If it has not appeared in its entirety, and has certainly not appeared in English, then, yes, it is "unpublished," especially to an Anglophone audience as per that of FOTR. Writers make this sort of claim for their own research all the time. Sections of Alexandra's sister autobio have appeared in Richard Hough's biography of her; her memoir is still deemed "unpublished."
Anyway, published/unpublished; y'all have tied yourselves in knots here; you transparently aren't even singing from the same hymn sheet, and the damned if you do/damned if you don't approach you have to the contents this book says it all really....as the rest of the online community here have also noticed.
t...[in part]... In any case, I really don't care if this memoir was unpublished or published per se, I only care in the sense that I can't see it in order to double check the accuracy of its translation (or to confirm that the authors saw it in the first place). It doesn't look like you or anyone else will be posting any of it here, so I am assuming you have no access to it, nor does anyone else you know. I have no reason to doubt the professional researcher's word that it was the 1920 note and not the 1922 memoir that appeared in the 1993 issue of Istochnik, nor do I have any reason to doubt that this document is in the Presidential Archives, which are not accesible to the public. I do , however, have a lot of reason to doubt the other side due to the track record of this book. And since no one to date has presented any part of this document in its original Russian format, that only confirms my suspicions that no one had or presently has a copy of it... To be frank, if the authors of FOTR had approached this 1922 memoir as they did many other sources in their book, which are questionable, to say the least (as the rest of the online community here have also noticed), I don't have too much faith in this one... I understand that Greg King is your friend, and you will do almost anything to cover for him, but that only shows that you are not objective about this. But to give credit where credit is due, all your endevors to convince us show that you are obviously a very loyal friend, so 3 stars for you :-).
OKAY, what have we accomplished thus far?
1. Some of us are of the opinion that Buxhoveden was not a traitor to the Royal Family. BUT, King and Wilson are of the opinion that she was.
2. "savage orgy" was taken from a source from which Moshein used, however, once the original was tranlated, (I am assuming this was correctly accomplished), that "savage orgy" was not part of the original. At the moment I don't recall if King and Wilson, also, used the same source.
There is some disagreement in the degree of harasement occurred toward the Grand Duchess on the Russ. All based on opinions. The conclusions are all the same, no one knows everything that occurred on the Russ.
3. Some of the errors found in the book can be contributed to publishers, editors, readers not catching mistakes, all of which King and Wilson place upon their shoulders since they are the authors. One of those errors placed a number which directs us to a footnote and the source. Unfortunately, the number had been moved to the end of a sentence which was not part of the source.
4. The unpublished memoir of Yurovsky is not available, so, until it's published here or somewhere else, we either trust King and Wilson translation or we don't.
Helen,
I hardly find these four items as reason for me to come to your conclusion
Helen wrote:
>> To be frank, if the authors of FOTR had approached this 1922 memoir as they did many other sources in their book, which are questionable, to say the least... <<
Is there a 5th? After nearly 40 pages, it's time we get to it, unless, "that all there is".
AGRBear
