should provide valuable information to that author?
I wouldn't describe this as an "open forum." The smallest comments or criticisms can erupt into major disputes and rivalries here. Just look at the Survivors section! If not for this, I would rather not have to defend everything I say.
I agree that criticism can be valuable, but I'd rather not have my comments held against me in the future by the authors or anyone else. In short, I'll say I was disappointed with the book. I expected more from them and found nothing new or gripping to tempt me to finish it (which I didn't).
And to Ortino,really,as I've been reading elsewhere in this same thread:"put your money in your mouth"!Why would you,or anyone,hoover over a possible future reply by the authors?What nonsens.I have to credit this to PW,she stated,early in this thread,in regard to how popular this book was at that time(april 2004) and she was clairvoyant in her words:"as soon as another one(book) comes along by someone else,I'm sure we'll be last weeks news".
Certainly, it doesn't seem like the authors really understand Orthodoxy or Sainthood within the Orthodox Church from what I recall of the passages pertaining to that.
What I do not like about the portrayal of their character flaws is that it is unbalanced - it is like they want to show so much the worst sides of their characters that their positive aspects get altogether glossed over.
Now as for the rest, it is good in that it has in one volume all the bits and pieces scattered through a plethora of other books.
Thanks for saying that! I can get as sick of rehashes as the next guy, but there is value in having such a mass of research gathered together in one place.
Rskkiya - the Orthodox term for making someone a Saint is that they are glorified. The Roman Catholics use a different term.
I for one, appreciate that the Romanovs, like all people had their foibles, and their good and bad sides. That they are Passion-bearers does not make them any less Saints, or of some kind of lesser status as Saints. Saints are Saints. Often times, people have lead quite dreadful lives up to the end, but then redeemed themselves. I think the Orthodox Church has many Saints like that. I think our Saints shine through with their humanity and their reality and closeness to us. Some kind of Holier-than-Thou marble statue does not seem to me to be a Saint. (That is not to say that many, many Saints lead very Holy lives which are worthy of our emulation; rather that reading the Lives of the Saints, it is for me their humanity that shines through, and their eventual salvation and attainment of theKingdom of Heaven - and it is such that we are called to imitate.)
Rskkiya - the Orthodox term for making someone a Saint is that they are glorified. The Roman Catholics use a different term.
I for one, appreciate that the Romanovs, like all people had their foibles, and their good and bad sides. That they are Passion-bearers does not make them any less Saints, or of some kind of lesser status as Saints. Saints are Saints. Often times, people have lead quite dreadful lives up to the end, but then redeemed themselves. I think the Orthodox Church has many Saints like that. I think our Saints shine through with their humanity and their reality and closeness to us. Some kind of Holier-than-Thou marble statue does not seem to me to be a Saint. (That is not to say that many, many Saints lead very Holy lives which are worthy of our emulation; rather that reading the Lives of the Saints, it is for me their humanity that shines through, and their eventual salvation and attainment of theKingdom of Heaven - and it is such that we are called to imitate.)
Sorry for going off on a religious ramble here.
We both wrote it, so I can only post my own thoughts. When we first started, we had to of course determine how to do this-the vital center of the book. And in the first few drafts it was quite short. But I remember thinking of something that James Cameron said about making "Titanic"-that he wanted to show on film how horrible it must have been on that ship for everyone at the end, that it didn't just slip into the water with everyone linked arm and arm singing. And the same was true for the murder. The Imperial Family weren't just shot and quickly fell dead, and it wasn't all over in 10 seconds, as every film has depicted. So it became very important to me to try to portray accurately what happened, including the wounds and what happened. And it wasn't easy to do on any level. I know some people have said what you do-that they have to put the book down-and that's exactly what I wanted, because this is a brutal, horrendous murder, and people need to think about it. If you believe that the IF are martyrs, then this is their sacrifice; if they are simple victims, it is still a terrible massacre. And at no other point in the book did I try so consciously try to evoke sympathy for them. It was hard all around.
Greg King
I think perhaps they might be presenting the idea that they might not have actually been dead upon the removal of the bodies, but not actually survived to live on ?I think this is the most likely scenario. I got that impression from Penny in particular, in her response to an opinion poll I posted some time ago in the survivors forum. I believe it is possible for some of the victims to have left the cellar room alive -- albiet mortally wounded.
To use another comparison, I have a number of books about Anne Frank. They all have a respectul tone to one degree or another, but some offer quotes from her childhood friends admitting that, while Anne was bright, kind, and great fun, she also had less-than-exemplary traits because--brace yourself--she was a human being. As was Princess Diana, and as were the Imperial Family before they were declared saints.
I do not like how the authors treat Orthodoxy, but that is their perogative as authors and mine as a reader.
(2) In an obvious effort to depart from the 'norm' with Romanov literature, I do feel that the authors have swung too far in their criticism. Whilst undoubtedly we are often guilty of looking at the IF with rose tinted spectacles - the authors have taken the book to the other extreme and it is weighted far too heavily as a critique of Nicholas, Alexandra and numerous others - we all know they had many faults but there is much to be commended as well. The result is rather heavy handed and tries to hard to be controversial.
Y As for the supposed sexual assault. the authors did not state that it had happened, they said someone else did in an attempt to use as many references to events as they could find.
I also have my reasons to question their motive in the missing bodies debate.
After reading this, what are your own thoughts about FOTR? Do you still regard it as a credible source of information about the last days of the imperial family? Or are you now inclined to be more skeptical about some of the authors' claims?
IMO, it is because they wanted to "keep the door open" for Anna Anderson... but this is only my opinion. 8)
If she was Anastasia -- and I myself believe it likely that she was -- then Gleb and his sister Tatiana were her two truest friends.
After reading this, what are your own thoughts about FOTR? Do you still regard it as a credible source of information about the last days of the imperial family? Or are you now inclined to be more skeptical about some of the authors' claims?
FOTR states "The women, as Buxhoeveden recalled, had been ordered "to leave our cabin doors open all night. No one undressesd. Through the open doors, the soldiers leered at the grand duchesses.."
Sarushka,
Thank you for being so precise.
Though I stand behind my earlier statement that the bit about the guards leering through open doors at the GDs is clearly implied to be coming from Buxh. and/or Volkov, and certainly is NOT made clear to be the unsupported supposition of the author(s).
Greg King is our friend, yet it would be a dis service to not point out inaccuracies in the book.
IMO, it is because they wanted to "keep the door open" for Anna Anderson... but this is only my opinion. 8)
What are the odds of us getting a response from Greg or Penny regarding these concerns? Is this something you'd be comfortable approaching Greg about?
Greg is focused on his new book due to released shortly. His priorites are there and with family matters just now.... I will decline further comment on Penny.
Penny only contacts us to threaten us with lawsuits for libel if she doesn't like what people have to say in here about her, so I will decline further comment on Penny.
... It is a far cry better than any of the worshipful volumes that usually come out. And the research is exceptionally thorough.
....
It seems to me that there are some real personality issues here. Not the merits of the book itself.
It seems to me that there are some real personality issues here. Not the merits of the book itself.
It seems to me that there are some real personality issues here. Not the merits of the book itself.
And the research is exceptionally thorough.Again, it certainly seemed that way to me, too, until this came up.... :-/ I'm sure there is still plenty of valid information to be gleaned from FOTR. But how are we to be sure what information truly came from the sources cited, and what is the authors' unfounded opinion? That should be perfectly clear in any non-fiction work, and it's become evident that those lines are not as clear as they ought to be in FOTR.
In my opinion, FOTR went too far in trying to be shocking and get away from the usual portrayals of Nicholas and Alexandra, but in doing so they strayed from the facts. Hence we get the above misleading 'quote' basically implying that the GDs were raped, which there is no evidence to back up.
I now wonder just how much of FOTR is actually reliable. The quote Sarushka used shows how easy it is for authors to misappropriate information and put it in different contexts, and so mislead a lot of readers. Unless you stringently check the sources, which not a lot of people are going to do, you're not going to know which are Greg and Penny's words and which aren't. I don't like to think how many people's first contact with the Romanovs was FOTR, because instead of 'debunking' the myths, as it claimed it was going to do, it has just created more.
Rachel
xx
I have to agree. With so much doubt cast on the credibility of some of the book's details, it seems perhaps some things written are merely elaborated assumptions based on limited or incorrect information. A nonfiction book must be all fact and no guesswork or filler for excitement or it deserves to be relegated to the fiction shelf. I wonder how much of their 'new' information is accurate. or simply new ideas with no evidence.
Which version makes the more populist and thus more lucrative read?
I have to agree. With so much doubt cast on the credibility of some of the book's details, it seems perhaps some things written are merely elaborated assumptions based on limited or incorrect information. A nonfiction book must be all fact and no guesswork or filler for excitement or it deserves to be relegated to the fiction shelf. I wonder how much of their 'new' information is accurate. or simply new ideas with no evidence.
And frankly, if Wilson and King never return to the Alexander forums at this juncture, it wouldn't really surprise me. It's one thing to ask questions of authors regarding why they drew certain conclusions and quite another to sit in judgment... particularly given the fact that most of us have never produced anything more than a few posts on an internet forum. I think this thread should be mercifully put to rest. :P
The only legitimate way we will ever know why they made these assumptions in that chapter relating to the transfer of the remaining children on the Rus, is by having King and Wilson give an explanation. Otherwise, it's all speculation and assumption on our part.
I personally enjoyed reading it and learned a great deal from their thorough research.
Now, my suggested re-write as a "responsible"alternative:
"'The women, as Buxhoeveden recalled, had been ordered "to leave our cabin doors open all night. No one undressed." One might imagin that through the open doors, the soldiers could have leered at the grand duchesses, yet as Volkov later learned, Rodionov "left them in peace". Things might have reached a cresendo as the night wore on, but the first hand sources are silent on the subject. Gibbes was reported by his adopted son in 1989 as being locked away in his cabin, and listened helplessly, as he later told his son George, as the possibly drunken guards harassed the grand duchesses, "It was dreadful, what they did," the former tutor recalled decades later. The "terrifed screams" of the girls, Gibbes said, haunted him, "to the end of his life." Interestingly, the book written by George Gibbes, House of Special Purpose, makes no mention of this report. Also, Sokolov interviewed Gibbes just months afterward for his Investigation, yet Gibbes said nothing of the sort to him at that time.
"We could imagine that during the night, the Grand Duchesses were subjected to taunts, and perhaps lewd advances at the hands of the assigned guards, yet how this may have unfolded as the evening wore on is impossible to determine."
"no matter what took place, it is difficult not to believe that the experience of the trip may have had a profound traumatic effect on the young women, particularily grand Duchess Olga. We know she was exhibiting signs of trauma after her parents left Tobolsk. We also know that once she arrived in Ekaterinburg, Olga was withdrawn, silent, and did not mix with her sisters, perhaps indicating that she suffered from some additional significant trauma. However, we know that captivity in Ekaterinburg was far more difficult and severe for the Grand Duchesses than it had been in Toblosk, as they did not even have beds at first, and were forced to sleep on the floor, and the Ekaterinburg guards were often drunk and often quite cruel to them."
"The near veil of silence surrounding the events of that night, however, is either due to the fact that nothing of significance actually happened during the trip, although it is also not difficult to imagine that , given the exalted position of the Grand Duchesses; something untoward, if it happened, might not have been discussed to continue to present them as paragons of all moral virtue
"Those on board the ship who survived said nothing substantial to indicate what might have occurred. Thus we may never be able to know the actual key to the events of that night, if any: or pehaps confusion in later life of some past events might well account for Gibbes' "worst memory".
I for one, get really tired of the people on the AP who seem to make it their life work making fun of or condeming every author and every book written.
Whenever a new topic is started I just wait.....its only a matter of time that someone doesn't start their condeming and it seems to really catch on fast and everyone jumps on the bandwagon to distroy the subject, no matter what it may be. But authors and books seem to be the worst.
I know enough not to believe everything that I read in any book, because I don't believe there is an author on earth who is perfect in every way. But I hate to see them condemed and brought down.....
writing is the HARDEST occupation anyone can have, I know.
Look, I'm not out to condemn anyone. I'm not saying King & Wilson are bad people, or that FOTR is a bad book. I loved this book the first time I read it. There are a lot of interpretations I don't agree with, but that's ok. It doesn't bother me that King & Wilson think the Imperial family was more than a bit disfunctional.
It doesn't bother me if they want to believe that Anastasia and/or Aleksei could have survived.
All I'm trying to get across is that we've discovered a significant discrepancy in the purported facts. This has disappointed me significantly, and suddenly made me uneasy about trusting the rest of King & Wilson's research. Yes, it's just one instance in an enormous book. But as Elisabeth said, this one instance makes me wonder what we'd uncover if we had access to King & Wilson's other sources. I've been hoping an explanation would arise from this discussion, but it hasn't, and that furthers my discomfort.
I for one, get really tired of the people on the AP who seem to make it their life work making fun of or condeming every author and every book written.
Whenever a new topic is started I just wait.....its only a matter of time that someone doesn't start their condeming and it seems to really catch on fast and everyone jumps on the bandwagon to distroy the subject, no matter what it may be. But authors and books seem to be the worst.
I know enough not to believe everything that I read in any book, because I don't believe there is an author on earth who is perfect in every way. But I hate to see them condemed and brought down.....writing is the HARDEST occupation anyone can have, I know.
I think FOTR is on the whole marvelous!
..Arleen
Oh cripes --- does this mean you all think I've turned into a book-Nazi?
:(
Thanks, Arleen. I couldn't agree more. Perhaps these self-appointed experts would do well in writing their own version of Romanov history. Then we can sit back and tear it apart.. .chapter, verse and line.
Seriously, I've noticed this pattern to which you allude. First the book is mentioned and several commend it. Then a sole poster finds disagreement with such and such a passage and the first thing you know it's gang-bang time in the forum. I've grown to pretty much disregard the opinions here. Rather, I read the books and form my own opinions (which I consider to be just as valid as the next person's). ;) ;)
The issue here is that writers on the Romanovs are writing works of NON FICTION that purport to be TRUE FACT.
It's about making sure what we're reading is accurate and reliable, the claims of which in FOTR's case, have been discovered by some of the so called 'self appointed experts' on here, as you so kindly put it, to be more than a little suspect.
Therefore, when someone finds that a passage of a book being discussed ISN'T true, they point it out to the rest of us, and then more passages are usually found that follow the same trend.
Most of us could probably name a friend or even relative on the spot who is known for such things. Once they get that reputation, almost everything they tell then becomes suspect, and in doubt. People will say, "well, yeah, but it was TONY, and you know how he is...."
Hi,
I think we should be a little careful about the interpretations we make of the inaccuracies we have discovered in FOTR. I have never known Greg to intentionally 'stretch the truth.
Hi,
I think we should be a little careful about the interpretations we make of the inaccuracies we have discovered in FOTR. I have never known Greg to intentionally 'stretch the truth'. Quite the opposite. Greg sent a pre-publication copy of his new court book to Bob and me last year to proof read for accuracy for him, so that he would NOT make such mistakes. I found one error about Imperial Security and he wrote immediately to thank me and let me know it would be changed. So, please, lets not judge their motives and stick to our own facts.
We are not out to trash ANY author. Rather, the problem is this. This section of FOTR was being used and cited specifically in two different threads AS A SOURCE OF ACCURATE FACTS about the events on the Rus. As the discussion progressed it turned out upon investigation that this passage is NOT accurate and the authors' speculation was being stated as FACT.
THAT is the crux of the problem. ANY author writing what purports to be accurate historical non-fiction must keep what they know "for sure from the evidence" separate from their speculation and imagination based on that evidence. FOTR seems to have failed in that regard. We now have discovered direct evidence that speculation in the book is stated as absolute fact. Does that "trash" the authors, or the enormous amount of research and effort which went into the book. NOT AT ALL. Does that mean a caveat when reading the book is in order? ABSOLUTELY.
Greg is focused on his new book due to released shortly. His priorites are there and with family matters just now, so I won't bother him with this at this time. He does check in on the forum occassionally, and if he cares to respond, probably will.
We are not out to trash ANY author. Rather, the problem is this. This section of FOTR was being used and cited specifically in two different threads AS A SOURCE OF ACCURATE FACTS about the events on the Rus. As the discussion progressed it turned out upon investigation that this passage is NOT accurate and the authors' speculation was being stated as FACT.
THAT is the crux of the problem. ANY author writing what purports to be accurate historical non-fiction must keep what they know "for sure from the evidence" separate from their speculation and imagination based on that evidence. FOTR seems to have failed in that regard. We now have discovered direct evidence that speculation in the book is stated as absolute fact. Does that "trash" the authors, or the enormous amount of research and effort which went into the book. NOT AT ALL. Does that mean a caveat when reading the book is in order? ABSOLUTELY.
What I still await is a reasonable and documented rebuttal to the above analysis. So far, I have not seen anyone bring first hand evidence to bear to support the original text of FOTR in question.
An analysis of the text using the known evidence. (my additions in bold)
"'The women, as Buxhoeveden recalled, had been ordered "to leave our cabin doors open all night. No one undressed." [Through the open doors, the soldiers leered at the grand duchesses]this phrase added by the authors, there is NO factual evidence to support the statement, and it is asserted as FACT and not identified as speculation [refusing, as Volkov later learned, to "leave them in peace"]Completely false. Volkov stated the GDs WERE LEFT IN PEACE. The abuse reached a cresendo as the night wore on. exactly what abuse? again, abuse is stated as fact when there is no support in the evidence. "Almost certainly, the Grand Duchesses were subjected to taunts, and perhaps lewd advances at the hands of the drunken Latvian guards, how this progressed as the evening wore on is impossible to determine." Saliently, there is no cited evidence to support this supposition at all, much less "almost certainly'. To the contrary, Buxhoeveden writes specifically that only the assigned guards came near them, the others stayed on their assigned part of the boat, see "Left Behind" - "The rest of the soldiers did not come near us and spent the day on their part of the deck, singing and playing the accordion. Some had fine voices, and it carried us back to happier days,..."
"no matter what took place, it is difficult not to believe that the experience had a profound traumatic effect on the young women, particularily grand Duchess Olga. Once she arrived in Ekaterinburg, Olga was withdrawn, silent, and did not mix with her sisters, perhaps indicating that she suffered some significant trauma. " Buxhoeveden says Olga N. was showing these syptoms in April, weeks BEFORE the voyage on the Rus: cf. Life & Tragedy..."Olga Nicholaevna was in a state of great anxiety. She longed to join her parents, for whose fate she trembled, and, on the other hand, she feared the move for her brother, both on account of his health and also for fear of what the move might lead to" at Ch. 31; or perhaps for myriad of other reasons including imprisonment itself under increasingly difficult circumstances. - cf: Gilliard Ch. 22 "The conditions of the imprisonment were much more severe than at Tobolsk. Avdiev was an inveterate drunkard, who gave rein to his coarse instincts, and, with the assistance of his subordinates, showed great ingenuity in daily inflicting fresh humiliations upon those in his charge. There was no alternative but to accept the privations, submit to the vexations, yield to the exactions and caprices of these low, vulgar scoundrels."
"The near veil of silence surrounding the events of that night, however, is not difficult to understand, given the exalted position of the Grand Duchesses; ... to present them as paragons of all moral virtue or perhaps the "silence" is because NOTHING ACTUALLY HAPPENED so no one had anything to say. ie: the entire diary entry of Gilliard:
"Monday May 20th - At half-past eleven we left the house and went on board the Russ. She is the boat which brought us with the Czar and Czarina eight months ago. Baroness Buxhoeveden has been granted permission to rejoin us. We left Tobolsk at five o'clock. Commisar Rodionov has shut Alexei Nicholaievich in his cabin with Nagorny. We protested: the child is ill and the doctor ought to have access to him at any time.
"Wednesday May 22nd - We reached Tiumen this morning."
or here is the ENTIRE discussion on the subject in the Sokolov investigation's report made AFTER interrogating all surviving passengers of the Rus(pg 146)
"Here is how the journey of the imperial children went under the command of Rodionov:
"From Gilliard's deposition: "Rodionov behaved very badly. He closed off from outside the cabin in which were found Alexei with Nagorny. All of the other cabins, in particular those of the Grand Duchesses were not to be locked from inside, under his order."
"The morning of May 22, the imperial children arrived in Tiumen."
"Those on board the ship were unable (being locked up) or unwilling (through fear of reprisal ...) again, suppostion without evidence, yet stated as fact...This may be the key to the events of that night: shame and humiliation at not being able to come to the defense of the helpless Grand Duchesses might well account for Gibbes' "worst memory.
