Author Topic: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson  (Read 241550 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
« Reply #435 on: March 06, 2006, 11:57:18 AM »
Quote

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.
  


Quote

...[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.  



...


Quote

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.
  


Thanks Elisabeth and FA.

AGRBear
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
« Reply #436 on: March 06, 2006, 01:42:22 PM »
Quote

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.


Offline Elisabeth

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2131
    • View Profile
Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
« Reply #437 on: March 06, 2006, 02:59:30 PM »
Quote
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.
... I love my poor earth
because I have seen no other

-- Osip Mandelshtam

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
« Reply #438 on: March 07, 2006, 01:44:42 PM »
Quote

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.


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
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline rjt

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
« Reply #439 on: March 08, 2006, 12:38:54 AM »
I find it interesting, Belochka, that the quotes you have here presented as arguments to support your cause wind up, in fact, subverting it. As you went through the time to parse it out, so shall I.
Quote

]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 ..."

The greatest inadequacy of Alexander III was his utter failure to train his son and Heir to become Emperor. Nicholas himself, from everything I've read, knew he was ill-equipped to assume that huge role. The entire tragic end of the Dynasty and the decades-long Soviet holocaust may have been prevented had Alexander simply been astute enough to provide his son the confidence, intelligence and astuteness borne of training.

Quote
2. ".... have been washed away in lovingly painted portraits of a happy family."

Take a look around this board. How many threads and posts are dedicated to the family life of the Emperor? We see thread after thread comparing smiles and tennis rackets and myriad other familial inconsequences. And yet, when someone (bravely) attempts to discuss the political realities of Nicholas II's reign, the discussion becomes heated and the "he was a good, religious family man with an ill son!" card gets played time and time again as a way to rationalize or justify the Emperor's actions and those of his regime.

Quote
3. "The marked immaturity and bad behavior of the tsesarevich fall away when compared to his horrible pain and suffering."

The boy was murdered at thirteen, for goodness sake. Of course he was immature. However, post after post here is dedicated to the horrors of his disease (and they were real and horrific). When his "bad behavior" was mentioned here months ago (or perhaps years, I can't remember), many members cast up their voices in denouncing the very possibility of such episodes because he had suffered so very much, how could he possibly wish for others to suffer. It is precisely because of his own pain, psychologically speaking, that he may have wished to inflict some on others from time to time. It is a very human thing to do. And let us not forget that none of us are nice and well-behaved 100 percent of the time.

Quote
4. "The sad and thwarted lives of the four grand duchesses ... disappear in the haze of the revolver smoke."

How has X affected your life? Have you seen that thread? The simple truth is she could not possibly have affected your life, yet testimonials rise like floodwaters. Their lives were sadly thwarted. The captivating thing about these young women is their glamourous lives and tragic deaths. Because of the astonishing brutality of their deaths, though, any truly human traits they may have exhibited or possessed are routinely downplayed or denied by legions of ardent fans who wish to cling to the saintly aura that surrounds these very real, very flawed, very human young women.

Quote
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."

See above, but also truly think about this from a detached perspective. I find them much more interesting as 3-dimensional human beings than as 1-dimensional saintly caricatures.

Quote
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."

This may simply be the most brilliant comment I read in that book. It is undeniably true. The "things" you questioned in your original post, by the way, are those items listed after the word "people."

Quote
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."

Once again, 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.
Is it an alarm clock or a calling that gets you out of bed each day? --Christopher Maluck, The Matthew Shepard Foundation

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
« Reply #440 on: March 08, 2006, 03:11:36 AM »
Quote
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.


Obviously your interpretation of the published words from the last two pages of FOTR are very different to my own interpretation.

Many of the words selectively employed by the authors are indeed very deniable.

Just to review a few examples ...

1. Nikolai II was not a "brutal authoritarian dictator" who was accused by the authors, of "ruthlessly" crushing the so called 1905 revoution (which by the ways was never a revolution) but an illegal gathering in a public place which compromised national security. As a leader, it was his sovereign right, through his representatives, to quell any perceived civil disturbance.

Are you suggesting that Nikolai should have allowed the disturbance to envelop the city because it had revolutionary overtones?

2. Nikolai cannot be described as a "passive observer of his empire's martydom" The connection postulated by the authors is nonsense.

3. Nikolai was not a "virulent" anti-semite. This is an unfair gross magnification of the facts.

Yet to suggest just these three identified "historic truths"  are actually "truths", only accords with their perception of Imperial events. Their actuality is difficult to prove. There will always be subtle nuances that will prevent the honesty of any "historic truth" to be ever evaluated with fairness and sincerity of mind.

Similarily, the authors' suggestion that the alleged "historic truths":

1. "... have been subsumed by the romantic nostalgia ... "

AND,  that "the Ekaterinburg massacre transformed Nicholas and his family as "symbols" evoked by "elements" such as:

2. "... rabid monarchists and the Orthodox faithful in an eighty-five-year-old propaganda war."

clearly indicates the authors' position from where to make their observations. The texture of the above two quoted inferences is particularily insulting.

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".
 






« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Belochka »


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
« Reply #441 on: March 08, 2006, 03:39:58 AM »
Quote


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"?


