A couple of salient points, on a thread that now has nothing to do with its title:
1. The Execution: The death of Nicholas II has, I think, to be looked at for what it was-a political execution, in a time of war. Avoiding this reality ignores the basic forces that drove it in the first place. Nicholas was viewed by nearly all his formerly allied countries as a fallen tyrant, a view largely echoed within Russia-the majority of the White Army didn't even want him back on the Throne. This view informs the execution in the same way that others regarded as being similar have fallen victim in revolutions. Understanding the motives behind N's death specifically place it in context; that's not to say that from this the justified murder of his family follows-it doesn't, nor does it pretend to justify N's death-merely that it was what could have been expected in these circumstances. It's a question of understanding N's execution versus sympathizing or promoting it, which I don't see anyone here doing.
2. On Yurovsky: The idea that he was, from his birth, a rabid, anti-monarchist, Communist butcher is just wrong. When he was twelve he cheered the then Tsesarevich Nicholas during his 1891 visit to Tomsk on his return to Petersburg across Siberia. His own writings even show that he was ambivalent about the eventual murders-he wrote specifically that after he came to know them it was hard to hate them, but he hated the system that N had represented. Right after the murders, he was found collapsed on his sofa upstairs at the Ipatiev House, completely overwhelmed. There's much more in his unpublished 1922 memoirs that speak to his regret over the murders, so I think simply refusing to believe both his evidence and the evidence of those in whom he confided is done at the risk of ignoring the mass of evidence in favor of personal prejudice.
3. The Yermakov-Manson business: Since I wrote about Sharon Tate and the murders, and am good friends with Sharon's sister Debra, I have to say here (and this is outside the scope of this discussion but an important point on which I feel strongly) that in both instances-the Romanov execution and the Manson murders-those who participated did so of their own free will. Nothing makes me more irrate than the commonly held idea that the people who killed Sharon were simply mindless puppets acting under Manson's orders, because it absolves them of complete responsibility for their own actions. In both cases, all who participated are equally guilty.
Greg King