MY issue is the blatant disparaging of their work. The references to not believing this passage leads to not believing anything they say is one point I would bring out. Because some see that one trivial issue so suspect as to put their whole effort in disrespute is, in my opinion, uncalled for.
Perhaps I've come off as more intense than I intended.
I don't mean to suggest that this one issue negates the value of the entire work. I only think it demonstrates that it's wise to do a bit of investigation rather than to believe King & Wilson without question. I am concerned by the possibility that this isn't an isolated instance withn FOTR, but I'm certainly not ready to declare the entire volume worthless. If I gave that impression, I apologize. Much of the information in FOTR has been and will, I hope, continue to be valuable to me. But with respect, I don't see the incorrect reporting of a possible sexual assault as a 'trivial issue'.
It's perfectly within the scholarly tradition to correct the mistakes of other scholars. King and Wilson do this themselves over and over again in FOTR. Just to give one example, on p. 207 they list all the people, at least one of them a professional historian of some renown, who got the death date or other details about the death of Grand Duke Mikhail Aleksandrovich wrong: Nicholas Sokolov, Robert Massie, Maylunas and Mironenko, Bulygin, and Richard Pipes. This is just one example of many throughout FOTR (even in the footnotes) in which King and Wilson correct the work done by previous scholars. So they can hardly get upset if members here in the Alexander Palace Forum happen to come across mistakes in their own work and wish to correct them.
... How the research material was used, what was deemed relevant to incorporate or omit, including which interterpretations are to be drawn from the sources used - are criteria that are very relevant for public discussion.
No book should be immunized from public scrutiny.
... If any author is unable to accept that there are flaws in their method of interpretation, then that attitude is most unfortunate. Similarily, it would be a nonsense to maintain the belief that the book should stand on its own in silence.
constructive criticism or challenges should be welcomed and not lashed out at, IMO, because it gives the author an opportunity to correct his or her mistakes, in order not make the same ones again in the future, as well as to grow intellectually.
Elisabeth, you are absolutely right. I had often tried to make this same point many times when Penny Wilson would take any challege to her statements as a personal attack. I could never understand why this was the case, but it often was, and not just with me. In academic world, challenges are the norm, not the exception, this is done all the time to test the veracity of information published or presented, and should not be taken as a personal affront. But for some reason it often was seen as such by the authors of FOTR, Penny Wilson in particular. She even accused me once of "sabotaging her research" when I questioned something she said that was blatantly wrong. Perhaps people who don't come from academic environment tend to see these challenges and questions as a personal thing...
In any case, as you say, constructive criticism or challenges should be welcomed and not lashed out at, IMO, because it gives the author an opportunity to correct his or her mistakes, in order not make the same ones again in the future, as well as to grow intellectually.
Sensibility is always undermining sense, and the old question of "What is Truth?" is one that continually challenges mere mortals such as you and I.
....and want to see their families in a Romanov mirror image. Perhaps it is because they don't like to deal with anything that goes beyond broad statements of good and bad, black and white. I can understand the spiritual investment of those who are Russian Orothodox ...
Once those who had put their hands on a copy of the book began sharing certain passages with others via the Internet, the demolition derby began.
When I first read FOTR, I actually liked it a lot, particularly for the fact that it presented a different view of the events from what we always read. All anyone needs to do to see that this was the case, is to read my early comments about this book on this very thread. But at that time, 2+ years ago, I did not know enough about this subject to question or challenge what the authors presented in this book, it all sounded legitimate and well documented, even though I did not agree with some of the authors' views.
What bothers me now is that once some of the FOTR references were closer scrutinized (which was not done until recently), it became apparent that these references were "tweaked", seemingly to set up a certain scenario. This is why now I, as some others, am questioning the rest of the information in this book. To be honest, based on some past incidents as well as these recent developments, I am no longer able to unquestioningly accept what these authors present, as I used to as recently as two years ago, without confirming their references. To me, they have shown themselves to be unreliable...
Penny Wilson claimed to have not one, but two scientific ireferences for Greg's statement regarding "10 percent of all mtDNA tests being wrong". (These statements are now all over the internet)
To my question she replied that she could not share such information with me, as it would compromise their upcoming "pretenders" book. Now how exactly would this compromise the "pretenders" book as the two issues aren't mutually exclusive.
If a respectable scientist actually made such a statement regarding discovery of 10 percent of all mtDNA tests being wrong, wouldn't it be all over Universities, as well as scientific journals? Yet, no one I spoke to at Tulane and UCLA had ever heard of this idea before. Frankly, one person called it "tabloid science" which I agree with.
That's just it. Penny Wilson claimed to have not one, but two scientific ireferences for Greg's statement regarding "10 percent of all mtDNA tests being wrong". (These statements are now all over the internet)
To my question she replied that she could not share such information with me, as it would compromise their upcoming "pretenders" book. Now how exactly would this compromise the "pretenders" book as the two issues aren't mutually exclusive.
If a respectable scientist actually made such a statement regarding discovery of 10 percent of all mtDNA tests being wrong, wouldn't it be all over Universities, as well as scientific journals? Yet, no one I spoke to at Tulane and UCLA had ever heard of this idea before. Frankly, one person called it "tabloid science" which I agree with.
Don't you people ever just quit?
A
I think it is irresponsible because many people who don't know better take their words very seriously and accept these sorts of statements as credible, particularly because they are generally well written and sound convincing. IMO, this is an example of unethical misuse of information, which is unfair and wrong.
They see something in a book marked nonfiction and they assume it to be true. This is why every author has an obligation to make sure everything is true, even if the truth is not quite as exciting.
When Ms. Wilson posted of chimeras and questionable 'new' info on Franziska Schanskowka that didn't seem to make sense, and she was questioned on it, she became very defensive and aggressive. Quite honestly, her unprofessional behavior, her temper, and her failure to explain ideas she presented as true made me strongly doubt her credibility and devotion to accuracy. Because of my personal experiences in speaking to her on this forum, I have reason to see things this way when I see glitches in the way the truth is presented in FOTR.
Don't you people ever just quit?
A
I believe that we are at liberty to discuss our concerns about the contents of this publication or any other for that matter, on a discussion forum such as this one.
Same here. During my own research into FS's background, I personally forewarded Penny Wilson's posts on the "half sister" relationship issue between FS and Gertrude S to John Klier and Helen Mingay, husband and wife authors of "The Quest for Anastasia." after Helen A's intitial meeting with them.
Ms. Wilson claimed that she first heard of this issue through them, and that "they speculated " that GS and FS may have been "half sisters" due to "several items of interest" which they did not include in their book. Ms. Wilson even referred to the Kliers on a first name basis.
Well, Mr. Klier repeated to me what he had told Helen. (and yes, I did save the email he sent me in case there are any questions) He was amazed at the whole thing as he had no idea who Penny WIlson was, (his wife may have had a vague recollection of talking to Greg King) never heard of FOTR, and certainly, and this is the most important, never heard of this "half sister" issue before. He only had info that FS's father had two marriages, but no evidence as to what child went where.
I am only so surprised that some posters so firmly believe that "nothing of the sort" could have happened. Personally, I believe that ANYTHING could have happened.
Without proof either way, I withhold judgement but I keep in mind how inhumane man can to man (and to women).
Also, I miss leuchino. I believe with his banishment that the forum has lost, yet again.
[size=16]I read about Sophie B being a "traitor" in FOTR. Does anyone know King and Wilson's source/sources?[/size]
I would also be interested to hear the answer to this question (I don't own a copy of FOTR so I can't look it up). I believe that FOTR is the only book that ever claimed that Buxhoveden was a "traitor" to the IF [?] (I believe that they said that she stole money that was supposed to be for their rescue, etc. ?), but I can't remember what the sources for this were and how these conclusions were made. Does anyone know or can look it up?
I will go and get my FOTR and see what source they use for traitor claims.
Ok, they get the source from 'Markov' who I believe was the leader of the emigre monarchist movement in Berlin? Apparently Soloviev gave money to Sophie B who then claimed she gave the money to Volkov for the IF but it was never given to him. Soloviev, Markov, Maria Rasputin and a Staff Captain all testified that the money had been given to Sophie B but Volkov apparently never received it and then a week later the family were put on soldier's rations because the money for their upkeep had run out. The source for that info is Kobylinsky and it's on pg 69.
Later on, it appears that Sophie B told Rodionov about the family's jewels hidden in their clothes to secure her freedom at Ekaterinburg. The source for that is TsDOOSO. and it's on pgs 142 and 148.
Anna Anderson also said that Sophie B was a traitor, though she said it was because she had told of a rescue plan to the Bolsheviks. This isn't in FOTR as far as I can see and AA is hardly a reliable source, is she? :)
Hope that helps.
Rachel
xx
SO, "Soloviev, Markov, Maria Rasputin and a Staff Captain all testified that the money had been given to Sophie B but Volkov apparently never received it" well, now we can see that FOTR relies on this "testimony" as FACT, when there is actually substantial reason to question its accuracy. OF COURSE they said "oh we GAVE the money to Sophie B., but Volkov never got it..." when in fact they were covering up the fact that THEY THEMSELVES stole the money and Sophie never got it.
Poor Baroness B. takes the fall in FOTR, when in fact the real traitors were Soloviev, Markov and Maria Rasputina and Father Alexei, who were taking money from loyal monarchists to support and rescue the IF, and simply keeping the money for themselves.
Anyone who writes such a comprehensive work, and sensationlizes things is going to have errors in the book. It's best to write history, if that is what you are writing, not sensation if that is what you are not writing. And never believe anything in most books completely.
We have discussed this on other threads some time ago.
King and Wilson didn't invent the facts which surrounded Buxhoeveden:
1) She was one of the surviving members of the Romanov group
2) It was said that she didn't hand over a sum of money to Volkov meant for an escaped in Tobolsk but we, now, know that Soloviev was working with the Bolsheviks so this story is in great doubt
3) The CHEKA searched Buxhoeveden and Miss Annie Mather's small apartment and carried away "all kinds of murderous weapons" so they were under the watchful eye of the CHEKA...
4) The Ural Soviet commissar Rodionov later said that while they were on the boat Russ headed to Ekaterinburg that Buxoveden revealed to him about the jewels concelaed beneath the clothing of the IF women but we really don't know the truth of this; Rodinov also questioned Countess Hendrikova, Alexandrine Nikolaeva and Anna Romanova who would have known about the jewels, too, so who know who said what under the Bolshevik interogations... Just as we don't know what kind of humilations and threats they suffered in this Bolshvik's control.
5) Buxhoeveden refused to be interviewed by Sokolov and it was he who voiced, "It is obvious that her conscience in regards to that period is not entiredly clear." To me, this sounds like someone who did not like being turned away and was lashing out at the person who had rebuffed him.
6) Grand Duchess Xenia was very friendly and then seem to become angry at her....
p. 505 FATE OF THE ROMANOVS:
>>Surviving members of the Romanov family, however, were deeply suspicious of her behvaior in Siberia.<<
Perhpas these were the ones who believed in gossip rather than understand what happen in Tobolsk and Ekaterinburg. Perhaps they thought she had saved more jewels and wasn't giving them to them. Perhaps they thought she had worked with the Reds to save her own skin. Who knows.
I have not read her book but from what others have said on earlier on other threads, apparently Buxhoeveden did not write about what occured and for some the silence seems to tell them of her guilt. How rediculous. Here is a woman who stood by the family up to almost the end and probably would have died with the family if she hadn't been separated from them by the Bolshviks. That is more than all the other Romanovs who were gossiping about her had done. So, I give her credit for being loyal.
If she had revealed anything to the Bolsheviks, I hardly think she was in a position to deny them some kind of information. But, in fact, we don't know what she had told them. And, it was one of the tricks of the Bolsheviks to make other people think the others had already told which placed doubt among those they were questioning. It's called "divide and conquer".
All this can be found in bites and pieces in other books, as well.
Evidently AA picked up on the piece of gossip and fanned the fires.
AGRBear
Sometimes I wonder whether I should just put my copy of FOTR into the recycling bin. I don't know whether to trust any of it anymore.
Yes, I did meet with Dr Klier in person last summer in his office at the University of London. One of the things that came up in our long discussion was the question of Wilson's and King's research into Anna Anderson/Franciska Schanzkowska.
What Zackattack said here is correct, when I asked him about it, Dr Klier had absolutely no idea who Penny Wilson or Greg King were, never heard of their book, and definitely never heard of the "half sister theory" as far as the Schankowskas were concerned. I was surprised to hear this (even asked him several times to make sure I understood him correctly) because prior to this, Penny Wilson had insisted that it was the Kliers who were open to this theory and accepted it after their book was complete. In fact, Dr Klier stated that this was the first time he heard about this and that he thought this theory was completely ridiculous. He said that he would never take anything like this seriously, and would not even agree to talk to anyone who seriously considered it.
So what does this have to do with this FOTR discussion, you may ask? This incident is just another reason why I now question any and all information that originates from the authors of FOTR. To me, this is another example of information being "tweaked" to suit a certain purpose. This is yet another reason why I now feel that the work of FOTR authors is unreliable, and therefore I now take any information included in this book with a grain of salt, until I can personally confirm their references (if I am really interested in doing that).
P.S. I am glad to hear that Zackattack has saved John Klier's email about this as proof, because when I initially confronted Penny Wilson with this information, I was called "a liar" and some other choice words I would rather not repeat here. I was also told that Dr Klier was not very happy with me for telling such lies, implying that he said this to her directly (while evidently he still does not know who she is).
I have no problem in having our research and conclusions challenged-it is, after all, how we learn things. But, having given our evidence, I think if you want to responsibly challenge it you need to be more forthcoming. Without hard evidence to the contrary, I'm not inclined to dismiss what we learned based on an unknown assertion. So please share so we can assess which version is correct.
Greg King
Do Penny and Greg really say this? Did they find specific evidence to prove it or was it just conjecture.
It is a possibility but I find it hard to be sure. There are a number of people that knew about the jewels and valuables in Tobolsk. I have not found Isa's name mentioned - but perhaps Greg and Penny found something.
It seems unlikely to me that she knew anything specific, since she couldn't come and go into the house like others did. Also, there were only a few transfers it appears out of the house. Had she known and told the Bolsheviks or the Guards I am sure they would have STOPPED the transfers, arrested those who did them and searched the house. Again maybe something has turned up that I haven't seen.
I am not saying that Isa said nothing to the Bolsheviks - she may have to save her life. It's very odd that she was let go and that makes no sense to me,
Later I know Isa had problems with Gibbes about and a joint bank account in Siberia that they had which she withdrew money out of without Gibbes's permission. This put him in a terrible situation and he told her so. Copies of these letters were at Luton Hoo when I was there.
I don't think the whole story on the jewels has been told yet - there is much that doesn't make sense to me. The whole question of who knew about them within and outside the entourage is unclear. I don't know if the Provisional Government knew very much about the jewels they took with them. There were no inventories they had of the personal jewels and it wiould have taken a long time and the cooperation of people like Gheringer to reconstruct what Alix had with her. It seems to me the Provisional Government had too many problems of their own to deal with and may not have seen any jewel inquiries through. perhaps they didn't have an idea of how big her personal collection was. Very few people knew anything about it, even close friends and family.
What the Bolsheviks knew - well, it should be in an archive somewhere and I haven't seen anything yet that says they knew anything specific. They might have suspected something in Yekaterinburg, but if they had known about the double camasoles and such they would have immediately searched the bodies for these before taking them to the truck. Also, they would have throughly searched the rooms immediately after the murder and they didn't do this either (it appears).
So I think the Bolsheviks didn't know about them and it is unlikely Isa said anything that roused any great interest in jewels.
Bob
I believe it was Penny who posted about this many moons ago about this accusation. Or, maybe, it was Greg. Probably both. Anyway, they have proof that they spoke with Dr. Klier. Evidently, Dr. Klier just doesn't recall the conversation/ conversations.
You've said this several times and was confronted, now, that Penny nor Greg are posting, you've stated this, again.
This is what I call half truths being presented by telling us only one side which is Dr. Klier's side..
Dr. Klier doesn't remember. That's fine. I certainly don't recall everyone who has ever called me. That happens. The caller will remember calling me and has reason to remember calling me and when and why. Penny and Greg remember and have proof of their call/calls.
There is no reason to blow this out of proportion and make it into something it isn't.
As I've said before, history isn't a collection of perfect facts from a perfect world by perfect people.
It appears that this cnversation is occuring in more than one place these last few days.
Evidently AA picked up on the piece of gossip and fanned the fires.
AGRBear
...[in part]...
....So far none of us have seen this so-called "proof", and probably won't. I for one, have many more reasons to trust what John Klier says than what Penny Wilson says. In fact, I no longer have any reason to trust what PW says at all about anything, based on her track record.
So please, AGR, give it up and don't try to project your own modus operendi on me and twist things around, as you normally love to do with everything else.
You are the one who is making this conversation occur in more than one place, as you so much love to do all the time....
This is your opinion.
I've gotten to know Greg and Penny by reading their posts. I have never read a post or spoken to Kleir. I have read THE QUEST FOR ANASTASIA by Klier and Mingay. To me, it appears that all have accomplished writing what they have discovered about AA and the IF. I thank them all for their contrubutions.
Meanwhile I still don't know if Kleir forgot and I don't know if Greg and Penny do have phone records.
All I have to go by is what Penny and Greg have openingly stated on this forum.
Yes, I have shown it's being discussed in more than one place at the same time. These frequent cross discussions are not foreign to anyone who's been posting for a time. So, I'm not sure what your point is.
AGRBear
Grabbed my Sokolov Report, did some quick translation. There is a whole section where he investigated Soloviev thoroughly. Turns out, folks, that Soloviev was arrested in Vladivostok in December 1919 and charged with being a Bolshevik agent. Both he and his wife Matrona (not Maria) Rasputina were convicted based on the overwhelming evidence produced at trial. Here's what Soloviev did:
They used the Rasputin name/connection with Vyroubova and Lili Dehn, and with their unwitting help, set up a network of monarchists in Petrograd and Moscow, headed by Nicholas Evgeneivich Markov, who still had money to help the Imperial Family. They went around telling them the grand tale that they had 300 loyal Russian soldiers in the Ekaterinburg region. Tatiana Botkina later testified that this was "a crock", that there was not organization of any one at all under Soloviev in Ekaterinburg. Meanwhile, old Mr. S. set up residence in January 1918, exactly at the junction of the railway between Tiumen and Tobolsk. So, he sets himself up as the ONLY central contact point for all assistance and rescue efforts for the Imperial Family, and of course, all these people who are sent out from Petrograd/Moscow are forced by the railway to stop in Tiumen, and of course to see Mr. S. Mr. S selectively filters the people who are permitted to journey to Tobolsk and later Ekaterinburg. Those who he does permit to go are only given permission to go for one day ONLY. Anyone who does not give in to Soloviev's demands is conveniently denounced immediately by Mr. S. and delivered up to the local Bolsheviks for arrest. To Dehn's credit, once she went to Tiumen and met Soloviev in person, she returned "with little confidence in him. His having left her with the impression of a young man who was audacious to excess and demonstrably avaricious in questions of money." Soloviev is collecting all the money for the Imperial Family, and not a kopek is actually getting through. Anyone who comes out to investigate is told the "tale", and if they don't accept it, they too are conveniently denounced and handed over to the local Soviet for arrest.
Sokolov upon further background check found out that Soloviev had been involved with the Bolshevik movement from the very first days of the Revolution. Soloviev's own diary revealed that he only married Matrona Rasputin in order to take advantage of the name. Furthermore, Soloviev's diary revealed that fifteen days BEFORE the transfer of the Emperor from Tobolsk, Yakovlev told Soloviev of the exact date: April 12, 1918.
This, then, is the person who's statements are relied upon as "accurate".
Grabbed my Sokolov Report, did some quick translation. There is a whole section where he investigated Soloviev thoroughly. Turns out, folks, that Soloviev was arrested in Vladivostok in December 1919 and charged with being a Bolshevik agent. Both he and his wife Matrona (not Maria) Rasputina were convicted based on the overwhelming evidence produced at trial. Here's what Soloviev did:
They used the Rasputin name/connection with Vyroubova and Lili Dehn, and with their unwitting help, set up a network of monarchists in Petrograd and Moscow, headed by Nicholas Evgeneivich Markov, who still had money to help the Imperial Family. They went around telling them the grand tale that they had 300 loyal Russian soldiers in the Ekaterinburg region. Tatiana Botkina later testified that this was "a crock", that there was not organization of any one at all under Soloviev in Ekaterinburg. Meanwhile, old Mr. S. set up residence in January 1918, exactly at the junction of the railway between Tiumen and Tobolsk. So, he sets himself up as the ONLY central contact point for all assistance and rescue efforts for the Imperial Family, and of course, all these people who are sent out from Petrograd/Moscow are forced by the railway to stop in Tiumen, and of course to see Mr. S. Mr. S selectively filters the people who are permitted to journey to Tobolsk and later Ekaterinburg. Those who he does permit to go are only given permission to go for one day ONLY. Anyone who does not give in to Soloviev's demands is conveniently denounced immediately by Mr. S. and delivered up to the local Bolsheviks for arrest. To Dehn's credit, once she went to Tiumen and met Soloviev in person, she returned "with little confidence in him. His having left her with the impression of a young man who was audacious to excess and demonstrably avaricious in questions of money." Soloviev is collecting all the money for the Imperial Family, and not a kopek is actually getting through. Anyone who comes out to investigate is told the "tale", and if they don't accept it, they too are conveniently denounced and handed over to the local Soviet for arrest.
