Author Topic: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others  (Read 67498 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Elisabeth

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2131
    • View Profile
Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
« Reply #60 on: April 08, 2005, 01:18:06 PM »
Hikaru, when did the Meeting of Memories in Ekaterinburg take place? (Was this in connection with the tenth anniversary of the murders in 1928?) I don't remember reading about this event, do you have more information about 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: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
« Reply #61 on: April 08, 2005, 01:56:08 PM »
Quote
NO, I do not think so.
Just the papers of Yurovsky were written at Stalin's time when attitude to the execution have changed and became a  secret matter. So, nobody knows what  is it true or not. But it should be  some true in this written story, I suppose. Pokrovsky did not make it himself, he based on the story which Yurovsky said to him.
(Till the middle of 20 - years in Ekaterinburg they printed
a post -cards with the Ipatiev House when the IF of the Last Tsary was murdered , a lot of books about IF and their last days were printed too, but then everything is disappeared . The last "open event" was the Meeting of Memories of Yurovsky at Ekaterinburg with young people.
Yurovsky understood the situation and said that maybe this is the last time when he could stood and said the story before the public).


Like Elisabeth, I'd like to know more.

Thanks.

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

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline hikaru

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1123
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
« Reply #62 on: April 09, 2005, 07:29:51 AM »
Meeting of Memories, was hold at Ekaterinburg on 2nd February 1934. This meeting was arranged by Association of Old Bolshevicks (Obschestvo starykh bolyshevikov) . Yurovsky was one of its members.(I think he came from Moscow specially to participate in it).
Oficially this meeting was called as Conference of Old Bolshevicks ( Soveschanie Starykh Bolyshevikov).
The stenogramme of this meeting you could fine in the book of Bouranov, Khrustalyov - Romanovs, the destroy of the Dinasty (Romanovy, Unichtozhenie Dinastii), Moscow 2000 .
(Ih Russian variation of book it is written that it is the same book which was published in Germany in 1993-1994).

Offline hikaru

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1123
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
« Reply #63 on: April 10, 2005, 02:05:59 AM »
But according to Radzinsky, the conference of Old Bolsheviks took place in 1924 ( not 1934).
At the same time , Yurovsky had a lecture in Ipatiev House about that night before yong Bolshevik, who was in rather high posts.

WHo is right?
I do not know. We can not see the stenogramme so we have to find the opinion of the third person .
Mr. Khrustalev seems very reliable source, because he was working at GARF all the time. But it could be a printing mistake.

Offline Elisabeth

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2131
    • View Profile
Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
« Reply #64 on: April 10, 2005, 09:33:51 AM »
Thanks for all the information, Hikaru, you're always so helpful!  :)
... 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: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
« Reply #65 on: April 13, 2005, 04:02:43 PM »
Didn't someone say that 1934 was ten years after their first meeting?  Something about a "tenth annivsary" celebration, I think.....   1934 wouldn't have been ten years after the actual execution in 1918.

When Sukurkov said:
>>…Having been in Kusvinsky works for several days, we received orders to go to Ekaterinburg …  <<  

Does this mean they were workers from Kusvinsky or that this is where they were placed to wait until needed?"

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 Elisabeth

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2131
    • View Profile
Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
« Reply #66 on: April 18, 2005, 02:09:22 PM »
No, Bear, 1928 was the 10th anniversary of the murders, as you know very well. This was when Sukhorukov recorded his testimony for posterity.

As to whether or not Sukhorukov was a "real" Kusvinsky worker or simply "placed" there (biding his time for what exactly? since you don't believe the murders in Ekaterinburg happened), may I ask: What difference does it make? What possible bearing could it have on his testimony?

I wish you'd show as much skepticism towards the "Perm story" as you do towards Yurovsky, Sukhorukov, Medvedev, and all the other numerous witnesses to the Ekaterinburg murders.

Because the main witnesses for the "Perm story" are also linked to the Ural Bolsheviks. Indeed, the most "credible" witness (according to Gaida) of the "Perm story," i.e., the story that the imperial women survived Ekaterinburg, was Natalia Mutnykh, who just happened to be the sister of the secretary of the Ural Regional Soviet. Gosh, I wonder who was feeding her information? Two other so-called witnesses, Glafira Malysheva and her mother, were also related to a Perm communist. So if you are going to be consistent and discredit all "Bolshevik"-linked information, you have to discredit their testimony, too ... which leaves a huge hole in the "Perm story," as even you must admit.
« 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 AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
« Reply #67 on: April 19, 2005, 10:47:38 AM »
Since her testimony was given after the Bolsheviks announced Alexandra and the girls had been executed with Nicholas II, AND, the Whites had issued the statement that they believed Nicholas II and the others had been executed the same night, why would this woman and five others  continue what you consider a lie/fabrication?

The reason I'm asking questions about Perm is because everyone seems to jump over them as if they do not exist.  And, I'd like to ponder on this subject.  This thread allowes me and others to ponder.

If Marie/Anastasia and Alexei escaped, which is possible since their bodies are no where to be found and until they are found, then we can look around for other answers, why not study the Perm story in more depth inside of just pushing it away?

The investigators who found these witnesses were actually there.  They spoke to these witnesses.  Their conclusion was different then Sokolov.  These investigators thought the execution of the entire family was staged.