Should actually read:

Which may one ask is the authors' "thing"?    


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Elisabeth

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2131
    • View Profile
Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
« Reply #442 on: March 08, 2006, 08:32:57 AM »
Quote

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


The source is FOTR, p. 250. Sister Agnes' account of Avdeev's reaction to the decision to kill the Romanovs is on p. 251. Robert K. Massie also refers briefly to the Ural Regional Soviet's decision on p. 489 of Nicholas and Alexandra (although he does not give a date for the meeting); afterwards "they sent Goloshchekin to Moscow to learn the attitude of the central government."  
... I love my poor earth
because I have seen no other

-- Osip Mandelshtam

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
« Reply #443 on: March 08, 2006, 09:46:58 AM »
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.

Offline Elisabeth

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2131
    • View Profile
Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
« Reply #444 on: March 08, 2006, 10:02:58 AM »
Quote
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".


Belochka, I don’t think that King and Wilson have a set political agenda in FOTR. 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). 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. 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. 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.
... I love my poor earth
because I have seen no other

-- Osip Mandelshtam

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
« Reply #445 on: March 08, 2006, 10:07:34 AM »
Quote
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.


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 _____?

By the way,  I find rjt's and  Belochka's interpretation of the same words interesting.  I can agree with both and I can disagree with both.  It all depends upon where the shadows fall, doesn't it?  "We read the past by the light of the present, and the forms vary as the shadows fall, or as the point of vision alters." J. A. Froude: Short studies on Great Subects.  

AGRBear  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Helen_Azar

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 7472
  • Coming up Fall 2015: Tatiana's diaries and letters
    • View Profile
    • War-time diaries of Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna Romanov
Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
« Reply #446 on: March 08, 2006, 10:18:31 AM »
Quote
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.


Elisabeth, I very much agree with your assessment, and I have also said something to this affect more than once in the past, referring to things other than those in FOTR,  things that were posted here (or otherwise stated) by the same authors. This seems to be a pattern...

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
« Reply #447 on: March 08, 2006, 03:36:14 PM »
Quote

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?


Offline Elisabeth

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2131
    • View Profile
Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
« Reply #448 on: March 08, 2006, 04:14:09 PM »
Quote
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.  
 
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Elisabeth »
... I love my poor earth
because I have seen no other

-- Osip Mandelshtam

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
« Reply #449 on: March 09, 2006, 12:31:19 AM »
Quote
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.


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)

"inept" (p 526, p 527)

"naive "(p 526)

"clinging desperately to an archaic and inept religious autocracy" (p 526)

"... that swathed him in mysticism and allowed him to plead his conscience." (p 526)

"came to the imperial throne with a self-fulfilling sense of impending doom[/u] "(p 526)

"lacking the necessary vision or strength of will" (p 526)

" ... the last emperor of Russia played a game of captive rule, unwilling and unable to break free of the ponderous weight of the rotting dynasty." (p 526)

"... he inflicted his personal weakness on an entire empire ... " (p 527)

"... the weak-willed husband... " (p 527)

"... the brutal and authoritarian dictatator"

"... who ruthlesslessly crushed the 1905 Reveloution ..." (p 527)

"... "the virulent anti-semite..." (p 527)

"... the passive observer of his empire's martydom ..." (p 527)

"As shortsighted as he could be ..." (p 527)

"... was at the very least cunning ..." (p 528)

"... nor was he shy to use his family ..." (p 528)

Clearly these expressions that were offered in the last 3 pages of FOTR serve to portray Nikolai II in the worst possible terms. They certainly do not lend a sympathetic view. Thus, it might not be unreasonable to suggest that the authors intentions were very much political.


Quote
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.


I do agree with this statement, which IMHO forms part of a complexity of interweaving "agenda".

Quote
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.


Excellent point Elizabeth. That alleged event, was however approached by using negative referencing, that was intended to project that this alleged behavioral impropriety could bear the remnants of plausibility.

With considerable effort the authors chose to provide excerpts from very selective references that included:

"... she suffered reprimands, ... accompanied by ...
severe and angry whispers indicating she was too friendly with members of the guard
." (p 238 - Speranski, a sentry),

"... the girls whispered flirtatiously with us." (Strekotin, sentry),

"... she spent most of her time flirting with them." (p 241, Yurovsky, bolshevik))

"... Maria mixed easily  with her jailers, flirting at every available opporunity." (p 241 Bykov, bolshevik)

One can only ask why would the authors chose to discredit the memory of Grand Duchess Mariya, (as one example) in the first place? Certainly the gleaned bolshevik accounts provide sensationalistic authorship, BUT it goes beyond that - it serves as a political motive to discredit the Imperial regime as the authors' central core of discontent.


Quote
... – but whatever their reasoning, they’re indulging in bad reporting, or, as in this case, in bad scholarship.


The need to portray the various members of the Imperial Family with profound negativity, by the clever use of tangential inferences, spiced with colorful expressions demonstrated their mutual belief that the Imperial Crown was "a rotting dynasty" that served to entrench their ultimate agenda.

Setting such a political scenario in place, they were then enabled to use unsubstantiated sensationalism to fit their multifaceted agenda.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Belochka »


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/