Sokolov upon further background check found out that Soloviev had been involved with the Bolshevik movement from the very first days of the Revolution. Soloviev's own diary revealed that he only married Matrona Rasputin in order to take advantage of the name. Furthermore, Soloviev's diary revealed that fifteen days BEFORE the transfer of the Emperor from Tobolsk, Yakovlev told Soloviev of the exact date: April 12, 1918.
This, then, is the person who's statements are relied upon as "accurate".
Wrong again. This isn't an opinion, and is not open to interpretation. Dr. Klier stated, quite plainly in his email to me, his views on the AA "half sister" subject among others. Phone records do not provide transcripts of conversations (but you already knew that.) unless the conversation was recorded, which apparently did not happen.
Bear, I'm quite convinced now that you write what you do in order to get a reaction out of people, and that this is your idea of fun.
It is really too bad that the IF were taken in by Soloviev simply beacuse of his connection (by marriage) to Rasputin.
I wonder about his wife. It would seem she was as corrupt as her father. Using poor defenseless prisoners for money.
But that would be Alix to a "T". She never could see past what Rasputin "did" for Alexis and would believe anyone with any connection to him.
That man (Rasputin) was still hurting the the IF from beyond the grave.
I hope, as Tania does, that these traitors did get their "just desserts" at some time.
Grabbed my Sokolov Report, did some quick translation. There is a whole section where he investigated Soloviev thoroughly. Turns out, folks, that Soloviev was arrested in Vladivostok in December 1919 and charged with being a Bolshevik agent. ....
... This, then, is the person who's statements are relied upon as "accurate".
Now your comments below are open to interpretation ;)
My'n are of course objective, most certainly.
All of us whom post here or anywhere, to anyone, write because we wish to receive reaction, or understanding, or just a one word respond, if not confirmation.
Precisely though, it is to gain reaction ! I'm sure every time you post, you await reaction as well, don't you? :D
How posts are received is always up to the reader, of course. But I would say when the subject matter is that of such serious matters as we discuss here, I doubt most posters stay just to whittle away their time, or offer endless prattle just 'in fun'. I don't think that these thoughts are Bear's thought's at all, to be fair...and that's all that's asked of posters, not attacks...zack
Tatiana+
It seems rather appropriate here to paraphrase the authors' own chapter title:"It Was Dreadful, What They Did."[/color]
... I'm currently scanning the relevant chapters of Halliburton's book, Seven League Boots, so we can examine the source of dubious incident regarding Maria & the guard so vividly chronicled in FOTR. ;)
I have no problem in having our research and conclusions challenged-it is, after all, how we learn things. But, having given our evidence, I think if you want to responsibly challenge it you need to be more forthcoming. Without hard evidence to the contrary, I'm not inclined to dismiss what we learned based on an unknown assertion. So please share so we can assess which version is correct.
Greg King
I will join the debate again soon. I'm currently scanning the relevant chapters of Halliburton's book, Seven League Boots, so we can examine the source of dubious incident regarding Maria & the guard so vividly chronicled in FOTR. ;)
It seems rather appropriate here to paraphrase the authors' own chapter title:"It Was Dreadful, What They Did."[/color]
I went to Russia last year to conduct research on Tsar Nicholas II and his family. I spent some time in the archives trying to find information on the "Maria and the guard incident," but I didn't find anything to support it.
I don't own a copy of FOTR and my library doesn't carry it (and I don't feel like purchasing it), so would you or someone else tell me (the answer may be in the appropriate thread, but I don't know if I can find it), what were the exact references for the Marie/guard tale, and were all of them from GARF primary archives, or did someone else ever mention it in some secondary source? And if the answer is GARF only, is there a way to trace down at GARF the exact reference that was given in the book, and is this what you tried to do, or did you just look sort of randomly? Does the fact that you couldn't find it there mean that it doesn't exist, or just that perhaps you didn't find it? There must be some system that they use to catalogue their archives, so that primary references can be followed up on. Thanks!
.. if someone can provide a GARF source for this, I can probably check up on it.
I went to Russia last year to conduct research on Tsar Nicholas II and his family. I spent some time in the archives trying to find information on the "Maria and the guard incident," but I didn't find anything to support it.
Where were you looking? GARF or somewhere else in Russia?
I believe that Raegan meant GARF.
One more discrepency about the Buxhoeveden story that doesn't ring true.
"The buttons on her coat aren't buttons,' she revealed, 'they are diamonds'; 'the aigrette of the hat conceals a diamond from the shah of Persia.' and; that belt there -- underneath it are ropes of pearls." is what she supposedly said.
HOWEVER, they never found "ropes of pearls" on the bodies, nor in the possessions of the IF at Ekaterinburg. Go see the lists on the main AP website.
This detail was easy to check out. FOTR said Buxhoevden told them about "ropes of pearls" when there weren't any. Also, we know that the major caches of loose diamonds was sewn into the chemise/camisoles UNDER the corsets. Why didn't Sophie B. mention them??
I don't own a copy of FOTR and my library doesn't carry it (and I don't feel like purchasing it), so would you or someone else tell me (the answer may be in the appropriate thread, but I don't know if I can find it), what were the exact references for the Marie/guard tale, and were all of them from GARF primary archives, or did someone else ever mention it in some secondary source?
5. re: Bykov. Here is what the Russian authors of "Last Act of a Tragedy" have to say."However, not all of his conclusions and assessments of events can be taken as credible, primarily because they were based on the class approach, universally prevalent in those years. " "His treatment of real facts is given in the light of ideas typical of the first post-revolutionary years. What seemed to flaw it even more was absolutization of the class approach and certain factual errors.
What really seems apparant Belochka is this. Two single lines in accounts are taken at face value. The authors do NO investigation into the veracity of the statements. One statement, Soloviev's, is made by a thief covering his "butt" and the other, Bykov's, is made by a Bolshevik/soviet propogandist. THEN, they layer on suppostion of events on the Rus, based on one second hand statement made seventy years after the fact, and assert these suppositions as fact, and take these unreliable statements to further suppose events,and then assert THESE suppositions as fact.
Excerpts and their references from FOTR concerning the incident between Maria Nikolaevna & Ivan Skorokhodov:
Indeed, it would have been prudent to investigate the circumstances that followed Baroness Buxhoeveden, after her alleged "treachery" was suggested to have occurred. To investigate her journey out of Russia with Mr Gibbes and examine her life as an émigré would have been only a fair and reasonable approach to pursue especially when such a public allegation against her is published. Perhaps an enquiry to examine whether she was shunned by the Russian community, or was she held in high esteem may have offered the real answers?
But to villify Baroness Sophia Buxhoeveden without cause is a travesty.
3. Yurovsky "knew" that they had the jewels?? in 1934 he said: "Only in the forest did I finally discover the reason why it had been so hard to kill the daughters and Alexandra Feodorovna.... (when the first valuables are found...)then I understood that evidentely there had been valuables in the things they brought with them." THEN he threatens looters with being shot. Is this the statement of someone who knew before the fact that they were hiding jewels?
I completely agree. Was she shunned by Xenia??
How can the author's assertion possibly be considered to be persuasive in that "there are solid reasons to believe that, in some form, it did take place." (p 245)
What exactly was "it"?
Gibbes and Buxhoeveden shared a bank account in Siberia (though to be fair, Gibbes said she took out more than her share of the money
IMO, "it" seems to be little more than a birthday cake.
In fact, Soviet authorities had carefully managed the entire Ermakov "confussion". His translator, the mysterious Walter, was later discovered to have been an agent of the GPU, successor to the Cheka. Many years later, Stoneman speculated that the entire affair had been designed to "feed" Halliburton, as an unspecting dupe, "with Moscow's pre-pacaged 'facts'".<<
Wonder what other "orchestrated" "confussions"/ testimonies the CHEKA, GPU and later the KGB managed to arrange to "dupe" the world?
Deposition of Tchemoderov to Sokolov:
"At the moment Their Majesties arrived (at the Ipatiev House) they were submitted to complete searches, minute and vulgar, under the direction of one Didkovski and the Commandant of the House, Adveyev. One of them grabbed the Empress' handbag from her hands, and this act attracted this remark directly from the Emperor "Up until now I have been dealing with honest men, well raised." Didkovsky responded "I ask you to not forget that you are under threat of legal prosecution and are under arrest." The daily regime of their detention was extremely hard and the attitude of the guards was revolting. ... The day passed usually thusly: in the morning the family gathered for tea, served with black bread left over from the night before. At 2pm, they took lunch which was always all prepared by the local Soviet, comprised of meat broth and a roast, or sometimes cutlets. As we had neither napkins nor table linens, and no one would give us any, we ate without any cloths. The plates and tableware were in general extremely poor. We all ate at the same table, under the Emperor's order. Often, for the six of us, we would only have five spoons. Dinner was the same as lunch. Walks in the yard were allowed only once a day, for only 15-20 minutes. During the walks the yard was surrounded by guards. Often, the Emperor would ask one of them some insignifcant question, with no connection to the established order of the house; every response was either total silence or a vulgarity...Day and night, three red-guards were stationed on the second floor, one at the entry door, one in the vestibule, the third next to the toilet. The behavior and appearance of thise men was indecent: they were vulgar, slovenly, cigarettes in their lips; their gestures and manners caused fear and disgust."
I think we ought to take a look at how FOTR presents the Romanovs' treatment at the hands of the guard in the Ipatiev house. There are many stories of mistreatment & humilitaion in circulation, which FOTR attempts to debunk.
Is it true that the Romanovs were treated decently, or is FOTR's portrayal of the Romanovs' last 78 days an example of reverse sensationalism, so-to-speak?
Here are some of the relevant subject and their page numbers in FOTR:
- the removal of Nagorny (157-9)
- treatment at meals, & lack of cutlery, etc. (160-1)
- guards' harrassment of the prisoners (161-4)
- Avdayev's supposed drunkenness & humiliation of his prisoners (164-7)
FOTR pg 64:
"During their Siberian exile Chemodurov became increasingly senile, and was finally removed from the Ipatiev House to a local hospital just three weeks after the Romanovs arrived in Ekaterinburg."
That statement would lead me to question Chemodurov's testimony. The reference for the information is Sokolov, Enquette, pg 33. Is it an accurate reporting of Sokolov?
What are you Alexander Palace members going to do when Bob's book comes out one of these days......tear every line apart like you do with everyone else's books?
Arleen
What are you Alexander Palace members going to do when Bob's book comes out one of these days......tear every line apart like you do with everyone else's books?
I'm holding Sokolov's "Enquette" in my hands. Pg 33 has nothing whatsoever to do with Tchemoderov or even the imprisonment.
Please note that the original says only this about Tchemoderov "Le vieux Tchemoderov fut emmene le 24 mai a la prison. Il etait malade."
"Il etait malade" can ONLY mean "he was sick" or "he was ill" The word for senile and senility are the same in French. I can find no reference in Sokolov anywhere that Tchemoderov was senile. There are two statments where Sokolov says that Tchemoderov's information and depositions are "very valuable".
Deposition of Anatole Yakimov: "I don't directly know how Avdeyev behaved himself with the detainees. But I did observe him my self. He was a drunk, vulgar and without culture; he had an evil soul. If one of the detainees ever addressed themselves to Mochkine in his absence, they were always told that they would have to wait for Avdeyev to return. When he did return, Mochkin would relay their request and every single time responded "They can all go to hell!" Every single time he left the rooms of the Imperial Family he went to Avdeyev with whatever request they had, but they were all refused. You could see that refusing their requests actually gave him pleasure, he spoke the refusals "gleefully". I remember one day, for example, they had asked permission to open the windows, and he told me he had refused. I don't know how he addressed the Tsar in his presence. But in the Commandant's office he called all the detainees "them" and he called Nicholas "Nilochka".
Fate of the Romanovs itself challenges many other books. Why is it so unreasonable for us to examine its sources and conclusions?
And which of "everyone else's books" are you referring to that we have "torn every line apart" from?
Deposition of Prince George E. Lvov to Sokolov:
"The guards began to steal, first gold or silver, then linens, shoes. The Tsar could not stand this and got angry. They responded to him vulgarly that he was a prisoner and no longer commanded anyone. Their Majesties were in general treated vulgarly. Sednev and Nagorny decided the regime was "frightening." Every day it got worse. They gave them, at first, 20 minutes to walk, then this time was decreased by five minutes. there were not permitted any physical exercise. The Tsarevich was sick...The attitude of the guards was particularly disgraceful with respect to the Grand Duchesses. They were not permitted to use the toilet unless with permission, nor without being accompanied by a red-guard. In the evenings they forced them to play the piano. ... " The peasant Anna Bielozervoa lived with one of the guards of the Imperial Family at the Ipatiev House and in her deposition, she also confirmed that the guards told her they forced the Grand Duchesses to play the piano for them.
Thank you for quoting this in context. FOTR is at pains to point out that in Yakimov's full testimony, all first-hand incidences of Avdeyev's disrespectful language was made behind closed doors in reference to the prisoners, but never to the Romanovs' faces. It appears that Avdayev put on a tough-guy act among the guard, but was fairly decent in his treatment of the prisoners themselves.
Excerpts and their references from FOTR concerning the incident between Maria Nikolaevna & Ivan Skorokhodov:
(quotations of the source notes appear in red)
- FOTR pg 244: "On this particular day [June 27] he [Skorokhodov] had smuggled a cake into the Ipatiev House, to celebrate Marie's birthday. Apparently, he pulled her aside, and the pair disappeared."73
FOTR pg 581: "Ermakov, in Halliburton, Seven League Boots, 128."
- FOTR pg 244: "In 1926, Alois Hochleitner, a former prisoner of war, recalled what he had been told while incarcerated in Ekaterinburg City Prison in July 1918. According to Hochleitner, two of the imperial daughters 'apparently often spoke to the guards and held lengthy conversations with them. Flirtations even developed. In the course of an inspection, a sentry was discovered in a situation with one of the Grand Duchesses, whereupon a drastic investigation was ordered and carried out.' "75
FOTR pg 581: "75. Letter of Alois Hochleitner, March 6, 1926, in Rathlef-Keilmann, 199-200."
- FOTR pg 244: "Hochleitner had this story secondhand, but others confirmed its basic details. In 1964 Isai Rodzinsky, the member of the Ekaterinburg Cheka who wrote the 'Officer' letters, remembered: 'The girls often made eyes at the guards at their posts. It once led to -- no, no -- I can't say this...No, but once it did lead to it."76
FOTR pg 581: "76. Rodzinsky, May 13, 1964, in RTsKhIDNI, f. 588, op.3, d.14."More info on the sources mentioned above:
- FOTR pg 245: "Further confirmation is found in the Yakov Yurovsky's unpublished memoirs. While he himself made no actual reference to the event in question, he recounted a conversation with Father Ioann Storozhev, who on July 14 came to the Ipatiev House to conduct a religious service for the prisoners. Apparently he had somehow learned of the alleged incident, for he commented: 'Before this all, we had never met such refined people. Of course, one changes one'sopinions, knowing what has happened. It is already a great scandal over the situation. But we at the Chruch are ready to forgive, and give pass to an Imperial soul.' "78
FOTR pg 581: "78. Yurovsky, unpublished memoirs, 1922, in APRF, f.3, op.58, d.280."
Rathlef-Keilmann -- Anastasia: The Survivor of Ekaterinburg New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1928.
RTsKhIDNI -- Russkia tsentr dokumentatsii Istorii, Moscow.
APRF -- Arkhiv Presidentsii Rossiya Federatsii, Moscow.
These are the passages that deal directly with the alleged incident. Other adjacent sections give information on the general relations between OTMA and the guards, on Ivan Skorokhodov himself, and speculation/interpretation on the incident by the authors (clearly labeled as such).
...[in part]...
The "cake" part is found in Hailburton's account, and on p. 245 King and Wilson added:
>>Further confirmation is found in Yakob Yurovsky's unpublished memoirs. Yurovsky heard some of the story from Father Ioann Storozhen.
I don't know if the editor of their book did or did not pull something out of that sentence or added that sentence "Apparently he pulled her aside, and the pair disappeared" which left the footnote 73 in the wrong place or what. These errors occur and are out of the control of the authors who will catch the error after the book is published.
You'd have to ask Greg or Penny about this before jumping up and down and shouting they mislead us.
Of course, telling us the error here is not wrong but let's look at this from all angles.
So, I am assuming #73 should have been placed before the sentence >>Apparently he pulled her aside, and the pair disappeared"
What about the the part about the >>Apparently he pulled her aside, and the pair disappeared"? Where did it come from? King and Wilson's explained as you continue to read King and Wilson THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS.
p. 245:
>>Aparently he<< Father Ioann Storozhev >> had somehow learned of the alleged incident, for he commented: "Before this all, we had never met such refined people. Of course, one changes one's opinion, knowing what has happened. It is already a great scandal over the situation. But we at the Church are read to gorgive, and give a pass to an Imperial soul." #78
#78:
1922 Yurovsky's unplublished memoirs.
....There is what I call "string" of information and you have to pull on all of that one string to make sure you are getting all the right information from all the right places.
In this case King and Wilson tell us te string invovled Halburton, Storozhev, Yurovsky, Rodznsky and Netrebin...
Of course all errors should be discovered. And, yes, life would be nice if everything could be perfect.
This is another reason I stress sources.
AGRBear
From what I understand, the footnote was misplaced and should have been before the sentence:
>>Apparently he pulled her aside, and the pair disappeared"<<
I don't have a copy of FOTR (or Speransky). Do they name the specific guards Speransky allegedly interviewed?
HOW could "Sister Agnes" have any useful information about anything going on inside?
..[in part]....
Suppositions woven out of whole cloth are laid out portraying Baroness Buxhoeveden as a traitor. This is NOT labelled theory, rather stated as fact. Sokolov himself says only that he thought her story important but that she avoided coming to him. NO ONE but NO ONE mentioned anything in their depositions at the time. Sokolov went into ad nauseum detail about Soloviev's involvement, but there is NO MENTION of Buxhoeveden's "treason"?. [see Sokolov's Investigation Report] .....
...
Source was p. 616,
>>7. Private information to authors, September 2000.<<
We dealt with this on the thread you're quoting from, Bear, as well as earlier in this thread. I'm not sure why you think it needs to reappear here (again). ???
...[in part]...
Excerpts and their references from FOTR concerning the incident between Maria Nikolaevna & Ivan Skorokhodov:
(quotations of the source notes appear in red)...
- FOTR pg 244: "On this particular day [June 27] he [Skorokhodov] had smuggled a cake into the Ipatiev House, to celebrate Marie's birthday. Apparently, he pulled her aside, and the pair disappeared."73
FOTR pg 581: "Ermakov, in Halliburton, Seven League Boots, 128."
And since then, I've talked to Penny.
If I remember correctly, I believe it should have read:
>> "On this particular day [June 27] he [Skorokhodov] had smuggled a cake into the Ipatiev House, to celebrate Marie's birthday. # 73 Apparently, he pulled her aside, and the pair disappeared."<<
I assume you mean Penny Wilson?
Is this what Penny said?
If so, why didn't you *say so* in the post I quoted? A comment from Penny on this subject is kind of important news, yes?
I just did, I thought.
From what I understand, the footnote was misplaced and should have been before the sentence:
>>Apparently he pulled her aside, and the pair disappeared"<<
And since then, I've talked to Penny.
