Author Topic: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson  (Read 284578 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 #90 on: July 14, 2004, 09:15:15 PM »
Great photographs.  The one shows a trailor with a pile of wood.  Wonder how much a load of wood like that would weight.... Hmmmm  ::)

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

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

olga

  • Guest
Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
« Reply #91 on: July 15, 2004, 05:17:24 AM »
Quote
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?


Reds under the bed, AGRBear? Just because they are communists doesn't mean they lie about EVERYTHING.

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 #92 on: July 15, 2004, 09:46:24 PM »
Oh dear,  did you say  I said that ALL communists were liers? No, I don't think so.  

The quote of mine you mentioned was answered very nicely by Penny Wilson who had this fact about Halliburton in her and King's book The Fate of the Romanov.

AGRBear

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

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Greg_King

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 588
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
    • Atlantis Magazine
Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
« Reply #93 on: July 16, 2004, 02:47:19 AM »
Quote
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


I've had to edit your query for reasons of space.  First, we don't say or intimate that Lacher, Soames, and Verhas were "hanging" off the truck-they were in bed, as we write, according to Yurovsky, not Kudrin, who we note was not in the truck or accompanying it, despite his claims.

Ermakov's quote that it took two hours to go the ten miles clearly, in the account, refers to the time on the truck only-not the full amount of time to get to the mine.

Re: the carts: Not sure how you missed that-it's in the book-the truck encountered Ermakov's Verkh-Isetsk Detachment waiting with carts in the Koptyaki Forest.  They were not brought with the truck.

As to our timeline being off, I think it's very close, based on Yurovsky's 1922 memoir-he is the one who sets the time of arrival at the mine at nearly 7AM.  That means it took them a total of 3:30-3:45 hours from the time they left the Ipatiev House to the time they reached the mine.  If you read this part carefully again, I think you'll see that it all fits together and indeed took almost 4 hours, as we write.

Greg King

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 #94 on: July 16, 2004, 03:12:43 PM »
Greg King wrote: >>....you missed that-it's in the book-the truck encountered Ermakov's Verkh-Isetsk Detachment waiting with carts in the Koptyaki Forest.<<

I did miss this point.  So,  I reread it.   On p. 321 the bodies were loaded into the carts".  And, yes, it was  on p. 318 you mentioned Ermakov's men with carts.  "Followed by this detachment, the Fiat continued down the muddy road....Nearly a mile beyond, the Fiat sank into a muddy patch..."  

A new question comes to mind:  If Ermakov's men were following with horses and carts,  why didn't they just hitch-up the horses and pull out the truck from the mud?  The bodies could have remained on the truck...  In fact, the horses could have pulled the truck the rest of the way.  Instead,  they  unloaded the bodies and took the time and effort to get railroad ties.... Got the truck out of the mud and reloaded the bodies...

You did say Yurovsky asked,  "...And why so many people?" "And why so many carts?"  All these people were on horses.  And, I asume the carts were being pulled by horses....


When the truck was stuck why didn't they just load the bodies into the carts right away since they had to unload them to get the load lighter to get the truck out?   They had gone "seven miles".   They knew the mines were near.  Yurovsky even said, "...why all of these carts?" The leader of the detachment had known the number of people they thought they were going to kill where they met on p. 318 and then how many carts were needed to take the bodies  to the mine.

One thing for sure,  Yurovsky had depended too much on Ermakov's ability to arrange things....  Or, was it Yurovsky who was not the leader history makes him out to be?

AGRBear

PS.  Forgot to say thank you to Greg King.

Little did you know what you were getting yourself into when you told me to ask questions after I read your book.
« 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 #95 on: July 16, 2004, 03:14:52 PM »
You can read Yurovsky's own specific account here:
www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/Yurovmurder.html

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 #96 on: July 16, 2004, 03:33:39 PM »
Thanks for the URL.

I haven't had time to read it word for word, but I see one of my questions may be answered.  Yurovsky said:  "If only there had been carts instead of carriages.  But there was nothing we could do."

"...carriages..."

I assume this meant the detachment was going to take eleven live people to the mines  where they planned to shoot them.

It also mentions that Yurovsky's part was to have quit as the trucks rolled away from the Ipatiev House.

All interesting.  I'm going back to read more.

