Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC

[Lochlanach]

Bear in mind that Yurovsky's intention was not to minimise suffering to the prisoners, but trouble to himself and his men.

Ann

Indeed, and the chosen method of execution spread the responsibility among all the shooters , instead of just one or two . However, Yurovsky still wanted the killings over as quickly as possible , ipso facto, minimising the suffering of the victims .

[TimM]

The word "execution" always bothers me.  Let's call it for what it was, a cold blooded murder.

[nena]

The word "execution" always bothers me.  Let's call it for what it was, a cold blooded murder.

Tim,  that is correct! The Bolsheviks and Revolutionars call that act 'execution' while the other call it murder. Whether it was execution or murder, that terrible act happened. :/

[DNAgenie]

The word "execution" always bothers me.  Let's call it for what it was, a cold blooded murder.

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

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

[NicolasG]

The word "execution" always bothers me.  Let's call it for what it was, a cold blooded murder.

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

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

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

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

What happened in Ipatiev house in Ekaterinburg was not an "execution". It was a horrible murder. No other word can be used.

[Lochlanach]

The word "execution" always bothers me.  Let's call it for what it was, a cold blooded murder.

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

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

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

 I am not  sure if someone like Ermakov could be described as cold-blooded that night . Drunk and vengeful psychopath certainly ; and I would call him a murderer but he would likely take pride in it, so I'll stick to my description.

[Sarushka]

Another accepted definition is the killing of someone as a political act. I think anyone would be hard-pressed to argue that the death of the Romanovs was not a political act. Even the grand duchesses had political significance to both the Whites and the Reds, despite their lack of political power.

[NicolasG]

Another accepted definition is the killing of someone as a political act. I think anyone would be hard-pressed to argue that the death of the Romanovs was not a political act. Even the grand duchesses had political significance to both the Whites and the Reds, despite their lack of political power.

OK.

"Abraham Lincoln was executed by John Wilkes Booth."

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

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

Does it sound right?

I simply cannot understand why some people fail to see the obvious, that the Russian Imperial Family were murdered.

[Ally Kumari]

To me, naturally, it was murder. Yet I can accept the term "execution" too, even use it sometimes. The biggest difference from the murders above to me is especially the fact that those men were all pretty much "ambushed". What happened with the Romanovs had many features of "execution". They were prisoners. They were officially enemies of the people. According to what we know they were informed about their imminent death, albeit mere seconds before it. Their deathwas decided by one or more people in power - that means the decision was within their legal rights (as sick as that sounds). None of this plays any part with Lincoln, Kennedy or King.

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

[TimM]

To me it will always be murder.  Their was no trial (not even a a rigged one), the Romanovs were not given the chance to speak in their own defense, they were not given legal counsel of any kind.

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

Neither case had anything to do with justice.

[NicolasG]

To me, naturally, it was murder. Yet I can accept the term "execution" too, even use it sometimes. The biggest difference from the murders above to me is especially the fact that those men were all pretty much "ambushed". What happened with the Romanovs had many features of "execution". They were prisoners. They were officially enemies of the people. According to what we know they were informed about their imminent death, albeit mere seconds before it. Their deathwas decided by one or more people in power - that means the decision was within their legal rights (as sick as that sounds). None of this plays any part with Lincoln, Kennedy or King.

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

If a group of terrorists gain control of a building or a plane and start murdering hostages, they are not acting "within their legal rights". Sometimes terrorists gain control of a whole country. They did in 1917.

[TimM]

If there were "enemies of the people" in Russia in 1918, they were the band of revolutionaries that reached power after a coup in November 1917 and imposed terror, war, famine, misery and religious persecution on the Russian people.

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

[Lochlanach]

To me, naturally, it was murder. Yet I can accept the term "execution" too, even use it sometimes. The biggest difference from the murders above to me is especially the fact that those men were all pretty much "ambushed". What happened with the Romanovs had many features of "execution". They were prisoners. They were officially enemies of the people. According to what we know they were informed about their imminent death, albeit mere seconds before it. Their deathwas decided by one or more people in power - that means the decision was within their legal rights (as sick as that sounds). None of this plays any part with Lincoln, Kennedy or King.

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

Re : your last sentence - that is correct for me also . In this particular context one ought to be able to flit between both words without incongruity or misunderstanding (one would hope) . We can split hairs ad nauseum .  It doesn't have to be either/or . It should only become objectionable if you were to argue  for 'execution' , not 'murder' (which has been thoroughly debated on the 'Murder or Execution ?' thread ) . But you aren't making that argument and neither am I.

[Lochlanach]

If there were "enemies of the people" in Russia in 1918, they were the band of revolutionaries that reached power after a coup in November 1917 and imposed terror, war, famine, misery and religious persecution on the Russian people.

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

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

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

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

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

[GDSophie]

To get back to the subject title and to clear it up for myself; I believe it went Nicholas, Alexandra, Trupp, Botkin, Anna (?), Olga/Tatiana, Tatiana/Olga, Alexei, Maria/Anastasia, Anastasia/Maria. (Too many sources say Olga or Tatiana died first out of the girls and Maria or Anastasia died last.)

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

Alexandra - Bullet to the side of the head.

Anna - Bayoneted to death.

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

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

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

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

Alexei - Gunshot wound to the head.

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

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