If I remember correctly, I believe it should have read:
>> "On this particular day [June 27] he [Skorokhodov] had smuggled a cake into the Ipatiev House, to celebrate Marie's birthday. # 73 Apparently, he pulled her aside, and the pair disappeared."<<
Exactly. Which is why, it seems to me, we need to track down Valentin Speranski's book, La Maison à Destination Speciale. According to FOTR, Speranski visited Ekaterinburg in 1924. Whilst there, he apparently interviewed not only Sister Agnes of the Novotikhvensky Convent, but also several former guards of the Ipatiev House, [snip] In almost every case he's the independent source given by King and Wilson to corroborate their accounts of Avdeev's attitude and behavior towards the IF
Very few names are mentioned:
- Nikita Tchernikin (describing Voikov)
- Abbess Magdalena of Novotikhvinsky Convent (describing Advayev)
- Sister Agnes (describing Avdayev and Yurovsky)
- Anatoly Yakimov (describing Advayev)
- Glafira Stepanova (a friend of Yakimova, in regard to the prisoners' effect on the guards)
- Father Storozhov (regarding a conversation with Yurovsky after conducting the Romanovs' last liturgy)
It appears that Sister Agnes knew Advayev, and was interviewed regarding his character, rather than the goings-on in the Ipatiev House itself.
So, the only people in Speransky's book who discuss Avdeyev never actually SAW his personal interactions with the Imperial Family. Sister Agnes and Yakimov. Sister Agnes, we know was never even inside the house and Yakimov himself said "I don't directly know how Avdeyev behaved himself with the detainees. But I did observe him my self." So, how can Speransky's book shed any genuine light on what REALLY happened in the personal interactions between Avdeyev and the IF?
You're right -- Speransky can't tell us anything about the *inside* of the Ipatiev House. His information seems to be only on the character of Avdayev and Yurovsky, forcing us to infer what we will about their conduct with their prisoners.
Thank you for quoting this in context. FOTR is at pains to point out that in Yakimov's full testimony, all first-hand incidences of Avdeyev's disrespectful language were made behind closed doors in reference to the prisoners, but never to the Romanovs' faces. It appears that Avdayev put on a tough-guy act among the guard, but was fairly decent in his treatment of the prisoners themselves.
Does FOTR make it clear that these are again simply suppositions and speculations based on evidence by those who were never actually physically present?
Arleen, please. There are blatant mistakes within the book. I think out of respect for the IF and their memory these mistakes should be addressed and corrected where possible. It's only fair. Do you think it's fair that Marias' reputation has been tarnished??
Except that it is not just Grand Duchess' eternal memory that was blackened in this publication, but the entire Imperial Family.
So, how can Speransky's book shed any genuine light on what REALLY happened in the personal interactions between Avdeyev and the IF?
This is the story as it appears in FOTR, p. 251, footnoted to Speranski, 135-9:
Word of this resolution [to kill the Romanovs] somehow got back to Avdayev, who stormed into the Hotel Amerika and, according to Sister Agnes from the Novotikhvensky Convent, "raised an outcry, created a scandal, stomped his foot, when he learned about plans to murder them." For several hours the commandant "courageously defended the interests of the poor prisoners to his superiors," but to no avail.
....[in part]...
Bear, please let go of your honeypot. The flow is not adding to this discussion.
...
After getting persnickety with Bear, I ought to clairify the above post of my own:
- There is no evidence of Avdayev using disrespectful language directly to the Romanovs.
- Yakimov *did* hear Avdayev being disrespectful behind closed doors
- Yakimov did not hear Avdayev speaking rudely to the Romanovs because he did not ever witness Avdayev speaking to the Romanovs in *any* way -- respectful or otherwise.
Medvedev/"Kudrin" specifically recalls the details of this meeting of the Ural Regional Soviet at the Hotel America. He details most of the people there. Avdeyev is not named. As a member of the Ekaterinburg Cheka, he certainly would have known Avdeyev.
"Having discussed all the circumstances, we decided to strike two blows that night (small snip) and to liquidate the royal family of Romanovs.
Yakov Yurovsky proposes having mercy on the boy.
'What a boy? The heir? I am against it" I retort.
'No, Mikhail, we must take away the kitchen boy Lyonya Sednev. Why must he be killed? He only played with Alexei'
'And what about the other servants?..."
'From the very beginning,we proposed they leave the Romanovs. Some of them went away and the others said they wished to share the monarch's fate. Let them share it...'
It was resolved to share the life of Lyonya Sednev only. [they then discuss who will participate in the murders]
The session ended. "
I find it very odd that Kudrin goes into huge detail about everything in the meeting, but somehow omits Avdeyev's "making a scene, stomping his foot and going on for hours pleading to save their lives".
Further, he states that the meeting started in the evening, and was ended well before midnight. The timing seems awfully short for Avdeyev "going on for hours"...more especially so since there is no corroborative evidence that he was EVEN THERE.
Medvedev/"Kudrin" specifically recalls the details of this meeting of the Ural Regional Soviet at the Hotel America. He details most of the people there. Avdeyev is not named. As a member of the Ekaterinburg Cheka, he certainly would have known Avdeyev.
"Having discussed all the circumstances, we decided to strike two blows that night (small snip) and to liquidate the royal family of Romanovs.
Yakov Yurovsky proposes having mercy on the boy.
'What a boy? The heir? I am against it" I retort.
'No, Mikhail, we must take away the kitchen boy Lyonya Sednev. Why must he be killed? He only played with Alexei'
'And what about the other servants?..."
'From the very beginning,we proposed they leave the Romanovs. Some of them went away and the others said they wished to share the monarch's fate. Let them share it...'
It was resolved to share the life of Lyonya Sednev only. [they then discuss who will participate in the murders]
The session ended. "
I find it very odd that Kudrin goes into huge detail about everything in the meeting, but somehow omits Avdeyev's "making a scene, stomping his foot and going on for hours pleading to save their lives".
Further, he states that the meeting started in the evening, and was ended well before midnight. The timing seems awfully short for Avdeyev "going on for hours"...more especially so since there is no corroborative evidence that he was EVEN THERE.
Well, I for one would like to know if it's true that, as Sister Agnes told Speranski, Avdeev pleaded for the IF's lives to the Ural Regional Soviet. This is the story as it appears in FOTR, p. 251, footnoted to Speranski, 135-9:
Word of this resolution [to kill the Romanovs] somehow got back to Avdayev, who stormed into the Hotel Amerika and, according to Sister Agnes from the Novotikhvensky Convent, "raised an outcry, created a scandal, stomped his foot, when he learned about plans to murder them." For several hours the commandant "courageously defended the interests of the poor prisoners to his superiors," but to no avail.
If Sister Agnes was telling the truth, then this sheds a great deal of light on Avdeev's feelings towards his prisoners. To my mind, it would certainly constitute important new information.
...[in part]
Medvedev/"Kudrin" specifically recalls the details of this meeting of the Ural Regional Soviet at the Hotel America. He details most of the people there. Avdeyev is not named. As a member of the Ekaterinburg Cheka, he certainly would have known Avdeyev.
...
To be fair to King and Wilson, they aren't claiming that Avdeev was present at the meeting when the resolution was passed. It's clear in FOTR that he was not even invited to this meeting: "somehow word of the resolution got back to Avdeev," and it was only at that unspecified point in time (the next day, the day after that?) that he went over to the Hotel Amerika and protested.
To be fair to King and Wilson, they aren't claiming that Avdeev was present at the meeting when the resolution was passed. It's clear in FOTR that he was not even invited to this meeting: "somehow word of the resolution got back to Avdeev," and it was only at that unspecified point in time (the next day, the day after that?) that he went over to the Hotel Amerika and protested.
Elisabeth, this suggestion makes no sense either. You see, the Imperial Family et al were murdered just after 3am that same night, only hours after this meeting ended.
We're referring to different meetings. I'm talking about the one held on Saturday, June 16/29, 1918, at which the Presidium of the Ural Regional Soviet and the Ekaterinburg Cheka passed a resolution to "liquidate" the Romanovs "no later than July 15." It was also decided to kill the Alapaievsk prisoners. Goloshchekin left for Moscow the following day, June 30, with a copy of the resolution, in order to get Lenin's formal approval of it.
]It is very apparent that the authors have attempted to offer a different fate to the Romanov Family than that which we have accepted it to be.
@ p 528 they state:
1. "The inadequacies of Alexander III and Marie Fedorovna ..."
2. ".... have been washed away in lovingly painted portraits of a happy family."
3. "The marked immaturity and bad behavior of the tsesarevich fall away when compared to his horrible pain and suffering."
4. "The sad and thwarted lives of the four grand duchesses ... disappear in the haze of the revolver smoke."
5. "The resonance of the ultimate fate ... has stripped them of their humanity, shrouded them in mystical mantles, and washed from their faces that now adorn icons any trace of reality."
6. "Perversely, in death, the once despised emperor and his family have become all things to all people, embodying romance, sentiment, nostalgia, national pride, religion, and myth. This is the true fate of the Romanovs."
Perhaps their answer may be found in their words on the previous page (@ 527):
"Nicholas the inept ruler, the weak-willed husband, the brutal authoritarian dictator who ruthlessly crushed the 1905 Revolution, the virulent anto-semite, the passive observer of his empire's martydom - all of these historic truths have been subsumed by the romantic nostalgia ... "
AND
"The Ekaterinburg massacre transformed Nicholas II and his family into powerful symbols, evoked to this day by elements ... the remnants of the Russian Communist Party to rabid monarchists and the Orthodox faithful in an eighty-five-year-old propaganda war[/u]."
AND
"As a result, rumor replaced fact, legend becomes enshrined as truth, and those involved in the final drama of the Romanovs are subsumed in a polarized mythology carefully crafted according to varied agends."
I find it interesting, Belochka, that the quotes you have here presented as arguments to support your cause wind up, in fact, subverting it. ....
... the very excerpts you provide do nothing but bolster the authors' position. You can argue the remainder of the book (the uncomfortable information provided, the verascity of the sources, etc.) all you want, but these that you have chosen are undeniable.
6. "Perversely, in death, the once despised emperor and his family have become all things to all people, embodying romance, sentiment, nostalgia, national pride, religion, and myth. This is the true fate of the Romanovs."
What may one ask is the authors' "thing"?
Elisabeth,
Do you have a source for this meeting of 16/29 June 1918 and a source which tells us that Goloshchekin went to Moscow to get "Lenin's formal approval"?
AGRBear
It may be suggested that it is the authors themselves who were involved with their creative stream of literary characterizations that defined the "final drama of the Romanovs" with their "carefully crafted" agenda, not based entirely on "historic truth".
We do know, Bear, that Goloshchyokin went to see Sverdlov in Moscow asking permission to murder the IF. Sverdlov refused the permission saying that Lenin wanted to specifically make a show trial in Moscow. I have this in "Last Act of a Tragedy" in Medvedev/Kudrin's statement. That is when the second meeting took place in which the Ural Regional Soviet decided to kill them anyway. There is still no corroborative evidence that Avdeyev opposed the first meeting in any other statements I can find.
I think their "agenda," such as it is, is merely to cause a sensation by making as many claims contrary to the established views of the IF and their fate as possible. Time and again the authors go out of their way to "correct" the historical interpretations of previous scholars (many of them, unlike themselves, professionals). ...IMO, because they wanted first and foremost to be original and sensational, even if it meant bending the truth a little. It’s the same with reporters who have a "scoop" and can’t hold back from publishing it, even though the evidence they’re relying on is obviously faulty. They may know very well the evidence is faulty; or they may simply convince themselves that it is not, such is their overriding excitement with what they have "discovered" – but whatever their reasoning, they’re indulging in bad reporting, or, as in this case, in bad scholarship.
So, it is Kudrin who tells us that Goloshchyokin told him that Sverdlov refused permission to murder the IF.
Did Goloshchyokin or anyone else involved tell us this in any kind of testimony or telegram or _____?
AGRBear
Kudrin says that G. announced this to the entire meeting, and actually said that it was Lenin who refused permission, through Sverdlov. There seems to be no telegram or deposition existing that anyone has yet found confirming the discussion. The only thing we know for sure is that G. WENT to Moscow, and met with Sverdlov. Of course, why would Kudrin bother to make up the detail about G. reporting Sverdlov's discussion and Lenin's exact words about wanting a public show trial of Nicholas?
Belochka, I don’t think that King and Wilson have a set political agenda in FOTR. ... Indeed, many readers might conclude from their generally negative view of the Romanovs and their generally sympathetic portrayal of the Bolsheviks (especially the soldiers guarding the family in the Ipatiev House) that the authors have unwittingly revealed their own political orientation. But I think this is an error.
I think their "agenda," such as it is, is merely to cause a sensation by making as many claims contrary to the established views of the IF and their fate as possible.
If King and Wilson were really anti-Romanov and pro-Bolshevik, they wouldn’t have accused the Red Guards who accompanied the children from Tobolsk to Ekaterinburg of sexually harassing the grand duchesses on board the Rus, a claim which has been utterly disproven by the FA and others here in this forum.
So why did they make this outrageous claim in the first place? IMO, because they wanted first and foremost to be original and sensational, even if it meant bending the truth a little.
... – but whatever their reasoning, they’re indulging in bad reporting, or, as in this case, in bad scholarship.
AGRBear:
I have no problem discussing this. Akimov's original statement is much less direct, and not at all the "hard evidence" that Radzinsky makes it out to be. Akimov simply states that in "the summer of 1918" he carried the cable to the office in Moscow that "confirmed the decision" to execute the Romanovs. There is absolutely no hint AT ALL, as Radzinsky intimates, that this was prior to the murders. In fact, we know of 1 cable and 1 cable only sent from Moscow to Ekaterinburg between July 12 and July 18-the cable from Sverdlov that indeed "confirmed" the decision of the Ural Regional Soviet to execute them. This was an after-the-fact official rubber stamp on the Ural Regional Soviet's actions by Moscow and the Soviet VTsIK. We simply went by what the evidence above lays out:
1. Akimov sent a cable in "summer of 1918" "confirming the decision of the Ural Regional Soviet" to execute the Romanovs. Note that nowhere in his memoirs does Akimov state that this was a cable that ordered the execution. The use of the word "confirmed" clearly indicates, in this context, that the cable came AFTER the Ural Regional Soviet had already reached their decision.
2. Since we know of only 1 cable sent by Moscow to Ekaterinburg (please see "Fate of the Romanovs," pages 291-93, and pages 335-39) during these days-the cable of July 18 in which the Soviet VTsIK in Moscow "confirmed" the decision of the Ural Regional Soviet to execute the Romanovs (a cable that came after the murders), we believe this is clearly the cable of which Akimov speaks.
Again, simply going by the evidence, for us at least it is apparent that the cables are one and the same.
Greg King
Elizabeth: >> By this definition, King and Wilson are being either "overconfident" or "overzealous" in asserting that the Ural Regional Soviet executed the Romanovs solely on their own authority. <<
I have to disagree. I think, Greg and Penny were merely agreeing with most historians who believe Lenin had nothing to do with the execution of Nicholas II, so Greg and Penny were neither "overconfident" nor "overzealous". I should add here that they didn't just go by what they had read, they dug into the sources and came up with the same conclusion. They had no new evidence to use which would allow them to disagree.
Cutting through all the cant about the family virtues and allegations that there is some kind of "plot" to discredit Nicholas here is a direct quote from a senior British consular official (which I've lifted from the Rasputin thread) giving a contemporary picture of Russia attitudes to the Tsar in early 1917:
"As regards the future, the Ambassador's telegrams will have show what the feeling in the country is. For my own part, I never hear anyone say a good word for either the Emperor or Empress, and their assassination is quite openly discussed by persons in responsible positions."
Phil Tomaselli
...[in part]...
This is simply false, AGR Bear. According to King and Wilson themselves, in FOTR, p. 283, most historians are in agreement that the Moscow leadership actually did have a hand in the murders at Ekaterinburg. Not only non-academics like Robert K. Massie and Edvard Radzinsky are on the record in saying that Lenin ordered the executions, but also academics specializing in the history of the Russian Revolution like Richard Pipes and Orlando Figes. Even Mark Steinberg believes that Lenin might have ordered the deaths of Nicholas and his family.
....
Kudrin says that G. announced this to the entire meeting, and actually said that it was Lenin who refused permission, through Sverdlov. There seems to be no telegram or deposition existing that anyone has yet found confirming the discussion. The only thing we know for sure is that G. WENT to Moscow, and met with Sverdlov. Of course, why would Kudrin bother to make up the detail about G. reporting Sverdlov's discussion and Lenin's exact words about wanting a public show trial of Nicholas?
Excerpts from Ambassador Buchanan's telegrams to London from early January 1917:
Jan 4th 1917:
“I am ready if you think it advisable, to make one more attempt to bring home to the Emperor the gravity of the situation, as well as the danger to which the Dynasty may be exposed if the present tension is allowed to continue.”
Jan 4th 1917:
“I do not wish to be alarmist but if the Emperor continues on his present course and if as seems probable other assassinations follow that of Rasputin, danger of anti-dynastic movement is by no means excluded. Question of assassination of Empress is a common topic of conversation even among highly placed officers in the Army while I have even heard question of change of sovereigns mooted.”
Jan 7th 1917:
“With a divided Government and a country on the verge of revolution, it is impossible for us to count on any effective support from Russia in the war.”
More follows.
Phil T
This is simply false, AGR Bear. According to King and Wilson themselves, in FOTR, p. 283, most historians are in agreement that the Moscow leadership actually did have a hand in the murders at Ekaterinburg. Not only non-academics like Robert K. Massie and Edvard Radzinsky are on the record in saying that Lenin ordered the executions, but also academics specializing in the history of the Russian Revolution like Richard Pipes and Orlando Figes. Even Mark Steinberg believes that Lenin might have ordered the deaths of Nicholas and his family.
It is King and Wilson who are alone in declaring that the Ural Regional Soviet was acting solely on its own authority in killing the former tsar and his family. King and Wilson even go so far as to accuse professional historians like Pipes and Figes of having a "simplistic reading" of this episode in Russian history! How's that for unmitigated nerve?
Do you really think that King and Wilson are the only ones in the newer generation of historical writers who have or are starting to question Lenin's role in the execution of Nicholas II and/or the family?
Evidently, Part 1 was getting too long and it was requested to start a new thread, Part 2.
AGR Bear, I have already stated that according to King and Wilson themselves, on p. 283 of FOTR, most historians agree that Moscow had a hand in these murders:
Western historians have followed the pattern as laid out by the White investigator Nicholas Sokolov in assessing responsibility for the murders. "The fate of the Imperial Family," Sokolov concluded, "was not decided in Ekaterinburg, but in Moscow." It is a view fervently endorsed by émigrés, and resurgent in post-Soviet Russian works on the imperial family, irrevocable evidence of the barbaric nature of Lenin and his Bolshevik regime. Author Robert Massie thus claimed: "From the beginning the annihilation of the Romanovs – their execution and the disappearance of their bodies – had been approved by Moscow." The voices are nearly unanimous. Historian Richard Pipes: "It can be established that the final decision to liquidate the Romanovs was taken personally by Lenin, most likely at the beginning of July." Edvard Radzinsky: "It was all decided in Moscow." And Orlando Figes: "The evidence that has since emerged from the archives shows conclusively that the order came from the party leadership in Moscow." The reality of the situation, however, was far more complex than that suggested by this simplistic reading of history[/i] (FOTR, p. 283).
King and Wilson then go on to claim that Moscow did not order the murders and that the Ural Regional Soviet was acting on its own in killing the former tsar and his family: "The crisis had come to a head: the Ural Bolsheviks must agree to Moscow’s demands [to send the IF to Moscow], and risk losing the prisoners to their would-be rescuers [the Whites], or follow the path on which they had already embarked, to eliminate the entire imperial family, in open defiance of the Soviet government[/i]" (p. 289, FOTR).
Nowhere did I say, AGR Bear, that King and Wilson are alone in questioning Moscow’s true role in the Ekaterinburg murders. (Professor Mark Steinberg questions it at some length in his book The Fall of the Romanovs, concluding that the evidence is so "ambiguous and contradictory" that we simply cannot know for sure one way or the other.) However, where King and Wilson do seem to be utterly alone is in stating as a certainty that the Ural Regional Soviet’s decision to eliminate the entire family was "in open defiance of the Soviet government." I have never come across this view before in any of the literature on the subject.
This is what Mark Steinberg has to say about the role of Moscow in the murder of the IF:
The scenario most in keeping with the evidence is that the party and state leaders in Moscow, in discussions with Goloshchekin, the Urals’ representative, in early July, ordered that a trial – to be held in Ekaterinburg – be prepared immediately; but if the military situation forced the evacuation of Ekaterinburg and if Nicholas and his family could not be safely removed to a secure location, then execution without trial would be necessary[/i] (Steinberg, Fall of the Romanovs, p. 293).
And this is the explanation that makes the most sense to me.
P.S. Could someone please take it upon themselves to start a new thread for King and Wilson's FOTR? Because this thread has become so long that it takes my computer a good 5-10 minutes to load before I can even post a reply! Help!