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

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Abby

  • Guest
Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
« Reply #97 on: July 22, 2004, 07:01:36 PM »
I just finished reading chapter 21, when they talk about the controversy of Anastasia vs. Marie being in the grave, and picked up something I'd not noticed before: the scientists claimed that Marie had a gap in her front teeth, and no gap was observed in the skeleton supposed to be Marie's, and the Russians were insisting skeleton 6 was Anastasia.
I was wondering if anyone had any photographs of Marie's teeth showing. I don't think I've ever seen a gap there...I think I have only seen a handful of pictures of the Grand Duchesses even smiling with their front teeth, and most of them are Olga Nicholaevna and one odd side-view shot of Tatiana on the inside cover of Virginia Cowles'  "The Last Tsar."  None of Marie Nicholaevna, though. I'd be interested to see any.

Abby

Sarai_Porretta

  • Guest
Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
« Reply #98 on: July 22, 2004, 08:12:47 PM »
Abby,
There is more on this subject in the following thread, entitled "The Last Imperial Family's Teeth":
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=family;action=display;num=1078845785;start=7

I have seen pictures of Maria with a gap in her teeth, I just don't remember where just now (probably in one of the sources listed in the above thread).
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Sarai_Porretta »

Abby

  • Guest
Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
« Reply #99 on: July 22, 2004, 09:55:59 PM »
thanks for the link. Sarai!

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 #100 on: July 24, 2004, 02:57:31 PM »
More questions for King and Wilson:

In the 1934 report of Yurovsky mentions having read Sokolov's report.  This is what he said:

"About two months ago, I was looking through the book by Sokolov, the preliminary investigator of the extremely important cases under Kolchak, when I saw a photo of those stacked ties."

Are there any real differences between his first report, before he read Sokolov's report,  when compared to the 1934 report?

Is there an English translation of the first which we could find and read?

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

Abby

  • Guest
Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
« Reply #101 on: July 24, 2004, 03:01:47 PM »
I thought I remember reading that all his reports were in contrast to each other on certain points. I don't really think that he could remember exactly every detail and repeat it verbatim from the last report unless he were looking at a copy of it in front of him..which he wasn't doing when he gave that speech to the Bolsheviks. (Was that in 1934)?

I am always too lazy to look up facts. Sorry if it wasn't 1934 and I confused anyone!

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 #102 on: July 24, 2004, 03:17:12 PM »
Quote
You can read Yurovsky's own specific account here:
www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/Yurovmurder.html



This was 1934 report.

I know memory isn't perfect that was why I asked if there was any major differences.

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

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Sarai_Porretta

  • Guest
Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
« Reply #103 on: September 06, 2004, 07:48:08 PM »
I purchased The Fate of the Romanovs a few months ago, due entirely to the glowing recommendations of many people on this forum. Admittedly, I would otherwise not have purchased it, as I thought I had read all there is to know on the Tsar and his family, and at this point I am more interested in photograph books about them, but the promise of new and even controversial information intrigued me. Well, I was not disappointed with the book and would like to list some of the points that most drew my attention, in no particular order of importance:

1 – The most compelling and memorable part of the book for me is the incredibly detailed massacre scene. This is simply the most painstakingly meticulous depiction of the murder of the Imperial family and their servants that I have ever read, anywhere. It is very graphic and disturbing, but if anything, it makes me feel for them even more. It is surely a far cry from the scene described in Nicholas and Alexandra, where Massie writes, “Olga, Tatiana, and Marie, standing behind their mother, were hit and died quickly.” We now know that the girls unfortunately did not die quickly. I was aware of this fact before reading FOTR, but I had no idea how much they truly suffered. It is a very haunting image that still disturbs me, as it completely dispels any hope that, if they had to die, then at least their deaths could have been relatively quick and painless. I sometimes find myself looking at pictures of the girls as small children and flashing forward to that horrible death scene, and feeling so sorry for them knowing what was to come.

