Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - lexi4

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 119
16
The Final Chapter / Re: The Missing Bodies
« on: October 26, 2007, 11:21:33 AM »
Bear,
You have really done a lot of interesting research. The information about the guns is a good example of that. Thank you for sharing.
Lexi

17
The Tudors / Re: Review of 'Elizabeth: The Golden Age'
« on: October 26, 2007, 09:25:11 AM »
I saw it. It was not historically accurate, but I didn't expect it to be. The costumes were amazing, but I thought the movie was a drag.
Lexi

18
Louiis Charles,
That was very well said.
Lexi

19

[/quote]


As one reads the tenor of many of these posts, it is to be reminded of the adage that people so often tend to infer motives, and pass judgements upon actions on the basis of how they themselves would have reacted in the same circumstances. The motto of the Order of the Garter applies.

I cited the found letter which (Iwas told) is in the State Archives to indicate that Dr. Botkin did indeed anguish over his duty, and was not "without question" as to his course.

There is a general notion that conflates the term Imperial Family with the Romanov Family, which had been substantially "reorganized" by Alexander III. The Imperial Family was the family of Nicholas II. Dr. Botkin's loyalty and duty were to his Emperor, not to the Romanovs at large, and in fact, he was a "liberal" as that term was applied in the Russia of his day. If you want a better understanding of the Romanovs of that day, research the offer made to the surviving Grand Dukes by Mannerheim after the murders, and its reception. The Botkin duty to that Imperial Family, the only ones to whom their sacred oaths ran, became Gleb's and Tatiana's. The remaining child Yuri, was not involved. Perhaps that concept is too much to grasp for the "me first" generations that have followed. The Romanov intrigues to displace Nichols II are no secret.
Thus it became to Gleb his duty to support Anastasia and seek her broader recognition, which did in fact begin. the "disavowels"from her aunts did not come until years later, after he recognized her at Sion, although Uncle Ernie had his reasons to discredit her claims (later shown to be true)that she had last seen him during the war in Russia (which he denied - but was later painted as a secret mission).

And, pray tell what is to be inferred from "who did nothing to stop his father's death?" Is there no decency left?

My posts are not so much a "a fervent support," as a firm defense against scurillous denigration and disparagement, whether from ignorance or ill intent. Frankly, there does not appear any desire to "understand" by many, only to impugn, by inferring venal or vindicitve motives to another. It is true I had hoped to vindicate Gleb's sacrifices, which are little known and less appreciated. But one could infer we sought prominence, publicity, etc., etc., which Marina's friends can tell you is not her character.

For anyone to gain some insight into or understanding of Gleb's motives, they would have to understand his background; they would have to view his actions, not in the light of what their own motives might have been in his place, as response to need rather than objective of "self."  They would have to have an adequate knowledge of the times and circumstances, and of the persons with whom he had to interact, and be open to reviewing their motivations. Most do not want to do so. It is not understanding or insight that is sought, which is fairly clear from so many of the posts.

[/quote]

Mr. Schweitzer,
I find it very difficult to understand the "duty and obligation" felt for the Imperial Family. Although not part of the "me generation,"  I am well versed in U.S. history particularly the 1700s. I say that because my lack of understanding of the duty felt by the Botkin family. That lack of understanding is cultural and not generational.
As to the references of the Church of Aphrodite, which is not relavant to this discussion, that was Gleb's right. Perhaps those who do not live in the U.S. might have difficulty grasping this, but in the country anyone can start a church. Just take a lookl at the long line of evangelists who have done so with Christain mythology. We call that freedom of religion.
I do appreciate your insights, it helps me have a greater understanding.
Thank you,
Lexi

20
Much has been said here about the libelous accusations Gleb made against certain of the Romanovs.

For what value it may have to those who are unfamiliar with the then extent conditions, Gleb purposefully intended those remarks to evoke (provoke?) action against him by those offended. That was his reason. Because in litigation that would have ensued, what facts were known to the offended, needed for their action would have had to have been brought forward.

Yes, the libels (if they were really libels) were intentional and hurtful, but they were asserted against the living, who could readily "defend their honor."

That they chose NOT to defend those charges must carry at least as strong inferences as those posting here assign to Gleb's actions.

I myself referred to Olga's own statements, writings  and reactions at the 1994 press conference in which Peter Gill reported the findings of the FSS.

In response to questions, I pointed out that a person in Olga's stratum of society (as then constituted) upon visiting Frau Unbeknant (before Gleb saw her again) would never for a moment confuse
a woman of Frisian (not Polish) descent, with only lower-class origins of that time, with someone (even if not her niece) of her own class or culture, and written so kindly, and sent gifts, until ordered to "cut-off"  by her sister and her brother-in-law.

Now, what inference should be drawn from what I find I must do from time to time, and what Marina, bound by the sense of duty which imbued  her entire family, continued to act upon after her father's death?

I did mistake reply 31 for reply 30 but still ask the writer of reply 25 for the source of her intimate knowledge to support her statements.
 