Kudrin says that G. announced this to the entire meeting, and actually said that it was Lenin who refused permission, through Sverdlov. There seems to be no telegram or deposition existing that anyone has yet found confirming the discussion. The only thing we know for sure is that G. WENT to Moscow, and met with Sverdlov. Of course, why would Kudrin bother to make up the detail about G. reporting Sverdlov's discussion and Lenin's exact words about wanting a public show trial of Nicholas?
The problem I have with Kudrin's testimony is that it was given in 1963, many decades after the event, and yet he quotes Lenin's supposedly exact words to Sverdlov at great length. And even if the gist of what Kudrin reported is true, that still doesn't mean that Moscow didn't approve a "contingency plan" to kill the former tsar and his family if Ekaterinburg couldn't be held. Professor Mark Steinberg is a leading expert on the Romanovs and he concludes in his book that this possibility cannot be ruled out:
"There is some indication that a contingency plan was discussed [with Lenin and Sverdlov]. Yurovsky stated that while Goloshchekin was in Moscow in early July 'the center' decided 'what to do if abandoning Ekaterinburg became unavoidable' - implying that this was a decision in favor of executing the former tsar... Yurovsky's assistant, Grigory Nikulin, also later claimed that Sverdlov had told Goloshchekin, 'If you can organize a trial, then organize it, but if not, well, you know what that means'" (Steinberg and Khrustalev, The Fall of the Romanovs, pp. 290-91).
Steinberg describes this and other evidence for Moscow's involvement as "ambiguous and contradictory" (p. 292). He further states that "any author - including myself - who concludes that the truth can be stated with certainty, is overconfident in his or her omniscience or overzealous in the desire to tell a good story. Every answer to the question of who gave the order - and indeed, a good many questions about the Romanovs' final days - is based on a fair measure of deduction and imaginative speculation" (my emphasis, p. 294).
By this definition, King and Wilson are being either "overconfident" or "overzealous" in asserting that the Ural Regional Soviet executed the Romanovs solely on their own authority.
Might not there be a number of different agenda that were multilayered, to effect a common focal point of their displeasure against the Imperial regime? The authors by their conclusive remarks, attempted to discredit Emperor Nikolai II, and the Imperial government as their primary goal.
Please examine these few extracted expressions -
"If not the bloodthirsty tyrants used to invoke the country to discontent ..." (p 526)
"... nor were they paragons of all moral virtue." (p 526)....
Cutting through all the cant about the family virtues and allegations that there is some kind of "plot" to discredit Nicholas here is a direct quote from a senior British consular official (which I've lifted from the Rasputin thread) giving a contemporary picture of Russia attitudes to the Tsar in early 1917:
"As regards the future, the Ambassador's telegrams will have show what the feeling in the country is. For my own part, I never hear anyone say a good word for either the Emperor or Empress, and their assassination is quite openly discussed by persons in responsible positions."
Phil Tomaselli
Excerpts from Ambassador Buchanan's telegrams to London from early January 1917:
Jan 4th 1917:
“I am ready if you think it advisable, to make one more attempt to bring home to the Emperor the gravity of the situation, as well as the danger to which the Dynasty may be exposed if the present tension is allowed to continue.”
Jan 4th 1917:
“I do not wish to be alarmist but if the Emperor continues on his present course and if as seems probable other assassinations follow that of Rasputin, danger of anti-dynastic movement is by no means excluded. Question of assassination of Empress is a common topic of conversation even among highly placed officers in the Army while I have even heard question of change of sovereigns mooted.”
Jan 7th 1917:
“With a divided Government and a country on the verge of revolution, it is impossible for us to count on any effective support from Russia in the war.”
More follows.
Phil T
AGRBear:
I have no problem discussing this. Akimov's original statement is much less direct, and not at all the "hard evidence" that Radzinsky makes it out to be. Akimov simply states that in "the summer of 1918" he carried the cable to the office in Moscow that "confirmed the decision" to execute the Romanovs. There is absolutely no hint AT ALL, as Radzinsky intimates, that this was prior to the murders. In fact, we know of 1 cable and 1 cable only sent from Moscow to Ekaterinburg between July 12 and July 18-the cable from Sverdlov that indeed "confirmed" the decision of the Ural Regional Soviet to execute them. This was an after-the-fact official rubber stamp on the Ural Regional Soviet's actions by Moscow and the Soviet VTsIK. We simply went by what the evidence above lays out:
1. Akimov sent a cable in "summer of 1918" "confirming the decision of the Ural Regional Soviet" to execute the Romanovs. Note that nowhere in his memoirs does Akimov state that this was a cable that ordered the execution. The use of the word "confirmed" clearly indicates, in this context, that the cable came AFTER the Ural Regional Soviet had already reached their decision.
2. Since we know of only 1 cable sent by Moscow to Ekaterinburg (please see "Fate of the Romanovs," pages 291-93, and pages 335-39) during these days-the cable of July 18 in which the Soviet VTsIK in Moscow "confirmed" the decision of the Ural Regional Soviet to execute the Romanovs (a cable that came after the murders), we believe this is clearly the cable of which Akimov speaks.
Again, simply going by the evidence, for us at least it is apparent that the cables are one and the same.
Greg King
Snipped to relevant points:
1. But, AGRBear, what precisely is this "circumstantial evidence?" The only whisper we even came across is that it is POSSIBLE that Lenin MAY have allowed for the execution of Nicholas II ONLY, and even that is our guesswork-if such an allowance was made, I have to say, it is much more likely that it was Sverdlov who allowed for this, not Lenin.
But that raises the larger question: What evidence supports your theory that Lenin ordered the Ekaterinburg murders, other than your opinion/belief that this was so? Again, we went through every single claim and scenario, analyzing everything, and not one shred of evidence even supports the idea that Lenin ordered the family killed.
Now, as we say in "The Fate of the Romanovs" and have said on this board, we don't claim to the last word on the subject by any means, but we ARE the most recent, comprehensive word; you do yourself and your arguments a disservice by continuing to refer to books/theories published before 2003 and not looking in advance at our book to see if, in the interval, serious questions about these assertions have not arisen and if so how they have been addressed. If you did so, you would see that:
2. Trotsky changed his story later-it was not Lenin who ordered the murders, but Stalin-he left Lenin completely out of it in a later version (as we discuss). You might save yourself future trouble if, for example, when reading this or that pre-2003 account of something, you also checked our book to see if we found any evidence to support/oppose that position, before posting the theories of pre-2003 books, many of which we show to no longer be valid.
I'm not trying to sound as if we're the end-all, be-all here, because I'm the first to admit we're not; but again I think you can save yourself some time and trouble by checking to see what if anything we may have uncovered before launching into a theory that may well already have been discredited. Then you can agree or disagree, and that's fine, but without checking out all the facts available at your disposal you do yourself a disservice.
Free exchange of ideas and opinions is fine, but there is a point where one simply begins to not only ignore evidence, but has nothing better to back up a theory than "a feeling," or "an opinion." In this historical case, it's the evidence that, in the end, has to rule the day. So again, I ask, what evidence suggests that Lenin ordered the entire family killed?
Greg King
I am currently re-reading FOTR more carefully than last time, and came across something that I did not remember the first time I read it. According to most historians, Yakov Yurovsky was born into a Jewish family (as Yankel Yurovsky) and later on in life converted to Lutheranism and then perhaps (I can't remember for sure now as I don't have the books in front of me) to Russian Orthodoxy. FOTR authors on the other hand claim something completely different, and I was wondering if anyone else knew what is the basis for this claim. The authors state that Yurovsky was born Russian Orthodox, all his family was Russian Orthodox, and they even go as far as to say that they were in fact strong anti-semites. This version of Yurovsky's background is completely different from anything I ever read anywhere else, so I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts about it? I don't have the book in front of me now, but when I get home I will post the page numbers and some quotes. Thanks in advance for any thoughts anyone can provide!
It is increasingly clear that there are some who have an agenda related to the authors as nothing new has been said here about a book that was published a few years ago.
So those of you who are coming across this for the first time thinking that there is some new discovery here - please look in the archives, some of these people have been making the same complaints about the same things and people for years. Frankly, I find this continued rehash highly distasteful and counter productive to what this site is supposed to be about. Rob, I vote for locking it before it even gets started, since it's all been said about 200 times before.
dca
There's no need. ANY questioning of the 'mistakes' in the book and possible motives behind them will be perceived as a 'personal attack' on the authors by the authors or one of their stalwart defenders. I sure wish there was some place we could really have a good, honest, discussion on this without having to worry about it getting too 'touchy' for some.
Point of information, Annie. One of the athors of this book has not read anything on this forum in years and takes zero interest in what is said about him on the internet EXCEPT when it is specifically drawn to his attention. Even then, he is more likely to evince irritation with the person who pointed it out. Quote: "I can't control what is said about me on the internet; it is part and parcel of being a public figure."
But, as a further point of information, it IS a personal attack to question the honesty of someone's conclusions. Like it or not, conscious or unconscious, all historians have an "agenda" to demonstrate the veracity of what they believe to have happened.
QuoteBut, as a further point of information, it IS a personal attack to question the honesty of someone's conclusions. Like it or not, conscious or unconscious, all historians have an "agenda" to demonstrate the veracity of what they believe to have happened.
Then why is it a personal attack to question it? Look, the issue has been, there are mistakes in FOTR. There is questionable new info in FOTR. Much of this seems tied to the AA agenda. There is evidence the authors were heavily devoted to the AA cause at the time the book was written, and had plans of a claimant book at that time. Some of us feel that there is a connection between the two. If we cannot question this, why even have the thread?
Long ago, when I first got to know Greg, which was not long after reading on ATR the press announcement about FOTR (which I greeted with disbelief and distaste), I asked him whether it was a book about Anna Anderson being Anastasia, as some believed. He called it a book that had "started life as a re-examination of the Anna Anderson case." This isn't at all the same thing as devotion to her cause, and the book soon developed well beyond that narrow and specific beginning. And then he got me critiquing the manuscript precisely because of my cynicism about what I believed to be the premise of the book.
If you ask what influence Peter Kurth had, you could equally ask what influence I had and any one of the other people who read it; I am not sure how many there were, but I know of at least four.
Greg used to use ATR like most people would use a magazine: as a place to take a five minute break from work; NOT somewhere to go for a lengthy and serious discussion. In ninety per cent of his posts, his mind was elsewhere.
It might and indeed should be possible to write a book on Romanov claimants as a phenomenon WITHOUT espousing the cause of any one of them.
Long ago, when I first got to know Greg, which was not long after reading on ATR the press announcement about FOTR (which I greeted with disbelief and distaste), I asked him whether it was a book about Anna Anderson being Anastasia, as some believed. He called it a book that had "started life as a re-examination of the Anna Anderson case." This isn't at all the same thing as devotion to her cause, and the book soon developed well beyond that narrow and specific beginning. And then he got me critiquing the manuscript precisely because of my cynicism about what I believed to be the premise of the book.
Thank you for your backstory and honesty. So no one really denies that AA's case was the original inspiration for the book?QuoteIf you ask what influence Peter Kurth had, you could equally ask what influence I had and any one of the other people who read it; I am not sure how many there were, but I know of at least four.
I meant the influence of Kurth that in 2000 he made them heir to the AA legacy.QuoteGreg used to use ATR like most people would use a magazine: as a place to take a five minute break from work; NOT somewhere to go for a lengthy and serious discussion. In ninety per cent of his posts, his mind was elsewhere.
I have always noticed that Greg is not the internet poster Penny is.QuoteIt might and indeed should be possible to write a book on Romanov claimants as a phenomenon WITHOUT espousing the cause of any one of them.
But doesn't it make a difference if these two authors in particular were made the 'torchbearers' and 'champions and defenders' of AA, who 'will become the crown of the tree'? (all these from the words of Kurth, not some random poster)
Ah geez, I give up.....
Long ago, when I first got to know Greg, which was not long after reading on ATR the press announcement about FOTR (which I greeted with disbelief and distaste), I asked him whether it was a book about Anna Anderson being Anastasia, as some believed. He called it a book that had "started life as a re-examination of the Anna Anderson case." This isn't at all the same thing as devotion to her cause, and the book soon developed well beyond that narrow and specific beginning. And then he got me critiquing the manuscript precisely because of my cynicism about what I believed to be the premise of the book.
Thank you for your backstory and honesty. So no one really denies that AA's case was the original inspiration for the book?
frankly, I have NO personal feelings for Penny or Greg one way or the other - other than having to admit I have learned much from their extensive scholarship over the years. Are they always right, by their own words, they admit they are not. I have not read one complaint about FOTR that was new - this book has been out for years and the same people bash it over and over again for essentailly the same reasons - do you really expect me to believe that suddenly there has been some new uncovered error in the book that has been in the wide market place for years? I find that highly unlikely - even as sharp as you are (and I'm generally a fan of your work as well). My expectation is that it won't be long before this discussion will be this weeks argument in the sandbox bringing much consentation and wasted time to many people.
I agree with Belochka that Janet's explanations have made everything clear as a bell. The authors had an agenda (like every writer of a book or post) and probably did hope to write a sequal of sorts which would espouse AA as AN. Fate intervened.
Jenn
I agree with Belochka that Janet's explanations have made everything clear as a bell. The authors had an agenda (like every writer of a book or post) and probably did hope to write a sequal of sorts which would espouse AA as AN. Fate intervened. DNA evidence, combined with newly discovered bones which almost certainly belong to the missing Romanov children, ensures that any such sequal starring AA as AN will only be found in the fantasy section of your local bookstore. In my opinion King recognized the lost opportunity for what it was and moved on. There's evidence to indicate Wilson has not moved on...completely. Kurth agrees per Cody's email that he himself has not.
Jenn
I agree with Belochka that Janet's explanations have made everything clear as a bell. The authors had an agenda (like every writer of a book or post) and probably did hope to write a sequal of sorts which would espouse AA as AN. Fate intervened. DNA evidence, combined with newly discovered bones which almost certainly belong to the missing Romanov children, ensures that any such sequal starring AA as AN will only be found in the fantasy section of your local bookstore. In my opinion King recognized the lost opportunity for what it was and moved on. There's evidence to indicate Wilson has not moved on...completely. Kurth agrees per Cody's email that he himself has not.
Jenn
I am sorry, I have no wish to sound offensive, but you, Margarita and whoever can believe exactly as you wish about any "sequel;" you will never go beyond speculation by the very nature of what you have been told. Any decisions on whether or not any "sequel" would be written and what it might contain have and had nothing whatsoever to do with any newly-disovered bones or things of that nature. I have said here already that I find it very offensive that some people would attempt to reduce a book like FOTR to the status of a "prequel" to a rehash of the AA tale; I can't help it if people are uable to distinguish between a root and a tree. I sincerely wish I had not posted anything on this subject; I think I will ask FA r Lisa to delete my posts herewith.
I am sorry, I have no wish to sound offensive, but you, Margarita and whoever can believe exactly as you wish about any "sequel;" you will never go beyond speculation by the very nature of what you have been told. Any decisions on whether or not any "sequel" would be written and what it might contain have and had nothing whatsoever to do with any newly-disovered bones or things of that nature. I have said here already that I find it very offensive that some people would attempt to reduce a book like FOTR to the status of a "prequel" to a rehash of the AA tale; I can't help it if people are uable to distinguish between a root and a tree. I sincerely wish I had not posted anything on this subject; I think I will ask FA r Lisa to delete my posts herewith.
I agree with Belochka that Janet's explanations have made everything clear as a bell. The authors had an agenda (like every writer of a book or post) and probably did hope to write a sequal of sorts which would espouse AA as AN. Fate intervened. DNA evidence, combined with newly discovered bones which almost certainly belong to the missing Romanov children, ensures that any such sequal starring AA as AN will only be found in the fantasy section of your local bookstore. In my opinion King recognized the lost opportunity for what it was and moved on. There's evidence to indicate Wilson has not moved on...completely. Kurth agrees per Cody's email that he himself has not.
Jenn
I am sorry, I have no wish to sound offensive, but you, Margarita and whoever can believe exactly as you wish about any "sequel;" you will never go beyond speculation by the very nature of what you have been told. Any decisions on whether or not any "sequel" would be written and what it might contain have and had nothing whatsoever to do with any newly-disovered bones or things of that nature. I have said here already that I find it very offensive that some people would attempt to reduce a book like FOTR to the status of a "prequel" to a rehash of the AA tale; I can't help it if people are uable to distinguish between a root and a tree. I sincerely wish I had not posted anything on this subject; I think I will ask FA r Lisa to delete my posts herewith.
And thus it seems that the truth may be difficult to sustain and the request for a deletion is heard because suddenly the truth has become inconvenient.
Without the roots a tree cannot survive.[/color]
And thus it seems that the truth may be difficult to sustain and the request for a deletion is heard because suddenly the truth has become inconvenient.
The truth should not be denied.QuoteWithout the roots a tree cannot survive.[/color]
...much less grow to become the crown..
HONEST TO GOD, why are there SO MANY PEOPLE on this forum who write/delete....write/delete...write/delete. If you're going to post at least have the decency to stand by what you write! You can't have a discussion or an inquiry or a debate when half the posts go missing. GRRRR....
And thus it seems that the truth may be difficult to sustain and the request for a deletion is heard because suddenly the truth has become inconvenient.
The truth should not be denied.QuoteWithout the roots a tree cannot survive.[/color]
...much less grow to become the crown..
HONEST TO GOD, why are there SO MANY PEOPLE on this forum who write/delete....write/delete...write/delete. If you're going to post at least have the decency to stand by what you write! You can't have a discussion or an inquiry or a debate when half the posts go missing. GRRRR....
I could't agree more Jenn.
Only yesterday I was reminded about the fine virtues of the English expression "freedom of speech" provided the issue is not libellous or threatening and abusive.
Margarita
Just for the record, I will repeat why we have the fifteen minute time limit for a poster to modify or delete their posting. We wish to compel posters to THINK before hitting "post". too many people were having "monday morning quarterbacking" and deleting posts and leaving threads un-intelligible. My policy is that NO post is deleted after the fact just because someone "changed their mind". I must be presented with some compelling reason to remove the post other than someone wanting to pick up their marbles and find another sandbox.
FA
I agree with Belochka that Janet's explanations have made everything clear as a bell. The authors had an agenda (like every writer of a book or post) and probably did hope to write a sequal of sorts which would espouse AA as AN. Fate intervened. DNA evidence, combined with newly discovered bones which almost certainly belong to the missing Romanov children, ensures that any such sequal starring AA as AN will only be found in the fantasy section of your local bookstore. In my opinion King recognized the lost opportunity for what it was and moved on. There's evidence to indicate Wilson has not moved on...completely. Kurth agrees per Cody's email that he himself has not.
Jenn
I am sorry, I have no wish to sound offensive, but you, Margarita and whoever can believe exactly as you wish about any "sequel;" ...
We both wrote it, so I can only post my own thoughts. When we first started, we had to of course determine how to do this-the vital center of the book. And in the first few drafts it was quite short. But I remember thinking of something that James Cameron said about making "Titanic"-that he wanted to show on film how horrible it must have been on that ship for everyone at the end, that it didn't just slip into the water with everyone linked arm and arm singing. And the same was true for the murder. The Imperial Family weren't just shot and quickly fell dead, and it wasn't all over in 10 seconds, as every film has depicted. So it became very important to me to try to portray accurately what happened, including the wounds and what happened. And it wasn't easy to do on any level. I know some people have said what you do-that they have to put the book down-and that's exactly what I wanted, because this is a brutal, horrendous murder, and people need to think about it. If you believe that the IF are martyrs, then this is their sacrifice; if they are simple victims, it is still a terrible massacre. And at no other point in the book did I try so consciously try to evoke sympathy for them. It was hard all around.
Greg King
Quote
If it is possible I wonder if either one of you could share with us your thoughts when writing this chapter. Again, I can't imagine your anquish at having to pen this information.
Louise,
As Greg said in his response, we knew that the murders would be the "vital center" of this book, and we did spend a lot of time talking about how best to handle it.
There was no question of soft-pedalling it; whether a reader thinks that the family and their friends were martyred or murdered, it was tremendously important to us to provide as completely researched an account as possible. I read once -- I think it was in conjunction with my Holocaust Studies class in university -- that it is important to know what happened as thoroughly as possible, because then we can still bear witness for the victims. I forget who wrote that -- perhaps Simon Wiesenthal? -- but I think it's very true, and this is what motivated me. I wanted readers to feel that they could visualize that cellar room in their own minds, and follow along with what happened to each person. And between us, I think we did a pretty good job -- Greg was just masterful in weaving together the various accounts.
