The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson

[Belochka]

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  The unpublished memoir of Yurovsky is not available, so, until it's published here or somewhere else,  we either trust King and Wilson translation or we don't. 

Is there a 5th?  After nearly 40 pages,  it's time we get to it,  unless,  "that all there is".

AGRBear

No Bear it is not all there is. The first several pages of this thread allude to further problems in interpretation of references that were supposedly seen, translated and read by the FOTR authors. There are the stylistic segments that have outlined in many pages highly derogatory statements about the Imperial Family without cause. Then there are many scientific issues that they disparaged, which I have raised in a separate published review which you may care to read here:

http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/Book-Review.html

It may be a good time to discuss Yurovsky's alleged expression of remorse for his part in the assassinations. The FOTR authors claimed that he did do so but there is not one shred of evidence that he had done so. In fact there is published proof that he had not so.

Over to you ...

Margarita

[Belochka]

4.  The unpublished memoir of Yurovsky is not available, so, until it's published here or somewhere else ... 

Bear perhaps what I stated earlier may have passed you by so permit me to rephrase what I said.

I have the text of the 1922 Yurovsky "memoir" in my file. How that copy came into my possession was because it was PUBLISHED IN RUSSIA.

OK? 

[Belochka]

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. 

AGRBear

Regarding point (2) - if an author is writing about a Russian theme and they have sourced other Russian material, then it would seem most reasonable and expected that such a trend for discovery would have continued with a simple reference such as Volkov.

If you have doubts about the Russian text that I provide for your convenience here then please ask someone else who may own a copy of the Volkov Russian edition.

[Belochka]

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.

AGRBear

Opinions may be acceptable if they are declared to be such, but to DECLARE that such criminality had occurred against a person without a modicum of firm tested evidence - based on the FOTR author's suppositions has to my mind created stylistic sensationalism. That is unacceptable form in a book that purports to be nonfiction.

[Puppylove]

4.  The unpublished memoir of Yurovsky is not available, so, until it's published here or somewhere else ... 

Bear perhaps what I stated earlier may have passed you by so permit me to rephrase what I said.

I have the text of the 1922 Yurovsky "memoir" in my file. How that copy came into my possession was because it was PUBLISHED IN RUSSIA.

OK? 

Hi Margarita,

Thanks for the well-sourced information!

Forgive me, I may just be confusing myself at this point, but does Yurovsky reference the Russian Orthodox faith in your copy of the 1922 note at all?

Is Yurovsky's remorse for the execution evident in your copy?

Thanks, Jenn

Ps. I envy your bookshelves!

[LisaDavidson]

Is there some reason you think it's okay to ignore what Rob and I have asked be done with this thread? Discuss this where it belongs, not on this topic area.

If the FA and GA are reading this, please call me.

[Belochka]

Deleted

[Belochka]

Is there some reason you think it's okay to ignore what Rob and I have asked be done with this thread? Discuss this where it belongs, not on this topic area.

May I respectfully remind you what your instructions were Ms Davidson?

The subject of Yurovsky's Jewishness or lack thereof is really has very little to do with FOTR. That discussion should take place in the Russian History section - perhaps under the Russian Revolution.

Now please tell me where precisely did I continue with that subject?

Frankly I fail to understand that if the FOTR authors raised the matter in their book in several places, why the discussion on this point is not able to proceed on this thread.

[Belochka]

Is Yurovsky's remorse for the execution evident in your copy?

Thanks, Jenn

Jenn the issue concerning the alleged remorse does not appear in Yurovsky's 1922 "memoir".

I introduced this issue as a separate new discussion for this thread. My apologies if I was not as clear as I had hoped to be.

Margarita

[Belochka]

Is there some reason you think it's okay to ignore what Rob and I have asked be done with this thread? Discuss this where it belongs, not on this topic area.

Actually Ms Davidson the issue to which I am not permitted to mention on this thread is actually an integral part of the Yurovsky 1922 memoir that is often raised in FOTR.

Does it follow that the Yurovsky 1922 material is also not permitted to be discussed on this thread? Perhaps you can stipulate which sections of that document can be?

Thank you.

[Puppylove]

Is there some reason you think it's okay to ignore what Rob and I have asked be done with this thread? Discuss this where it belongs, not on this topic area.

If the FA and GA are reading this, please call me.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood the directive. I was concerned with the accuracy of the translation rather than questions of faith. Please delete my reference to orthodoxy. Apologies!

[Annie]

Since Belochka has the 1922 'unpublished' Yurovsky info in her possession, wouldn't it be an asset to this site to have her post that info? I would like to see it, and her translation.

[Forum Admin]

The discussion of the sources for the  book and the accuracy of those sources is acceptable here.  The discussion of the question itself being necessary to take to another separate thread.  i hope this is clear to all.

[LisaDavidson]

Is there some reason you think it's okay to ignore what Rob and I have asked be done with this thread? Discuss this where it belongs, not on this topic area.

Actually Ms Davidson the issue to which I am not permitted to mention on this thread is actually an integral part of the Yurovsky 1922 memoir that is often raised in FOTR.

Does it follow that the Yurovsky 1922 material is also not permitted to be discussed on this thread? Perhaps you can stipulate which sections of that document can be?

Thank you.

Here is what Rob and I said - Yurovsky's religion - and his writings - belong on the Russian Revolution thread. This thread is not about Comrade Yurovsky or his religion, or his writings.

The topic for this thread is Fate of the Romanovs. Everyone is welcome to discuss the sources cited in that book, including whether or not these sources deserve to be given consideration.

As far as I could tell, there was no pertinence to the discussion of his religion on this thread. It's not a matter of allowing or disallowing. If someone is interested in a particular topic, it is very annoying to go to that topic to read about it and then find a discussion going on that has nothing to do with the stated subject. For example, if I want to read about whether Yurovsky was Christian, Jewish, or athiest, I would not go to a book thread to find that information.

I hope this is clear. There is no desire to curtail anyone's expression, it's a matter of where that discussion takes place, not if it takes place.

[Janet Ashton]

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.

Good to see you back, Janet, didn't take you too long to stay away from this thread, did it ;-).

If this means wht it doesn;t say: well, I never said I was leaving permanently. Just don't think it's healthy to sit glued to a newsgroup 24/7....

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,

You have no reason to doubt MY word that the pages in question are wholly irrelevant to the topics discussed here (and Istochnik in fact does not carry a bibliography), and if you had done your own research as you proclaim you always do you would be aware of that.

As a matter of fact, I do have copy of the relevant memoir - from my own researches, and clearly marked, "April -May 1922". I doubt it is the text that Penny used as it is in Russian, wheras her translation is from Russian and German. Since Margarita (or "Ms Nelipa" as I assume she prefers to be adressed) claims to be in posession of the same material, I suggest that you continue the dicussion with her, and also ask where she obtained it. You may doubt her word too (you apparently do) but you do seem to have the same end in mind.

As far as Greg goes: for clarity: none of the crap I post here has anything whatsoever to do with him. In the years you've been endlessly rehearsing this, he has written three books, none of them about the Romanovs. And, having previously written on Sharon Tate and the Duchess of Windsor, there isn't a lot the green ink brigade can chuck that would faze him....