I agree with Arleen and Janet. I am happy to see you here and hope you will continue to post because you are a part of the history. You are most gracious.
Lexi

21
Interesting. Thank you for sharing it. I would like to read the book.
Lexi

22
The Final Chapter / Re: Yurovsky: deeds vs. statements. A contradiction
« on: September 28, 2007, 03:43:25 PM »
Thank you FA,
I did not inlcude that in my post to bog down the discussion. I included it to show the Reaumur scale was in use during that time period. Who knew it would lead to all of this.
I must say this. I rarely post  here. I read a lot here, but rarely post. One of the reasons is because when I do I get catty. rude responses from Belochka. I have no diea why.
I apologize for distrupting the flow. Perhaps I'll just go back to reading.
Lexi

23
The Final Chapter / Re: Yurovsky: deeds vs. statements. A contradiction
« on: September 25, 2007, 08:28:20 AM »
I always wondered. It all falls into place once you know the temperature. On the  Réaumur scale, zero is freezing and boilng point is 80 degrees. It is also the scale used in the works of Dostoyevsky.
Lexi

Why quote Dostoyevsky?

I didn't quote him, I merely offered an example of the Reaumur scale being used. Why not use the example?

24
The Final Chapter / Re: Yurovsky: deeds vs. statements. A contradiction
« on: September 24, 2007, 07:41:42 PM »
Even when I thought is was Celsius, I didn't think that 15 C. or 59 F. was chilly.

I think that some are confusing another of Alexandra's diary entries where she mentions -5 degrees of frost. (or something like that).

Last night here in CT it was about 60-65 F and it was a bit muggy and humid.  It was not at all chilly and no one needed a warm winter coat.

I wish the whole world would get on one system.  It is so confusing and didn't even know that there were three systems.  I had not heard of Reaumur.

Alixz,
There is also the Kelvin scale.  :)

25
The Final Chapter / Re: Yurovsky: deeds vs. statements. A contradiction
« on: September 24, 2007, 06:03:42 PM »
I always wondered. It all falls into place once you know the temperature. On the  Réaumur scale, zero is freezing and boilng point is 80 degrees. It is also the scale used in the works of Dostoyevsky.
Lexi

26
The Final Chapter / Re: Yurovsky: deeds vs. statements. A contradiction
« on: September 24, 2007, 05:56:13 PM »
Thank you FA. That makes sense.
Lexi

27
Nicholas II / Re: Did Nicholas II Have any Illegitimate Children
« on: September 24, 2007, 09:01:38 AM »
Aliz,
You are a very kind and open-minded poster. I just wanted to tell you that. I see so many hateful and demeaning posters, you are refreshing.
Lexi

28
The Final Chapter / Re: Yurovsky: deeds vs. statements. A contradiction
« on: September 19, 2007, 07:59:25 AM »



  With the recent discovery of some of the remains of the GD Marie and Alexei, I 'm struck again by an apparently major contradiction between Yurovsky's actions in Ekaterinburg, July 1918, and his several subsequent written statements with regards to those activities.
  On the one hand, he had two very obvious and important goals in mind for that period. The first was the murders of the Romanovs , Botkin , Demidova, Trupp, and Kharitonov. In this he was ultimately successful, though it was the crude, botched job that we all know of. His second, related action was the destruction/burial of the eleven corpses with intent of not only keeping the fact of the murders secret, but also of preventing their discovery , removal, and any possibility of their use as a White or monarchist rallying symbol.  Again, in the short term, he was largely successful.

 On the other hand, both orally and in writing, he blabbed his head off, as did many others of the killers, guards, and burial detail. Most notably, he provided in his famous Note(s) fairly clear directions to the primary burial site as well as to that of Alexei and Marie. Fortunately for the truth  and history, these directions enabled Avdonin and others in 1979 and also Ekaterinburg locals   in 2007 to find and recover the victims' remains.

 The obvious question : Why then , leave written description of, and directions to, the burial sites?
 
 A few thoughts...  Although the subject of the burial and disposal of the bodies undoubtedly was discussed in Yurovsky's meeting with Lenin and other leading Bolsheviks, it's highly unlikely any of them were planning to visit the site any time soon , and in any case couldn't  have done so without attracting major attention. So why write about the burials in such a way that the burial spot might be found?
 Yurovsky's note and its directions were obviously not meant for publication, but still, why at all? I doubt he was anticipating the late 20th century collapse of his party's regime and his own life's work (thank God, sorry I couldn't resist). So the prospect of a far in the future (re-)discovery of the Pigs Meadow site doesn't make sense either.

I think in the end it comes to little more than the irresistible urge of the criminal, the proud child-killer, to reveal in greater detail , his great historical accomplishment, to show that he's the possessor of inside information that he alone(not really)  can withhold or reveal at his  own wish.

Although I  in general  don't believe a monster like Yurovsky is worth the overanalysis, I guess  I'm doing it in starting this topic  and invite others  to outdo me. Certainly I'm not seeking a necessarily rational motivation on his part, but there's always the impulse I have to comprehend his (morally) incomprehensible actions.



Rodney,
I can think of no other reason for the not other than, as you say, the irrestiable urge to brag of his accomplishment. Perhaps the note was his trophey, so to speak. Because it details the location of the bodies, that is his proof that he was there and he was part of the execution.
Lexi

29
The Myth and Legends of Survivors / Re: Time and myths
« on: September 19, 2007, 07:56:16 AM »
Lexi,

I never for an instant thought there was anything personal. I have been enjoying the discussion of why I think the survivor MYTH is legitimate, even thought Anna Manahan herself is in no way "mythological".

FA

Great. Then I will prepare and post my rebuttal later.  :)


30
The Myth and Legends of Survivors / Re: Time and myths
« on: September 18, 2007, 09:02:04 PM »
FA,
I am just want to make sure you know that this is just discussion and I mean no disrespect to you or your opinion on this topic. If that is clear, I will post a response to your argument.
Respectfully,
Lexi

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 119