It would have been all too easy to become emotionally tied up in writing that chapter, but that wasn't my job. My job -- and Greg's -- was to make the reader feel the emotions, rather than to feel them ourselves. So I focused myself strongly on whatever part of the murder we were writing and researching -- and the research never stopped. Particularly in this part of the book, it was vital that everything be nailed down, checked and double-checked and cross-referenced.
It was only when I read the chapter afterwards -- long afterwards, probably after it had been type-set and I hadn't worked on it for a few months -- that I had an emotional response. And for me, that response was to the death of Dr Botkin. I couldn't tell you why, but the idea of that man struggling to raise himself from the floor struck me deep in my heart. I had to go and take a long, hot shower and cry and pound on the walls. I was very melodramatic! ::)
The other thing that effected me emotionally was a single account of Trupp's last moments that we did not include because we could not finally establish the witness' presence in or around the murder room: This witness claimed that in his last moments, after the shooting began, with every gun pointed straight at the Emperor's chest, Trupp pushed himself off the back wall and charged the assassination squad, cursing and shouting "like a Catholic," the person said. I can believe it possible that an old military man like Trupp would react like this -- but what that witness must have thought of Catholics! ;D
Quote
Picked it up for $48 from amazon used book section.
-----
Back to Myachin/Yakovlev. Was it in his memiors about his various deeds and alliases...? And, how do you or other researchers confirm that these papers are authenic and not something placed there by the communists just like they did for Halliburton whom you mention on p. 19 -20?
For those who don't have their book, King and Wilson talked about American journalist who was given the oportunity to talk to Ermakov. And I quote: >>"In fact, Soviet authorities had carefully managed the entire Ermakov "confession." His translator, the mysterious Walter, was later discovered to have been an agent of the GPU. successor to the Cheka. Many year later, Stoneman speculated the entire affiar had been designed to "feed" Halliburton, as an unsuspecting dupe, "with Moscow's prepackaged 'facts.'"<<
AGRBear
The answer is research, pure and simple. Yakovlev left 4-5 memoirs or statements, so we compared content, looked at what we knew to be true versus any peculiarities, looked at when things were written and deposited, etc. While you have to exercise ordinary caution, I think suggesting that anything that originates from Russian archives or from a Soviet source is suspect is simply imposing personal prejudice. Yakovlev's memoirs, and their content, bear no relation to the Ermakov "confession," which when it comes to what happened after the murders simply falls apart as a deliberate lie. You always look for key indicators like distortion or error when examining anything in this case, but you also examine materials against a wider catalog of other materials that can help confirm or deny their veracity.
Greg King
I want to add my two cents here, as AnastasiaFan and I started to discuss this topic on a different thread.
One of the reasons I liked FOTR is because until this book came out, I always felt like something was missing from the portrayals of the characters in other Romanov- related books. The personalities were often polarized, either too stereotypically good or too stereotypically bad, kind of flat even because of that. The authors always seemed to take sides and go out of their way to show either the angelic IF or the evil revolutionaries. To me, somehow something was always missing in these portrayals, something I couldn't quite put my finger on but I always felt that there must be more to it. In FOTR we saw things that were different. We saw the IF members that were not such an ideal family after all, instead a normal human one with all the issues and problems of a normal family. They had issues like normal teenage daughters have with their mother (who doesn't?). This of course didn't mean they were matricidal, or that they couldn't stand the site of her or would never write loving notes or letters to her, they just mean that there were normal tensions between the mother and her children, as we can witness across the board in a common human experience, royal or not they were human. Somehow the portrayal in FOTR seemed more realistic to me. I know there have been many accounts of the IF being the most harmonious and the most ideal family ever, who never had any discords among each other or any disagreements and who all loved each other at all time and never argued. This is all very nice, and I am sure some people really did see them that way. But we all know that things are rarely, if ever, what they appear to be. I am not saying that this means that things behind the royal doors were totally different than they seemed, or that when no one was looking Nicholas would get drunk and beat his wife and children or something like that, but I am fairly sure that they were not as ideal as they have been described in the past. I am certain that beyond the "facade"(for the lack of better term), they were real human beings - teenagers or young adults, with mood swings and all. I don't think that makes them seem any less admirable in certain ways that they were, and it doesn't make them any less likable. In fact, quite the opposite, it made them seem more real and more interesting. I think this was the first book that actually addressed many of these things, and maybe this is why many people were taken aback by it. But just because something was never addressed in other books before, it doesn't mean at all that it must be false information. In fact, from what I understand, Penny and Greg were two of very few Romanov historians who actually went to primary sources for their references, and this makes it more credible to me.
Helen
Bumping this up to merge with a similar thread. Discuss away, but PUHLEEEEZE try not to rehash arguments already done to death in the previous thirty pages.
FA
I agree with Belochka that Janet's explanations have made everything clear as a bell. The authors had an agenda (like every writer of a book or post) and probably did hope to write a sequal of sorts which would espouse AA as AN. Fate intervened. DNA evidence, combined with newly discovered bones which almost certainly belong to the missing Romanov children, ensures that any such sequal starring AA as AN will only be found in the fantasy section of your local bookstore. In my opinion King recognized the lost opportunity for what it was and moved on. There's evidence to indicate Wilson has not moved on...completely. Kurth agrees per Cody's email that he himself has not.
Jenn
I am sorry, I have no wish to sound offensive, but you, Margarita and whoever can believe exactly as you wish about any "sequel;" ...
I am delighted that you have thought of me as you typed, however if you closely examine the originator of the posting you have addressed above you will find that it was not I.
There is a number of posts which followed this one as Helen worked through some subjects.
I think her earlier posts about this book were more accurate than what she believes today.
AGRBear
Just for the record, I will repeat why we have the fifteen minute time limit for a poster to modify or delete their posting. We wish to compel posters to THINK before hitting "post". too many people were having "monday morning quarterbacking" and deleting posts and leaving threads un-intelligible. My policy is that NO post is deleted after the fact just because someone "changed their mind". I must be presented with some compelling reason to remove the post other than someone wanting to pick up their marbles and find another sandbox.
FA
Yeah well, I'm not storming out of the sandbox; I don't "do" newsgroup histrionics. My post was well- thought-out and - I believed - helpful in clarifying how reserach topics develope and evolve from one beginning into quite a different animal. I was totally taken aback to see people read it as quite the opposite. I guess I just wouldn't ask for anyone else's weird follow-ups to be deleted; but it's pretty clear that the marbles blowing left right and centre and all over the floor aren't mine....;-)
I don't know why, but every time Margarita addresses me, I'm reminded of a large school girl with a waggng finger and her hands on her hips, approaching the miscreant with a bunch of friends lurking behind, some giggling, others just staring..
Just for the record, I will repeat why we have the fifteen minute time limit for a poster to modify or delete their posting. We wish to compel posters to THINK before hitting "post". too many people were having "monday morning quarterbacking" and deleting posts and leaving threads un-intelligible. My policy is that NO post is deleted after the fact just because someone "changed their mind". I must be presented with some compelling reason to remove the post other than someone wanting to pick up their marbles and find another sandbox.
Okay, after reading this thread, the ATR archives, AP over the last four years, and a few other things, I am going to offer up my theory- mind you that is what it is, not an 'accusation' or 'attack' but a hypothesis based on information and experience as to how it all progressed.
First, in 2000, Kurth clearly and obviously passed the torch of the AA legacy to Wilson and King. Seemingly, being the new 'heirs' standing on the shoulders of past supporters, their mission was to find a way for AA to still be AN despite the DNA evidence. To achieve any measure of believability in this, two things would have to be accomplished: one, the pesky DNA would have to be challenged and discredited, if not fully, then leaving 'reasonable doubt' in the minds of laymen. Two, there would have to be 'startling new evidence' that changes the long held views of the Romanovs and what became of them, especially on the murder night.
It is not a secret that FOTR leaves the door open for AN to have still been alive after the executions, leaving a possible window of opportunity for the 'cart story' to find a way to come true, or at least leave 'reasonable doubt' in the minds of the average person that it could. Other factors that associate the AA story with FOTR are the 'mistakes' alleging that the girls were 'not left in peace' on the Rus, and Penny's earlier post insinuating there were at least three opportunies for AN to have been involved sexually with guards, and openly stating that "AA-as-Anastasia left the Ipatiev house pregnant.' Stir in the "Buxhoevedon betrayal"- something that AA used to try to prove it was something "only Anastasia would have known". FOTR tries hard to prove this, though it has since been discounted by other research, and Sophie's own memoirs themselves. Sophie had to be made a traitor, because AA said she was, though, like the alleged rape stories, has no factual basis and can be discounted with other sources, especially the memoirs of those involved. So, yes, it does appear that perhaps these things were emphasied in order to help the eventual conclusion that 'maybe' AA 'was' AN after all!
It has been noted and proven through past conversations and correspondence that the project undertaken by Wilson and King, the new heirs apparent to the AA legacy dating back to 1925 in Berlin, Rathlef, shoulders, trees, etc., was originally a re-examination of the AA case, but it changed and grew into something larger. True, FOTR is not a book about AA, but the idea did start that way. In 2002, King argued to someone who had asked if his new book was AA related, answered that the poster was confusing a planned project from two years ago with the current one, or what it evolved into. So we have established- the book began as an AA project and took on larger subject matter. However, I am still convinced the two might still be related...
When I first came to this forum four years ago, and over the next year or two, Penny was actively posting that there was a new 'claimant' book in the works. She frequently posted- some now deleted, some not- things that alluded to our said outright that AA either was or could possibly be AN. She mentioned 'new' evidence she had found that would prove this, but when asked about it, she would become indignant, sometimes get upset about being challenged, or would even delete certain posts or leave the forum temporarily. That appeared suspicious to me, and yes I doubted such 'new' 'proof' existed or could be produced. Other times, she graciously told us that we'd just have to wait for the book, and that her publisher did not allow her to devulge anything about the project. This did not, as it were, stop her from dropping inticing little hints to keep interest sparked for the AA story and therefore the upcoming project.
So here is my 'theory'- not an open accusation: It does seem likely that at least part of the original purpose of FOTR was to set up a lead-in to the 'sequel' or new book on AA and claimants, laying the background work and leaving the door at the Ipatiev house cracked for AN's escape. I have no idea if the author(s) actually believed this, or were only carrying on the myth for sensationalistic purposes. I am not Rasputin, I cannot read hearts or minds, all I can do is what any juror would do, take the presented evidence and draw what I feel is the most logical conclusion.
This is a good synopsis, Annie, but I want to add to it.
Personally, what really bothers me about FOTR is not the AA aspect, but the fact that so many sources seem to have been fudged (key word "seemed to have been"- I'm not making a direct accusation). I know that editorial errors happen, but it's very hard for me to believe that editors would change the text to mean the opposite of what the sources said, which also happend to coincide with the suspected agenda. One would have to be extremely naive to believe this, especially in light of the fact that we know that the book was originally conceived with a specific agenda, i.e, to try to prove that AA was legitimate, or at least plant a seed of doubt about the opposite theory in the reader's mind. If we consider all that happened in the last few years, knowing what we know is it really so far fetched to suspect that the sourced were used with that same agenda in mind?
There is a number of posts which followed this one as Helen worked through some subjects.
I think her earlier posts about this book were more accurate than what she believes today.
AGRBear
So was there ever an answer to what the correct sources were?
Personally, what really bothers me about FOTR is not the AA aspect, but the fact that so many sources seem to have been fudged (key word "seemed to have been"- I'm not making a direct accusation). I know that editorial errors happen, but it's very hard for me to believe that editors would change the text to mean the opposite of what the sources said, which also happend to coincide with the suspected agenda. One would have to be extremely naive to believe this, especially in light of the fact that we know that the book was originally conceived with a specific agenda, i.e, to try to prove that AA was legitimate, or at least plant a seed of doubt about the opposite theory in the reader's mind. If we consider all that happened in the last few years, knowing what we know is it really so far fetched to suspect that the sourced were used with that same agenda in mind?
There is a number of posts which followed this one as Helen worked through some subjects.
I think her earlier posts about this book were more accurate than what she believes today.
AGRBear
Helen, I think Bear has a good question here, would you mind addressing the evolution of your thoughts?
Thanks, Jenn
This is a good synopsis, Annie, but I want to add to it.
Personally, what really bothers me about FOTR is not the AA aspect, but the fact that so many sources seem to have been fudged (key word "seemed to have been"- I'm not making a direct accusation). I know that editorial errors happen, but it's very hard for me to believe that editors would change the text to mean the opposite of what the sources said, which also happend to coincide with the suspected agenda. One would have to be extremely naive to believe this, especially in light of the fact that we know that the book was originally conceived with a specific agenda, i.e, to try to prove that AA was legitimate, or at least plant a seed of doubt about the opposite theory in the reader's mind. If we consider all that happened in the last few years, knowing what we know is it really so far fetched to suspect that the sourced were used with that same agenda in mind?
And so what if posters are "speculating" as to a potential agenda? What writer wouldn't love a shot at a prequal or sequal if the book was successful? If King and Wilson hoped for a follow up that didn't pan out no harm/no foul.
So was there ever an answer to what the correct sources were?
I guess not.
So was there ever an answer to what the correct sources were? If these were "editorial mistakes," what were the correct sources?
Perhaps the authors have now changed their minds. If they have, that's okay, but please let us know. If the things they said/did in the past are no longer the same view they hold now, let us know. Don't deny the past, just fess up to it, admit error, tell us they've changed their minds and let's move on.
There is a number of posts which followed this one as Helen worked through some subjects.
I think her earlier posts about this book were more accurate than what she believes today.
AGRBear
Helen, I think Bear has a good question here, would you mind addressing the evolution of your thoughts?
Thanks, Jenn
Absolutely! As I mentioned more than once when I refer to FOTR, my initial reaction to the book was "hey, this is different than any other book I've read on the Romanovs!", which made me like FOTR. The post which AGR is referring to was made by me in November 2004 - 3 and half years ago. At that time I had not as much knowledge about the Romanovs as I do now (although I thought it did). In the last 3 and half years, I have learned much. At the time I also didn't check any of the sources in FOTR, but like many other readers took the authors' words face value and assumed the sources were correct. Only when I got more involved in Romanov discussions, learned a lot more about them and finally checked the sources, did I realize what kind of "new" information we were dealing with here. My post from 3 and half years ago just goes to show you that I accepted FOTR with an open mind, had no personaly vendetta for the authors or against the book (much like most other readers), and only after I obtained more information did I realize that the book is full of holes and mistakes and apparent agenda. I hope this addresses this subject sufficiently, but feel free to ask more questions!
There is a number of posts which followed this one as Helen worked through some subjects.
I think her earlier posts about this book were more accurate than what she believes today.
AGRBear
Helen, I think Bear has a good question here, would you mind addressing the evolution of your thoughts?
Thanks, Jenn
Absolutely! As I mentioned more than once when I refer to FOTR, my initial reaction to the book was "hey, this is different than any other book I've read on the Romanovs!", which made me like FOTR. The post which AGR is referring to was made by me in November 2004 - 3 and half years ago. At that time I had not as much knowledge about the Romanovs as I do now (although I thought it did). In the last 3 and half years, I have learned much. At the time I also didn't check any of the sources in FOTR, but like many other readers took the authors' words face value and assumed the sources were correct. Only when I got more involved in Romanov discussions, learned a lot more about them and finally checked the sources, did I realize what kind of "new" information we were dealing with here. My post from 3 and half years ago just goes to show you that I accepted FOTR with an open mind, had no personaly vendetta for the authors or against the book (much like most other readers), and only after I obtained more information did I realize that the book is full of holes and mistakes and apparent agenda. I hope this addresses this subject sufficiently, but feel free to ask more questions!
Thank you Helen. I know you've been accused of having an agenda, so this sets the record straight for me (and hopefully for Bear). There's no crime (or agenda) in adjusting one's views as more facts become known regarding books or real life. It's kind of a reader's obligation to oneself.
Raegan,
If you mean at least as for the Rus incident, go back a couple of pages, you can first read my annotated version, and then Janet Ashton said that she read the original manuscript, which also had the same references that I mentioned. If you mean something else, you need to be more specific please.
Raegan,
If you mean at least as for the Rus incident, go back a couple of pages, you can first read my annotated version, and then Janet Ashton said that she read the original manuscript, which also had the same references that I mentioned. If you mean something else, you need to be more specific please.
I skimmed the last few pages but didn't see anything. Perhaps it is on a different thread? I'm very curious about the correct sources for the Maria and the guard claim as well as Sophie's betrayal. If these were "editorial mistakes," then what are the correct sources for these claims?
Simon had made some comment about the allegations of rape on the Rus, and said something to the effect that "well Gibbes was there."
An analysis of the text of FOTR pg140-141 using the known evidence. (my additions in bold)
"'The women, as Buxhoeveden recalled, had been ordered "to leave our cabin doors open all night. No one undressed." [Through the open doors, the soldiers leered at the grand duchesses]this phrase added by the authors, there is NO factual evidence to support the statement, and it is asserted as FACT and not identified as speculation [refusing, as Volkov later learned, to "leave them in peace"]Completely false. Volkov stated the GDs WERE LEFT IN PEACE. The abuse reached a cresendo as the night wore on. exactly what abuse? again, abuse is stated as fact when there is no support in the evidence. Gibbes, locked away in his cabin, listened helplessly, as he later told his son George, as the drunken guards harassesd the grand duchesses, "It was dreadful, what they did," the former tutor recalled. The "terrifed screams" of the girls, Gibbes said, haunted him, "to the end of his life."When Gibbes was deposed by Sokolov within months of the event, HE SAID NOTHING about abuse or screams or anything else. This statement was made literally decades after the fact, and saliently in House of Special Purpose George Gibbes made NO MENTION of this event on the Rus. "Rodionov, who was in charge of the evil-looking detachment, insisted on padlocking Alexis and Nagorny into their cabin, even though it was made clear that the child might need a doctor. The girls, on the other hand, were forbidden to lock their cabin door." (HOSP, pp. 102-103)
"Almost certainly, the Grand Duchesses were subjected to taunts, and perhaps lewd advances at the hands of the drunken Latvian guards, how this progressed as the evening wore on is impossible to determine." Saliently, there is no cited evidence to support this supposition at all, much less "almost certainly'. To the contrary, Buxhoeveden writes specifically that only the assigned guards came near them, the others stayed on their assigned part of the boat, see "Left Behind" - "The rest of the soldiers did not come near us and spent the day on their part of the deck, singing and playing the accordion. Some had fine voices, and it carried us back to happier days,..."
"no matter what took place, it is difficult not to believe that the experience had a profound traumatic effect on the young women, particularily grand Duchess Olga. Once she arrived in Ekaterinburg, Olga was withdrawn, silent, and did not mix with her sisters, perhaps indicating that she suffered some significant trauma. " Buxhoeveden says Olga N. was showing these syptoms in April, weeks BEFORE the voyage on the Rus: cf. Life & Tragedy..."Olga Nicholaevna was in a state of great anxiety. She longed to join her parents, for whose fate she trembled, and, on the other hand, she feared the move for her brother, both on account of his health and also for fear of what the move might lead to" at Ch. 31; or perhaps for myriad of other reasons including imprisonment itself under increasingly difficult circumstances. - cf: Gilliard Ch. 22 "The conditions of the imprisonment were much more severe than at Tobolsk. Avdiev was an inveterate drunkard, who gave rein to his coarse instincts, and, with the assistance of his subordinates, showed great ingenuity in daily inflicting fresh humiliations upon those in his charge. There was no alternative but to accept the privations, submit to the vexations, yield to the exactions and caprices of these low, vulgar scoundrels."
"The near veil of silence surrounding the events of that night, however, is not difficult to understand, given the exalted position of the Grand Duchesses; ... to present them as paragons of all moral virtue or perhaps the "silence" is because NOTHING ACTUALLY HAPPENED so no one had anything to say. ie: the entire diary entry of Gilliard:
"Monday May 20th - At half-past eleven we left the house and went on board the Russ. She is the boat which brought us with the Czar and Czarina eight months ago. Baroness Buxhoeveden has been granted permission to rejoin us. We left Tobolsk at five o'clock. Commisar Rodionov has shut Alexei Nicholaievich in his cabin with Nagorny. We protested: the child is ill and the doctor ought to have access to him at any time.
"Wednesday May 22nd - We reached Tiumen this morning."
or here is the ENTIRE discussion on the subject in the Sokolov investigation's report made AFTER interrogating all surviving passengers of the Rus(pg 146)
"Here is how the journey of the imperial children went under the command of Rodionov:
"From Gilliard's deposition: "Rodionov behaved very badly. He closed off from outside the cabin in which were found Alexei with Nagorny. All of the other cabins, in particular those of the Grand Duchesses were not to be locked from inside, under his order."
"The morning of May 22, the imperial children arrived in Tiumen."