2- I was surprised at some of the remarks that Nicholas made with regards to Jews and demonstrators. I know that these were his perceived enemies, but some of the comments are outright chilling and, frankly, disturbing. It is no surprise to me that Nicholas was anti-Semitic, a fact that I could forgive him for due to his being a product of a time and place where such ignorant attitudes prevailed, but the quotes in the book seem so cold, for instance: “Reading a report that Cossacks in Saratov had ‘unfortunately’ beaten a group of doctors suspected of assisting local peasants, Nicholas underlined the word ‘unfortunately,’ added a question mark, and wrote, ‘Very well done!’” (pg. 38); “Hearing that a revolt in the Caucasus had passed without bloodshed, Nicholas replied, ‘That is no good! In such cases one must always shoot!’” (pg. 38); “In the Baltic provinces, a certain Lieutenant Captain Richter began, on his own authority, to execute suspects without benefit of trials or even official arrests; learning this, Nicholas commented, ‘What a fine fellow!’” (pg. 38). Also, the fact that Nicholas seemed satisfied at the outcome of the Easter Massacre at Kishinev in 1903, where fifty Jews were dragged from their houses and murdered in the streets, with the Emperor’s knowledge and support (pg. 39). I have read the thread on Nicholas’s anti-Semitism before and I know that he eventually began to change his attitudes, but these comments put him in a very unfavorable light. Like I said, I know he was a product of his time and place, and that we cannot judge 19th century people by 21st century standards, when people know that racism is wrong, but it is still a rather difficult fault to acknowledge in a man that was otherwise perceived to be so good and gentle.

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.

Sarai_Porretta

  • Guest
Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
« Reply #104 on: September 06, 2004, 07:48:19 PM »
3- I was surprised by the revelation that in the Ipatiev House, it was Tatiana, who along with Maria and Anastasia, befriended some of the guards. Tatiana has always been portrayed as being the haughtier of the sisters, the most aloof and unapproachable, and yet she, and not Olga, was actually the friendlier one in the end. However, I know that this may be due to Tatiana’s more outgoing personality and her constant desire for making friends with people outside the family, and also because Olga was the most sensitive to the situation and felt the most depressed by it. I really cannot fault her for not being friendly with her captors, she knew they were not there to be her friends and felt they were there instead to humiliate and restrict them.

4- I think the quote from Macauley about Charles I hits the nail right on the head. This is a quote criticizing “the swell of popular sentiment that excused the errors of his reign by looking to his private life.” Most compelling from that essay is this line: “A good father! Ample apologies indeed for fifteen years of persecution, tyranny, and falsehood! We charge him with having broken his Coronation Oath, and we are told that he kept his marriage vow! We accuse him of having given up his people to the merciless inflictions of the most hotheaded and hard-hearted of prelates, and the defense is that he took his little son on his knee and kissed him!” (pg. 525). As the book suggests, this can eerily be contrasted with popular sentiment today about Nicholas II. We acknowledge that he was a generally poor ruler, but we forgive him because he was a good husband and father. I admit, I have done that before and continue to do it, and I am fully aware of this. Yet I am also trying to maintain a more balanced view of him, and accept criticism of him with an open mind, as it usually does not change my overall opinion of him. Yes, I wish he was less inclined to give up his life to fate, that he was not an anti-Semite, that he was a stronger ruler and not so influenced by his wife, and that he was not so intolerant of change and of differences in people. I accept his faults but I still like the man in general. I guess I am sentimental and I cannot forget the good side of him, the fact that he was a loyal and tender husband and loving father, for that was a part of him too. And to me that seems to outweigh his faults, for I think he was more good than evil. I agree with this book that it is good to see people’s shades of grey and not just in black and white, and that Nicholas was not all white and his captors were not all black either. Such is the complexity of human nature. I also agree that Nicholas was more a man than a saint, and I am personally more comfortable seeing him that way. I admit that, while not as fanatical about the Imperial Family as some, I am somewhat an apologist for them and always try to see their better sides and sometimes even choose to ignore their darker sides. I guess I don’t understand how you can be a Romanovophile and not like something about them. I can’t see them completely objectively simply as historical figures, and I have to find a connection with them and something I can relate to and like about them, if I am to continue to like them with such passion as I have for the last 12 years since I first discovered them.

5- Finally, what do others here think of the characterization of the Tsar and his wife made in the book? I think the most sympathetic personalities in the family as portrayed in the book are the Grand Duchesses. I admit that I was somewhat uncomfortable with the portrayal of the girls’ home life as lonely and neglectful, in contrast to the happy, ideal home life that we have all read about. And that Alexandra could be so distant with them, sometimes going without seeing them everyday, and that they felt ignored (I did always think it odd that she communicated with her daughters by writing letters under the same roof). Well, I was not comfortable with this portrayal and do not entirely agree that Alexandra was not such a good mother, but this is hardly a safe and comfortable book. It does shake your assertions about the family and for that it is refreshing.