Sokolov didn't place these testimonies in his own report.  Why?
I'll have to speculate and have thus far come up with three possibilities:
(1) Sokolov didn't find these testimonies credible
(2) Sokolov had pressure from certain General that it was important to let the world believe the Bolsheviks were cruel evil men who killed innocent women and children, which included the children of Nicholas II
(3) Due to the length of the manuscript, Sokolov needed to eliminate pages and this is what he cut
(4) Sokolov did have the testimonies in his report but died before they were given to the publisher and the person in charge of these reports, Orlov, made the decision to eliminate these testimonies

In any case, it was Summers and Mangold who in 1976 wrote about these missing reports.

Talking about these omissions isn't what some of you would like to do.  That's okay.  Some of you aren't even a little curious about any of this.  That's okay.

Bring in the logo of the head banging against the wall.  That's okay.

I prefer just having a conversation which bring out all information on the Perm story.  

AGRBear

PS  As to the dates,  I think .... No, I'll have to back and reread ....  Something about 1924 and 1934 when some meetings took place....
« 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 AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
« Reply #68 on: April 26, 2005, 01:06:38 PM »
Some question about the US Colt 45 which Yurovsky claims he used to shoot Nicholas II.

THE PLOTS TO RESCUE THE TSAR by Shay McNeal  p. 164

She talks about the Colt 45 which  is said by the Bolsheviks to have been the weapon which killed Nicholas II.

"It's serial number was 71905.  In tracking down the weapon, I obtained additional information the Colt Company historian Kathleen Holt.  If the serial number 71905 were followed by a letter, then the gun would have been part of a Colt shipment to Russia, possibly through France.  But if there was no letter following the serial number, then the history of Yurovsky's gun wold be quite different.  Colt's archives indicate that the gun model 1911 serial number 71905 (without any letter tagged on at the end) was manufactures in 1914 and was sold to the United States government.  It was delivered to the Ordnance Officer at Fort Thomas, Kentucky on 30 April 1914, one of 150 weapons received.  The 45s were issued to officers, military police and pilots only.

"Thus the self-proclaimed leader of the assassins, at least according to the serial number Radzinsky gave, was using an American army issue gun.  Yet America was not supposed to have a military presence in Russia in July 1918.  The US finally sent troops to Siberia approxiamately six weeks later under the command of General William Graves.  If the serial number Radzinsky quotes is right, then how did the Colt 45 from Kentucky end up in the hands of Yurovsky?"

How did a gun that supposedly arrived with the Americans six weeks after the execution of Nicholas II get to Ekaternburg and be labeled as the murder weapon six weeks earlier?

I think this is a good question to ask by McNeal or anyone else who's interested in the US Colt 45 which was said to have murdered Nicholas II.

AGRBear

PS for more information on Americans Who Fought Bolshviks see:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=revolution;action=display;num=1112900912
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
« Reply #69 on: April 28, 2005, 11:45:37 AM »
Robert Massie's  THE ROMANOVS, THE FINAL CHAPTER p. 20:

"In 1920, Yakob Yurovsky gave the Soviet historian Michael Pokrovsky a detailed account of what he had done in Ekaterinburg in July of 1918 "so people would know".  In 1927, he presented his two revolvers, the Colt and the Mauser, to the Museum of the Revolution on Red Square."

I assume this is the same Colt mentioned by McNeal.

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 AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
« Reply #70 on: May 02, 2005, 07:37:08 PM »
I find it interesting that it was Ermakov who as  standing on the railway ties  which were laid over the mass grave and getting this photo taken and not Yurovsky:



According to Ermakov, he was the one who shot and killed Nicholas II, not Yurovsky.

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

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
« Reply #71 on: May 03, 2005, 09:27:54 AM »
The following photograph is a Mauser, the one which Ermakov claimed he used to kill Nicholas II.



« 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 LisaDavidson

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 2665
    • View Profile
Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
« Reply #72 on: May 03, 2005, 02:12:20 PM »
Quote
I find it interesting that it was Ermakov who as  standing on the railway ties  which were laid over the mass grave and getting this photo taken and not Yurovsky:



According to Ermakov, he was the one who shot and killed Nicholas II, not Yurovsky.

AGRBear


Have you read Fate of the Romanovs? It is likely that most of the squad fired at Nicholas, as he was the hated symbol of autocracy. The truth is, no one will ever know who fired the fatal shot.

Ermakov was a drunk and a braggart, so I am totally unimpressed by this claim, as should you be!

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
« Reply #73 on: May 03, 2005, 03:28:31 PM »
I have read the FATE OF THE ROMANOVS by King and Wilson.

"Impressed" isn't a word I used when talking about either men, Ermakov or Yurovsky, who  claimed to have executed Nicholas II.

From what I've read,  it seems Ermakov was called a "braggart" and a man who drank too much.

The Soviet's seem to look differently upon Ermakov than Yurovsky.  Apparently,  Ermakov, not Yurovsky, was given a  "special pension" p. 429 THE LAST TSAR by Edward Radzinsky.

As to who actually killed Nicholas II, I suppose that most of the guns were first aimed at Nicholas II.

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 etonexile

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1231
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
« Reply #74 on: May 03, 2005, 06:46:53 PM »
Gad...the things in which one takes...pride.... :(