"Those on board the ship were unable (being locked up) or unwilling (through fear of reprisal ...) again, suppostion without evidence, yet stated as fact...This may be the key to the events of that night: shame and humiliation at not being able to come to the defense of the helpless Grand Duchesses might well account for Gibbes' "worst memory.
I also found that I had said this, and I believe it is one fundamental obligation of authors:
ANY author writing what purports to be accurate historical non-fiction must keep what they know "for sure from the evidence" separate from their speculation and imagination based on that evidence.
An analysis of the text of FOTR pg140-141 using the known evidence. (my additions in bold)
"'The women, as Buxhoeveden recalled, had been ordered "to leave our cabin doors open all night. No one undressed." [Through the open doors, the soldiers leered at the grand duchesses]this phrase added by the authors, there is NO factual evidence to support the statement, and it is asserted as FACT and not identified as speculation [refusing, as Volkov later learned, to "leave them in peace"]Completely false. Volkov stated the GDs WERE LEFT IN PEACE. The abuse reached a cresendo as the night wore on. exactly what abuse? again, abuse is stated as fact when there is no support in the evidence. Gibbes, locked away in his cabin, listened helplessly, as he later told his son George, as the drunken guards harassesd the grand duchesses, "It was dreadful, what they did," the former tutor recalled. The "terrifed screams" of the girls, Gibbes said, haunted him, "to the end of his life."When Gibbes was deposed by Sokolov within months of the event, HE SAID NOTHING about abuse or screams or anything else. This statement was made literally decades after the fact, and saliently in House of Special Purpose George Gibbes made NO MENTION of this event on the Rus. "Rodionov, who was in charge of the evil-looking detachment, insisted on padlocking Alexis and Nagorny into their cabin, even though it was made clear that the child might need a doctor. The girls, on the other hand, were forbidden to lock their cabin door." (HOSP, pp. 102-103)
"Almost certainly, the Grand Duchesses were subjected to taunts, and perhaps lewd advances at the hands of the drunken Latvian guards, how this progressed as the evening wore on is impossible to determine." Saliently, there is no cited evidence to support this supposition at all, much less "almost certainly'. To the contrary, Buxhoeveden writes specifically that only the assigned guards came near them, the others stayed on their assigned part of the boat, see "Left Behind" - "The rest of the soldiers did not come near us and spent the day on their part of the deck, singing and playing the accordion. Some had fine voices, and it carried us back to happier days,..."
"no matter what took place, it is difficult not to believe that the experience had a profound traumatic effect on the young women, particularily grand Duchess Olga. Once she arrived in Ekaterinburg, Olga was withdrawn, silent, and did not mix with her sisters, perhaps indicating that she suffered some significant trauma. " Buxhoeveden says Olga N. was showing these syptoms in April, weeks BEFORE the voyage on the Rus: cf. Life & Tragedy..."Olga Nicholaevna was in a state of great anxiety. She longed to join her parents, for whose fate she trembled, and, on the other hand, she feared the move for her brother, both on account of his health and also for fear of what the move might lead to" at Ch. 31; or perhaps for myriad of other reasons including imprisonment itself under increasingly difficult circumstances. - cf: Gilliard Ch. 22 "The conditions of the imprisonment were much more severe than at Tobolsk. Avdiev was an inveterate drunkard, who gave rein to his coarse instincts, and, with the assistance of his subordinates, showed great ingenuity in daily inflicting fresh humiliations upon those in his charge. There was no alternative but to accept the privations, submit to the vexations, yield to the exactions and caprices of these low, vulgar scoundrels."
"The near veil of silence surrounding the events of that night, however, is not difficult to understand, given the exalted position of the Grand Duchesses; ... to present them as paragons of all moral virtue or perhaps the "silence" is because NOTHING ACTUALLY HAPPENED so no one had anything to say. ie: the entire diary entry of Gilliard:
"Monday May 20th - At half-past eleven we left the house and went on board the Russ. She is the boat which brought us with the Czar and Czarina eight months ago. Baroness Buxhoeveden has been granted permission to rejoin us. We left Tobolsk at five o'clock. Commisar Rodionov has shut Alexei Nicholaievich in his cabin with Nagorny. We protested: the child is ill and the doctor ought to have access to him at any time.
"Wednesday May 22nd - We reached Tiumen this morning."
or here is the ENTIRE discussion on the subject in the Sokolov investigation's report made AFTER interrogating all surviving passengers of the Rus(pg 146)
"Here is how the journey of the imperial children went under the command of Rodionov:
"From Gilliard's deposition: "Rodionov behaved very badly. He closed off from outside the cabin in which were found Alexei with Nagorny. All of the other cabins, in particular those of the Grand Duchesses were not to be locked from inside, under his order."
"The morning of May 22, the imperial children arrived in Tiumen."
"Those on board the ship were unable (being locked up) or unwilling (through fear of reprisal ...) again, suppostion without evidence, yet stated as fact...This may be the key to the events of that night: shame and humiliation at not being able to come to the defense of the helpless Grand Duchesses might well account for Gibbes' "worst memory.
I also found that I had said this, and I believe it is one fundamental obligation of authors:
ANY author writing what purports to be accurate historical non-fiction must keep what they know "for sure from the evidence" separate from their speculation and imagination based on that evidence.
Ok, so these are the corrections made by someone else, i.e. FA - using other sources - not corrections by the authors, which is what we have been talking about... I don't think the authors ever presented their own "corrected' sources about the Rus incident as Simon and AGRB claimed - you know - the sources on which they based their information in the book that the GDsess were sexually harassed or probably sexually harassed or groped by the guards and most definitely not left in peace - which is what seems to be implied in the book... Did the authors blame that entire paragraph on the incompetence of the editors? I have to admit, I didn't read the K&W forum so I have no idea what the excuses were. Did King and Wilson mean to publish what FA posted here and those pesky editors got it all wrong and published the opposite? I don't understand what their explanation was about this. Does anyone know? AGR? Simon?
What writer wouldn't love a shot at a prequal or sequal if the book was successful? If King and Wilson hoped for a follow up that didn't pan out no harm/no foul.
http://tinyurl.com/yqayu3
Note her words: -
"I don't want to place any "blame" for the rewrites and revisions on our
editors. They did a great job in preserving the heart of the book while
making us more "readable." While we would have loved to publish our
original, January version, a simple fact of the publishing world these days
is that a book must sell. And how many people would have bought a
multi-volume compendium of Romanov history? Perhaps us here, but I'm
betting not nearly as many as will buy this version. "
Oh sorry - you won't read it.....
What writer wouldn't love a shot at a prequal or sequal if the book was successful? If King and Wilson hoped for a follow up that didn't pan out no harm/no foul.
Indeed. And people do and don't write "sequels" for all sorts of reasons, ranging from [loss of] interest to demands by the publisher and so forth. No need to assume that IF no Romaonv claimants book is ever done it has anything to do with recent discoveries at all, and taht IF it is it has anything to do with "proving" AA. The discovery of bones does not wipe out past histories of claims.
What writer wouldn't love a shot at a prequal or sequal if the book was successful? If King and Wilson hoped for a follow up that didn't pan out no harm/no foul.
Indeed. And people do and don't write "sequels" for all sorts of reasons, ranging from [loss of] interest to demands by the publisher and so forth. No need to assume that IF no Romaonv claimants book is ever done it has anything to do with recent discoveries at all, and taht IF it is it has anything to do with "proving" AA. The discovery of bones does not wipe out past histories of claims.
Fair enough Janet. I WAS speculating, and was left with the impression that the idea of a sequel or prequel was somehow offensive on its face. Thanks for clarifying!
What writer wouldn't love a shot at a prequal or sequal if the book was successful? If King and Wilson hoped for a follow up that didn't pan out no harm/no foul.
Ok, so these are the corrections made by someone else, i.e. FA - using other sources - not corrections by the authors, which is what we have been talking about... I don't think the authors ever presented their own "corrected' sources about the Rus incident as Simon and AGRB claimed - you know - the sources on which they based their information in the book that the GDsess were sexually harassed or probably sexually harassed or groped by the guards and most definitely not left in peace - which is what seems to be implied in the book... Did the authors blame that entire paragraph on the incompetence of the editors? I have to admit, I didn't read the K&W forum so I have no idea what the excuses were. Did King and Wilson mean to publish what FA posted here and those pesky editors got it all wrong and published the opposite? I don't understand what their explanation was about this. Does anyone know? AGR? Simon?
Did you in fact read a single word of what I wrote on the other thread?
Sorry - stupid question.
Incidentally, I don't for a moment believe that Penny "blamed" the editor for any errors (I assume it's her you are having a go at, since you do in fact seem to be suffering from some sort of strange obsession, and I can't for a moment imagine Greg discussing editorial issues in a public place). Here for example, since you and Annie seem keen on digging up ancient internet posts, as another old Usenet one about FOTR: -
http://tinyurl.com/yqayu3
Note her words: -
"I don't want to place any "blame" for the rewrites and revisions on our
editors. They did a great job in preserving the heart of the book while
making us more "readable." While we would have loved to publish our
original, January version, a simple fact of the publishing world these days
is that a book must sell. And how many people would have bought a
multi-volume compendium of Romanov history? Perhaps us here, but I'm
betting not nearly as many as will buy this version. "
Ok, so these are the corrections made by someone else, i.e. FA - using other sources - not corrections by the authors, which is what we have been talking about... I don't think the authors ever presented their own "corrected' sources about the Rus incident as Simon and AGRB claimed - you know - the sources on which they based their information in the book that the GDsess were sexually harassed or probably sexually harassed or groped by the guards and most definitely not left in peace - which is what seems to be implied in the book... Did the authors blame that entire paragraph on the incompetence of the editors? I have to admit, I didn't read the K&W forum so I have no idea what the excuses were. Did King and Wilson mean to publish what FA posted here and those pesky editors got it all wrong and published the opposite? I don't understand what their explanation was about this. Does anyone know? AGR? Simon?
Did you in fact read a single word of what I wrote on the other thread?
Sorry - stupid question.
Incidentally, I don't for a moment believe that Penny "blamed" the editor for any errors (I assume it's her you are having a go at, since you do in fact seem to be suffering from some sort of strange obsession, and I can't for a moment imagine Greg discussing editorial issues in a public place). Here for example, since you and Annie seem keen on digging up ancient internet posts, as another old Usenet one about FOTR: -
http://tinyurl.com/yqayu3
Note her words: -
"I don't want to place any "blame" for the rewrites and revisions on our
editors. They did a great job in preserving the heart of the book while
making us more "readable." While we would have loved to publish our
original, January version, a simple fact of the publishing world these days
is that a book must sell. And how many people would have bought a
multi-volume compendium of Romanov history? Perhaps us here, but I'm
betting not nearly as many as will buy this version. "
Janet, are you saying that they didn't blame anything on the editors? Then what was the reason for all the mistakes and misquotes? I admit, I am having trouble understanding you.
I think you missed the much more recent posts, evidently on the K&W forum, where Penny Wilson, in her attempt to explain away the errors stated that most were "editorial errors". This is what this discussion was about... Or did I get that wrong, maybe she didn't say that they were editorial errors? In which case how else did they explain the errors and the misquotes in the book? Someone please help me out.
Question 1. Are you really so stupid that you don't know that authors also make "editorial errors" during the editing process?
Question 2. Are you really so stupid that you think that you'd set me a trap with that one?
As to "selling lies for money" - the last person I heard that one from was sixteen years old. Most adults appreciate the stylistic demands of commercial publishing, which have nothing to do with any resultant editorial errors.
For what little its worth, Penny told me personally on the telephone that errors were made by both she/Greg AND the editors at Wiley, "during the rush to publication" (her words as best I can recall.)
As to "selling lies for money" - the last person I heard that one from was sixteen years old. Most adults appreciate the stylistic demands of commercial publishing, which have nothing to do with any resultant editorial errors.
Without the Internet, we would probably not even know that King & Wilson had been accused of "massaging" the facts or having editorial problems or that their book was "styled to sell" unless we were reading about it in a magazine that critiques new books. And how many of us would bother with that?
All I know is that (again IMHO) all of the sources, whether they were present at the time or wrote about the events afterward, are no more reliable than any other source.
Why are we so outraged over this particular book? Shouldn't we be just as outraged over Guy Richards The Hunt for the Czar or Summers and Mangold's The File on the Tsar? Taken at the time they were written, the information was thought to be true but there was no Internet for us to tear them apart over.
Sorry to have run on for so long. I just get jittery when a subject gets the kind of treatment that this has gotten.
As to "selling lies for money" - the last person I heard that one from was sixteen years old. Most adults appreciate the stylistic demands of commercial publishing, which have nothing to do with any resultant editorial errors.
You know, Janet, I must be even more stupid than you suspected, because I honestly don't understand what you mean by "stylistic demands of commercial publishing". Does it mean the author can change what sources say in order to make them sound more "juicy" (and sell more books)? Does it mean the author can pick selected sources which fit their agenda? What exactly are "stylistic demands of commercial publishing"? I would be very grateful if you elaborated on that.
Volkov - in my personal opinion - is ambigiuous; he says that the guards went away "HAVING LEFT the Grand Duchesses in peace," thereby prompting the question (to me) "at what point did they leave them alone?"
Additionally, the kids' father recorded that they had suffered when they arrived in Ekaterinburg.
Anyway, all this stuff weighed and balanced seems to indicate that something occurred, but that no-one could be sure what. Authors concluded - as do I - that it was certainly not rape, since if it had been the effects would have been more dramatic. Most likely, the girls were subjected to some kind of sexual taunting before the soldiers finally went away.
This may appear misleading in context, but does not to me change the validity of the conclusion, whether people agree or not - nor was it deliberately done to deceive.
And those who have said in this threda that without the internet, none of this would have mattered are spot on: I don't think the book would have been subjected the same scrutiny without ATR and this forum at least....
There is a number of posts which followed this one as Helen worked through some subjects.
I think her earlier posts about this book were more accurate than what she believes today.
AGRBear
Helen, I think Bear has a good question here, would you mind addressing the evolution of your thoughts?
Thanks, Jenn
Absolutely! As I mentioned more than once when I refer to FOTR, my initial reaction to the book was "hey, this is different than any other book I've read on the Romanovs!", which made me like FOTR. The post which AGR is referring to was made by me in November 2004 - 3 and half years ago. At that time I had not as much knowledge about the Romanovs as I do now (although I thought it did). In the last 3 and half years, I have learned much. At the time I also didn't check any of the sources in FOTR, but like many other readers took the authors' words face value and assumed the sources were correct. Only when I got more involved in Romanov discussions, learned a lot more about them and finally checked the sources, did I realize what kind of "new" information we were dealing with here. My post from 3 and half years ago just goes to show you that I accepted FOTR with an open mind, had no personaly vendetta for the authors or against the book (much like most other readers), and only after I obtained more information did I realize that the book is full of holes and mistakes and apparent agenda. I hope this addresses this subject sufficiently, but feel free to ask more questions!
Oh, and by the by, Penny Wilson has told me personally several times that SHE HAS NO DOUBT THAT VOLKOV SAID THE GRAND DUCHESSES WERE NOT MOLESTED OR ABUSED IN ANY WAY.
Quote from: AGRBear on July 25, 2005, 11:28:26 PM
Here is some additional information from Penny on AA's child:
Yes. She was quite adamant about the child's birth, and claimed a date in -- I think -- December 1918/January 1919 for the birth. This is in the court records, along with her statement concerning the possible death of Alexander Tschaikowsky -- which AA claimed happened in a street-fight, but which can't be verified independently.
This date of birth, of course, places conception in the early months of 1918 -- unthinkable for people when the theory was that she was Anastasia, because that would mean one of two things: That rape had happened in Tobolsk, on board the Rus, in the Ipatiev house, or all three; or Anastasia had had consensual sex while in captivity, presumably with a guard. Either way, when she -- AA-as-Anastasia -- left the Ipatiev House in mid-July 1918, she was pregnant.
I apologize for digressing.
Since Helen opened this thread and directed her words to myself and Penny, I feel I need to respond, even without FA's permission.
... [ in part]....
Here is some additional information from Penny on AA's child:
Yes. She was quite adamant about the child's birth, and claimed a date in -- I think -- December 1918/January 1919 for the birth. This is in the court records, along with her statement concerning the possible death of Alexander Tschaikowsky -- which AA claimed happened in a street-fight, but which can't be verified independently.
This date of birth, of course, places conception in the early months of 1918 -- unthinkable for people when the theory was that she was Anastasia, because that would mean one of two things: That rape had happened in Tobolsk, on board the Rus, in the Ipatiev house, or all three; or Anastasia had had consensual sex while in captivity, presumably with a guard. Either way, when she -- AA-as-Anastasia -- left the Ipatiev House in mid-July 1918, she was pregnant.
This of course refers to the Rus trip and implication that Anna Anderson was Anastasia... Issue #1.
Lets take it from there. If anyone else remembers anything else, you can post it here...
Remember I explained certain threads that too many posts were eliminatd, and, posters went back and changed their posts [this was when people could go back and anytime and change their posts]. So what people read, now, will read something entirely different than it was intended to be since it's, now, out of context..
Yes, we were talking about what Gibbes' son said that his father had said.
Yes, we were talking about the various testimonies of the people who were on the Russ.
I believe it was Chat Noir who mentioned AA's story in the middle of that discussion.... One post lead to another.... We were no longer talking about the Grand Duchess but AA and von Kleist's claim that AA had a child in Dec. of 1918. So, if AA [NOT GD Anastasia] had a child in Dec., one needed to count back seven to nine months. Let me repeat. We were talking about AA's and von Klest's dates. Someone reminded us that AA had denied von Kleist's story and that she claimed to have had a child in 1919. I think we agreed that since AA claimed she had a child with Tchaikovsky that she couldn't have had a child in Dec. 1918 so it had to have been born seven to eight months after July of 1918. Unfortunately, somewhere, I jokenly mentioned that someone had written in their diary that GD Anastasia was said to be getting fat. I later apologized because this caused some eye brows to flare up. And, this caused people to incorrectly think I thought AA was GD Anastasia. Which I do not.
That was my BIG ERROR. When FA pointed out my blunder, I openly admitted my blunder at the time. Because when I do make blunders or any kind of errors, I do admit it, say I'm sorry, and expect people to accept my apology.
Since I don't believe AA is GD Anastasia, most people did not have a problem with accepting my apology, accept Helen and Annie, who have no intentions of accepting my apology, then, now, or later, and, they have no intentions of stopping this campaign against King and Wilson. I assume they attack me because I continued to defend King and Wilson.
Now, back to the Russ and the events which may or may not have occured.
FA has his opinion about the events whichhe believes occured on the Russ. I find them interesting. Just as I find King's and Wilson's opinions interesting. I believe they have seen GARF, talked to Gibbes' son (or read what he had said) and other documents which caused them to think it worth presenting in their book.
Their error was a simple one. The publisher had taken out part of a sentence, which wasn't caught, and so the footnote ended up at the end of the sentence which meant the footnote was establishing the wrong point. And, that point was and still concerns FA who wishes this error and the other errors could be corrected.
After some heated discussion on AP, both King and Wilson left AP, and, then placed on their forum how the errors occured. I accepted their explanation, asdo others.
Unless the publisher allowes King and Wilson to correct the errors, the errors will reamain. And, the book will be reprinted, again and again with those errors. This is what is. And, if you have ever published anything, you'd realize that an author loses many rights when he/she sign the dotted line. How do I know? Experience. And, if anyone tells you differently, then, they have been some of the lucky ones who haven't had this problem.
Let me repeat for the umteenth time since Helen and Annie fail to understand and seem to want you to believe otherwise:
I do not believe AA was GD Anastasia.
AGRBear
I hope you'll pardon me for a little bit of good-natured teasing...
That old Henry Fonda movie, Twelve Angry Men (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/) is on right now, and I'm getting a kick out of imagining the posters in this thread in the various parts.
Who'd like to audition for Juror #8 (Fonda) and Juror #3 (Cobb)?
*wink*
I did not write the quote Helen tells us that Penny said. I don't even know for sure where it came from.
I hope you'll pardon me for a little bit of good-natured teasing...
That old Henry Fonda movie, Twelve Angry Men (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/) is on right now, and I'm getting a kick out of imagining the posters in this thread in the various parts.
Who'd like to audition for Juror #8 (Fonda) and Juror #3 (Cobb)?
*wink*
I don't recall the movie well enough to audition for any of the 12.
I do, however, enjoy your humor.
AGRBear
Bear.
Please to explain WHY Gibbes was totally SILENT on the subject when questioned by Sokolov about the Rus mere weeks and months after the fact. The ONLY MENTION of Gibbes' self-proclaimed "worst nightmare" was not until THIRTY PLUS YEARS LATER and then not a first hand reference. There is simply no logical or reasonable explanation that he was totally silent in his first hand interrogation by Sokolov just scant MONTHS after the fact , yet DECADES later proclaims the event to a third party as his "worst nightmare". Sorry to bring Judge Judy back but, honestly, "if it doesn't make sense then IT CAN"T BE TRUE."
CAN ANYBODY explain to me WHY an unsupported THIRD party account is given so much MORE evidentiary weight than Gibbes' recorded first hand accounts, INCLUDING his own book??
... As far as the Rus was concerned, ...
Volkov - in my personal opinion - is ambigiuous; he says that the guards went away "HAVING LEFT the Grand Duchesses in peace," thereby prompting the question (to me) "at what point did they leave them alone?"
When FOTR was edited and re-written, the "stylistic demand" was that controversial material was presented in a sure and certain and accessible manner ...
.... Most adults appreciate the stylistic demands of commercial publishing ...
The discovery of bones does not wipe out past histories of claims.
I guess what I have always wanted to know is why do some think that the girls were so special and highly thought of and placed so far above the average woman that no soldier or jailer would try anything at all. I think that gives the girls a mythological cast that, while they might have had it before the tsar's abdication, they surely lost it during the year and a half of captivity.
For what little its worth, Penny told me personally on the telephone that errors were made by both she/Greg AND the editors at Wiley, "during the rush to publication" (her words as best I can recall.)
I made my previous post before I saw this. So here it is, the "editorial mistakes" were made by the authors AND by Wiley according to Penny Wilson. From what I have seen, Wilson blamed only the editors (not the authors editing their own text) and yes, "rush to publication' was mentioned...
... As I have said, the conclusions are the same, even without the argument present.
Thanks Margarita for the original and the explainations. Since Volkov was Russian, that must be the way it was written and has to be exactly what he meant. So what we actually had was, ONE man putting Alexei and Nargorny locked up in a cabin, and leaving the Grand Duchesses alone (which may even have meant he did not lock them up) How in the world anyone can bring in a group of leering soldiers that never existed, and assuming their 'must' have been abuse going on in the night is ridiculous. There is nothing there but speculation elaborated on by imagination! Sorry but no editor's error could do that alone.
In addition, the theory that they could have been molested but nobody mentioned it because of their station is really, really, grasping at straws.
Thanks Margarita for the original and the explainations. Since Volkov was Russian, that must be the way it was written and has to be exactly what he meant. So what we actually had was, ONE man putting Alexei and Nargorny locked up in a cabin, and leaving the Grand Duchesses alone (which may even have meant he did not lock them up) How in the world anyone can bring in a group of leering soldiers that never existed, and assuming their 'must' have been abuse going on in the night is ridiculous. There is nothing there but speculation elaborated on by imagination! Sorry but no editor's error could do that alone.
In addition, the theory that they could have been molested but nobody mentioned it because of their station is really, really, grasping at straws.
There never was any ambiguity in Volkov's words as they appear in the Russian and in the French languages. The text was never open to any other interpretation.
Writers of history undoubtedly have an ethical obligation to describe an event as best they can.
What can one say if that occasion is instead completely transformed decades later and is instead depicted as an incident which is tinged with spicy ambiguity?
Margarita
If an author has an agenda (and which one wouldn't?) and their focus is to explain historical happenings with a view to a different conclusion than was previously shown in other books, would they not then use only those "sources" that sustained their viewpoint and agenda?
Would they not "down play" those sources that disagreed with their new viewpoint and agenda?
Why are we so outraged over this particular book?
Volkov is not the least bit "unclear". Try reading the original french or russian. Volkov goes to great lengths to discuss how the focus was on Alexei and Nagorny, most especially because Nagorny was constantly bickering with the guards. The "having left the Grand Duchesses in peace" in the original MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO IMPLICATION WHATSOEVER IN THE ORIGINAL that anything happened to them BEFORE "leaving them in peace. Rather, the original is WITHOUT DOUBT CLEAR that that "having left" was not a temporal reference timewise, rather a COMPARISON to the treatment that Alexei and Nagorny were getting by being locked into their cabins from the outside and not able to leave at will.
Further, the original French can just as easily read "leaving the Grand Duchesses undisturbed" without any alteration of the original meaning. There are a myriad of ways in French to imply that something happened to them BEFORE but were subsequently "left in peace" and the original text JUST DOESN"T SAY THAT.
Oh, and by the by, Penny Wilson has told me personally several times that SHE HAS NO DOUBT THAT VOLKOV SAID THE GRAND DUCHESSES WERE NOT MOLESTED OR ABUSED IN ANY WAY. TO READ ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING ELSE IS NOTHING BUT SPECULATION AND SUPPOSITION WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SUPPORT THIS AS BEING ANYTHING ELSE. PERIOD.
If an author has an agenda (and which one wouldn't?) and their focus is to explain historical happenings with a view to a different conclusion than was previously shown in other books, would they not then use only those "sources" that sustained their viewpoint and agenda?
Would they not "down play" those sources that disagreed with their new viewpoint and agenda?
Perhaps this is true, but what we are talking about here is changing the meaning of the sources to fit a specific agenda, not downpaying them... That means they are altering history, not just using only sources which fit in with their view. That's downright sleazy, IMO.Why are we so outraged over this particular book?
I think it was a combination of blatant source mutilation and the authors' reaction to legitimate criticism of the latter.
CAN ANYBODY explain to me WHY an unsupported THIRD party account is given so much MORE evidentiary weight than Gibbes' recorded first hand accounts, INCLUDING his own book??
To tell the truth (sorry FA) buy I have always thought that something, anything, could have happened to the Grand Duchesses.
To tell the truth (sorry FA) buy I have always thought that something, anything, could have happened to the Grand Duchesses.
Yes, that's true, however, there is no credible evidence that it did happen, so what we are left with is speculation. Now, it's ok to speculate of course, as long as it is made clear that that's what it is... However, in FOTR, they specifically modified the source to make it sound as if this is indeed what happened while this same source stated the opposite. Not only was it not indicated in the book that it was speculation, it was intentionally presented as a legitimate fact, using this source (Volkov)... What do you think about that?
However, in FOTR, they specifically modified the source to make it sound as if this is indeed what happened while this same source stated the opposite. Not only was it not indicated in the book that it was speculation, it was intentionally presented as a legitimate fact, using this source (Volkov)... What do you think about that?
Sure we can speculate that some "abuse" may have occurred, but the EVIDENCE shows strongly that nothing worse than some disrespect or verbal taunts actually transpired..
Secondly, Guards were "POSTED EVERYWHERE", so just how much access would the drunken soldiers up on deck have had?
But as I've pointed out previously, Volkov himself is not misquoted in FOTR. The words "leave them in peace" are correct, and those are the only words attributed directly to Volkov. All claims that the grand duchesses were in any way abused come from the authors' mouths, not Volkov's.
"'The women, as Buxhoeveden recalled, had been ordered "to leave our cabin doors open all night. No one undressed." [Through the open doors, the soldiers leered at the grand duchesses]this phrase added by the authors, there is NO factual evidence to support the statement, and it is asserted as FACT and not identified as speculation [refusing, as Volkov later learned, to "leave them in peace"][b]Completely false. Volkov stated the GDs WERE LEFT IN PEACE[/b].
[Here I go splitting hairs again... It's not possible to 'modify' a source -- unless of course you actually go back to the original document and falsify it. You can however, misquote.
But as I've pointed out previously, Volkov himself is not misquoted in FOTR. The words "leave them in peace" are correct, and those are the only words attributed directly to Volkov. All claims that the grand duchesses were in any way abused come from the authors' mouths, not Volkov's.
No, that's not correct. The words were "would not leave them in peace". That is very different from "left them in peace", which was what Volkov really said. Another source was used to further demonstrate how the GDesses were not left in peace, and then the authors' conclusion was made that most likely something untoward had happend to the GDs, even the possibility of rape was implied - even though not exactly spelled out (things were worded in a way where the reader may imagine it).
You're mistaken. Here's a photocopy of the page in question with Volkov's quote hi-lighted:
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y285/sarahelizabethii/Romanov/FOTR140.jpg)
My copy is a first edition hardcover.
Thus the sentence "Through the open doors, the soldiers leered at the grand duchesses refusing, as Volkov later learned, to "leave them in peace". Has three errors of fact: a. Volkov did not learn anything "later" he was a first hand witness. b. Volkov was NOT referring to anything the guards did. c. nobody "refused to leave them in peace" (which is the exact reading of the sentence as published. Further, the allegation written as a "fact" that the soldiers "leered" at the Grand Duchesses is unsupported speculation.
A couple of points. First, I suddenly realized that there is a disturbing choice of syntax that never struck me before. FOTR says "as Volkov later learned" Well, Volkov didn't learn anything later, he was THERE on board and knew what happened first hand.
Sarah,
Please make certain that the authors don't have an objection to your reproduction of the entire page of the text. I don't want to infringe on any copyrights. Thanks.
FA
Actually I've corrected my post while you were typing your last post, they didn't exactly say that Volkov stated that they were "not left in peace" but that they "refused to leave them in peace" which amounts to the same thing, except they didn't include the word "refuse" in the quote.
I hope you'll forgive my pickiness, but this is still not an accurate quote from FOTR. The wording is different, and the quotation marks setting off Volkov's words are missing:
'....refusing, as Volkov later learned, to "leave them in peace".'
So if I'm following this train of thought correctly, the wording can leave one with the impression that a very specific, very narrow agenda is hinted at here, something Janet A. staunchly denies.
Could it be possible the writing and the editing are just not very good?
The clear meaning of the paragraph says that the passengers were locked up in the boat for hours before it left. The drunken and bored soldiers did their shooting and grenade tossing. THEN the Rus leaves and they say that Volkov calls the VOYAGE ITSELF "a savage orgy".
Here is what Volkov actually said. The boat left at two o'clock and steered in the direction of Tyumen. The conduct of the soldiers during the voyage was abominable. Absolutely no discipline. They fired gunshots and even threw grenades, without rhyme or reason, at birds, up in the air...It was a savage orgy.
Error of fact 3: Volkov did NOT call the voyage itself "a savage orgy". That term was used to describe the lack of discipline of the soldiers up on deck.
Yeah, poor Volkov. Luckily for FOTR he was no longer alive to set things straight and unless the reader actually reads his memoirs in Russian or French, he or she would never know what he really said.
The clear meaning of the paragraph says that the passengers were locked up in the boat for hours before it left. The drunken and bored soldiers did their shooting and grenade tossing. THEN the Rus leaves and they say that Volkov calls the VOYAGE ITSELF "a savage orgy".
Here is what Volkov actually said. The boat left at two o'clock and steered in the direction of Tyumen. The conduct of the soldiers during the voyage was abominable. Absolutely no discipline. They fired gunshots and even threw grenades, without rhyme or reason, at birds, up in the air...It was a savage orgy.
Error of fact 3: Volkov did NOT call the voyage itself "a savage orgy". That term was used to describe the lack of discipline of the soldiers up on deck.
IMO, that quote was once again used to sensationalize the incident, in order to sell more books no doubt - I guess it was all still part of, what did Janet A call it? Oh yes, "stylistic demands of commercial publishing"...
The authors should really just apologize, and if they ever do a reprint, correct it.
The clear meaning of the paragraph says that the passengers were locked up in the boat for hours before it left. The drunken and bored soldiers did their shooting and grenade tossing. THEN the Rus leaves and they say that Volkov calls the VOYAGE ITSELF "a savage orgy".
Here is what Volkov actually said. The boat left at two o'clock and steered in the direction of Tyumen. The conduct of the soldiers during the voyage was abominable. Absolutely no discipline. They fired gunshots and even threw grenades, without rhyme or reason, at birds, up in the air...It was a savage orgy.
Error of fact 3: Volkov did NOT call the voyage itself "a savage orgy". That term was used to describe the lack of discipline of the soldiers up on deck.
IMO, that quote was once again used to sensationalize the incident, in order to sell more books no doubt - I guess it was all still part of, what did Janet A call it? Oh yes, "stylistic demands of commercial publishing"...
But why not just do it carefully and correctly from the beginning? People aren't going to suddenly drop their copy of The Secret where they stand and pick up The Fate of the Romanovs instead.
Thanks Margarita for the original and the explainations. Since Volkov was Russian, that must be the way it was written and has to be exactly what he meant. So what we actually had was, ONE man putting Alexei and Nargorny locked up in a cabin, and leaving the Grand Duchesses alone (which may even have meant he did not lock them up) How in the world anyone can bring in a group of leering soldiers that never existed, and assuming their 'must' have been abuse going on in the night is ridiculous. There is nothing there but speculation elaborated on by imagination! Sorry but no editor's error could do that alone.
In addition, the theory that they could have been molested but nobody mentioned it because of their station is really, really, grasping at straws.
There never was any ambiguity in Volkov's words as they appear in the Russian and in the French languages. The text was never open to any other interpretation.
Margarita
The French text reads "ayant laisse en paix les Grandes Duchesses" - having left the Grand Duchesses in peace. You may or may not consider this to be the "definitive" text, but please do not accuse me of misrepresenting source material.
The French text reads "ayant laisse en paix les Grandes Duchesses" - having left the Grand Duchesses in peace. You may or may not consider this to be the "definitive" text, but please do not accuse me of misrepresenting source material.
I believe the original Volkov was written in Russian (?) - correct me if I'm wrong - and this is where Margarita was getting her source material.
The French text reads "ayant laisse en paix les Grandes Duchesses" - having left the Grand Duchesses in peace. You may or may not consider this to be the "definitive" text, but please do not accuse me of misrepresenting source material.
I believe the original Volkov was written in Russian (?) - correct me if I'm wrong - and this is where Margarita was getting her source material.
Look, Tweedledee - please read the post to which I was responding.....
The French text reads "ayant laisse en paix les Grandes Duchesses" - having left the Grand Duchesses in peace. You may or may not consider this to be the "definitive" text, but please do not accuse me of misrepresenting source material. I am writing from memory, but this is a point I checked with some attention the first (?) time you people went round this in 2006.
The French text reads "ayant laisse en paix les Grandes Duchesses" - having left the Grand Duchesses in peace. You may or may not consider this to be the "definitive" text, but please do not accuse me of misrepresenting source material.
I believe the original Volkov was written in Russian (?) - correct me if I'm wrong - and this is where Margarita was getting her source material.
Look, Tweedledee - please read the post to which I was responding.....
Good to see that you are still vigilant, Janet A ;-). But if this topic is driving you that crazy, you are free to remove your email alert to this thread and let others who are interested discuss it. (Or maybe I should say "leave others in peace" to discuss it ;-))
But as I've pointed out previously, Volkov himself is not misquoted in FOTR. The words "leave them in peace" are correct, and those are the only words attributed directly to Volkov. All claims that the grand duchesses were in any way abused come from the authors' mouths, not Volkov's.
No, that's not correct. The words were "would not leave them in peace". That is very different from "left them in peace", which was what Volkov really said. Another source was used to further demonstrate how the GDesses were not left in peace, and then the authors' conclusion was made that most likely something untoward had happend to the GDs, even the possibility of rape was implied - even though not exactly spelled out (things were worded in a way where the reader may imagine it).
You're mistaken. Here's a photocopy of the page in question with Volkov's quote hi-lighted:
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y285/sarahelizabethii/Romanov/FOTR140.jpg)
My copy is a first edition hardcover.
Again, let me say, King and Wilson stated that they nor anyone else knows what happen on the Russ. Whatever it was, the results was something Gibbes would never forget.
Now, you can read all sides, and, then make up your own mind.
And you can ask more questions. That's part of being part of a discussion. I assure you I will view the events differently than FA or Helen or Annie. Perhaps it's because, like George Gibbes, I have personally talked to people who suffered under the Bolsheviki who did terrible things to them. All were part of a revolution. Good people often times do bad things in revolutions, and, many of the Bolsheviks did in those times.
AGRBear
I am much more concerned with the misquotes of Volkov than whether Gibbs' adopted son believed his father or not... Volkov was a first hand witness, while the Gibbs testimony is hearsay...
I am much more concerned with the misquotes of Volkov than whether Gibbs' adopted son believed his father or not... Volkov was a first hand witness, while the Gibbs testimony is hearsay...
I am much more concerned with the misquotes of Volkov than whether Gibbs' adopted son believed his father or not... Volkov was a first hand witness, while the Gibbs testimony is hearsay...
I am much more concerned with the misquotes of Volkov than whether Gibbs' adopted son believed his father or not... Volkov was a first hand witness, while the Gibbs testimony is hearsay...
Well that should clear the fog for the forum's more elderly readers.
The French text reads "ayant laisse en paix les Grandes Duchesses" - having left the Grand Duchesses in peace. You may or may not consider this to be the "definitive" text, but please do not accuse me of misrepresenting source material.
I believe the original Volkov was written in Russian (?) - correct me if I'm wrong - and this is where Margarita was getting her source material.
Look, Tweedledee - please read the post to which I was responding.....
Good to see that you are still vigilant, Janet A ;-). But if this topic is driving you that crazy, you are free to remove your email alert to this thread and let others who are interested discuss it. (Or maybe I should say "leave others in peace" to discuss it ;-))
Once again the most active threads are the ones that produce yawns among the high-minded who regard themselves as bored or claim they are beyond the subject matter. Yet still they come. The irony.
Actually I've corrected my post while you were typing your last post, they didn't exactly say that Volkov stated that they were "not left in peace" but that they "refused to leave them in peace" which amounts to the same thing, except they didn't include the word "refuse" in the quote. So technically yes, they used the exact words that Volkov said, except they twisted them to mean the opposite, which is even worse than direct misquoting in my opinion, because it demonstrates that the authors knew exactly what they were doing with that quote...
You're mistaken. Here's a photocopy of the page in question with Volkov's quote hi-lighted:
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y285/sarahelizabethii/Romanov/FOTR140.jpg)
My copy is a first edition hardcover.
"not left in peace"
"refused to leave them in peace"
It seems to me if you deny leaving someone have peace that you are refusing to leave someone in peace.
Why do you think the meaning is twisted, Helen?
Posted by: AGRBear
Let me repeat:
Voklov:
>>The conduct of the soldiers during the voyage was abominable. Absolutely no discipline. They fired gunshots and even threw grenades, without rhyme or reason, at birds, up in the air...It was a savage orgy.<<
This line seems to agree with Gibbes' memory.
AGRBear
"not left in peace"
"refused to leave them in peace"
It seems to me if you deny leaving someone have peace that you are refusing to leave someone in peace.
Why do you think the meaning is twisted, Helen?
But he said they were left in peace, so both are incorrect.QuotePosted by: AGRBear
Let me repeat:
Voklov:
>>The conduct of the soldiers during the voyage was abominable. Absolutely no discipline. They fired gunshots and even threw grenades, without rhyme or reason, at birds, up in the air...It was a savage orgy.<<
This line seems to agree with Gibbes' memory.
AGRBear
Bear: they were talking about the massacre of the birds, not a sex orgy.
Who said there was a "sex orgy"? Volkov said there was "savage orgy". Do we need Bear to use the dictionary, again, so you understand the words?
And, how can you leave people in peace if guns are being firing, grenades being thrown, and soldiers being undisciplined.... and, doors to the cabins were left wide open so anyone passing could see the prisoners?
AGRBear
I don't know why, but every time Margarita addresses me, I'm reminded of a large school girl with a waggng finger and her hands on her hips, approaching the miscreant with a bunch of friends lurking behind, some giggling, others just staring..
Question 1. Are you really so stupid that you don't know that authors also make "editorial errors" during the editing process?
Question 2. Are you really so stupid that you think that you'd set me a trap with that one?
No apologies for the personal attacks - I am really enjoying this....;-)
... Look, Tweedledee - please read the post to which I was responding.....
.... would there ever be the remotest possibility of shutting you up ...
Wasn't referring to you. My dear, don't give yourself airs.....
No, we don't. But we don't guess and tell it for the truth.
No, we don't. But we don't guess and tell it for the truth.
King and Wilson gave us some quotes, facts, opinions and then concluded:
>>Almost certainly, the grand duchesses were subject to taunts and perhaps lewd advances at the hands of the drunken Latvian guards, how far this progressed as the evening wore on is impossible to determine.<<
Annie, I don't see in King or Wilson mentioning a "sex orgy" in these pages we are discussing.
What you have is a bad case of what I call "reading between the lines" and guess what, there is an empty white space between the lines in my book, so, either you are seeing words that do not exist, or, King and Wilson wrote something between the lines, which I doubt, in the book you read.
AGRBear