Author Topic: Martyrdom, Sainthood. Reburial and Commemoration of IF  (Read 91476 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tsarfan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1848
  • Miss the kings, but not the kingdoms
    • View Profile
Re: Martyrdom, Sainthood. Reburial and Commemoration of IF
« Reply #75 on: June 12, 2005, 08:26:26 AM »
Quote
No Tsarfan. You can leave aside the question of why, but you can't put aside the fact that.  You cannot separate their captivity from their murder.  Andrea Yates and Susan Smith were good mothers until they MURDERED THEIR CHILDREN.


There is a fundamental question about the Ipatiev period that has always nagged me and to which I have never found a satisfactory explanation.  If the Ural Soviet was motivated purely by hatred and determined from day one to murder the family, I can make no sense of the weeks during which they held the family in captivity.  Why didn't they simply murder them the moment they got their hands on them?

Instead, they converted one of the finest houses in the town into a prison.  They arranged food and cleaning services.  They weathered several protests from the local populace demanding harsher treatment.  They changed the command of the guards because the first cadre of guards was beginning to sympathize with the family and increasing the risk of escape or rescue.  Even when they finally did kill them, they waited until almost the last moment before the Whites were upon them.

And don't tell me that it was just because they were trying to gin up a case to convince Moscow of the need for the murders.  They had already violated Moscow's plans for the Romanovs (whatever those were) by seizing them in the first place, so the Ural Soviet was perfectly willing to take action independent of Moscow.

All this is why I think the captivity and the murders are separate questions.  I think there was much more debate among differing factions within the Ural Soviet about the fates of the prisoners than is generally thought.  The 78 days and the handling of the prisoners in the house during that time just makes no sense if their deaths were driven only by unbridled hatred and were a foreordained outcome from the moment they fell into the Ural Soviets' hands.

Quote
 Me too!  I wish I had been around then and had the chance to live in the Ipatiev house.  Never mind the fact that I would have wound up getting shot to death with my whole family, and my body chopped up and burned up out in the woods.  That's a separate issue!


Ever thought about the prisoners in GITMO and Abu Ghraib?  They're incarcerated because they are deemed determined to commit mayhem against American lives and interests.  Think the doors are just going to spring open one day to release them back into the world?  They're there until they die -- without outside contact and without ever having been put on trial.

You tell me which fate is worse.

Quote
And the false promises of freedom from the phony rescue gang?  Is that also an example of their ineptness?


For starters, this stratagem apparently began with a real note that was found from a purported rescuer and that the Cheka decided to co-opt.

There are three ways to interpret their motives in doing so.  (1) The Ural Soviet needed an excuse they could use with Moscow to justify the executions.  (2) The Ural Soviet wanted a guage of just how far the Romanovs would go in attempting escape or rescue in order to determine whether any additional precautions were necessary in the imprisonment.  (3) The Ural Soviet was being gratuitously cruel.

I think some combination of the first two reasons is the more likely explanation.

First, I don't know that holding out a hope of rescue (which the prisoners might not have know to be false) was necessarily cruel from the prisoners' perspectives.  Second, with an almost endless array of things they could have done to torture the family, why would they have picked this particular one and let it go at that?  Why not separate the children from their parents?  Why not put personal guards on each prisoner around the clock?  Why not physically torture them?  Why not taunt them with their impending deaths?

If the Ural Soviet was motivated primarily by hatred and a desire to torture and this was the best they could do, they were an inept lot indeed.

Quote
Since when?  You have argued in post after post that they were killed out of necessity!  Now you are saying their killing wasn't necessary?


What I have argued is that the Bolsheviks thought the killings were necessary.  That doesn't mean I think they were correct in that assessment.


BTW . . . should we move this discussion over to the "Final Chapter" thread?  I know it started as a debate about whether the captivity and executions created the requisite conditions for passion-bearer status or sainthood, but we're definitely beyond that.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Tsarfan »

Offline Elisabeth

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2131
    • View Profile
Re: Martyrdom, Sainthood. Reburial and Commemoration of IF
« Reply #76 on: June 12, 2005, 09:01:54 AM »
Quote
I'd like to leave aside the question of why the family and its retainers were murdered for the moment and look at the captivity itself.  (I think the murders pose a very different set of questions than the manner of their captivity.)


I agree with RichC that it is impossible to separate the period of captivity from the murders that ended it. If you look at an actual timeline of events in the Ipatiev House, it becomes abundantly clear that the Ural Regional Soviet wanted to kill the family all along, and was merely awaiting the best opportunity to do so without getting into trouble with Moscow.

June 13 - Murder of Michael in Perm in the early morning hours. In Ekaterinburg, Commandant Avdeev informs the IF that they should pack their suitcases for an immediate departure; he also promises them the return of Nagorny and Sednyov (both men had been shot 2 weeks previously). The family is told they will be moved because of "anarchist disturbances" taking place in town. (By late afternoon anarchist leader arrested and town calm.) At 11 p.m., Avdeev informs the family that they will remain at the Ipatiev House for a few more days. "And so we were left sitting on our bags for the whole night and didn't unpack a thing," as Nicholas recorded in his diary.

Remember that all the murders - in Perm, Ekaterinburg, and Alapaevsk - were preceded by an announcement  to the victims that they were being moved to another, unknown location.

June 14 - 8 p.m. Avdeev informs family that they will not be moved after all. (The "anarchist disturbances" in town have already been over for more than 24 hours.)

June 20 - First letter from a "Russian Officer" passed on to family after being discovered and rewritten by the Cheka.

June 24/25 - Second letter from a "Russian Officer." Family begins staying up nights awaiting rescue.

June 28 - Third letter from a "Russian Officer." Family responds that it does not want to escape and can only be carried off by force. (But Alexandra continues to "arrange the medicines" in the weeks to come, perhaps in anticipation of a rescue attempt.) Meanwhile Beloborodov requests direct cable access to the Kremlin.

June 29 - The Presidium of the Ural Regional Soviet and the Ekaterinburg Cheka decide to "liquidate" the Romanov family and their suite "no later than July 15."

July 17 - Early morning hours, family and retainers murdered.

So for the entire last month of their lives the IF were living in a perpetual state of suspense, expecting to be moved or rescued, and staying up several nights in a row in anticipation of the latter, only to have their hopes repeatedly dashed. (In the meantime, more than two weeks before they were actually killed, a sentence of death had already been passed on them.) As RichC has stated, all this was a form of psychological torture, and whether it was intentionally sadistic or not is beside the point - the stress and anxiety must have been almost unendurable.  


... I love my poor earth
because I have seen no other

-- Osip Mandelshtam

Offline CatherineNY

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: Martyrdom, Sainthood. Reburial and Commemoration of IF
« Reply #77 on: June 12, 2005, 09:02:28 AM »
Quote
The next comment about warriors was totally unrelated to poor old St Francis and referred to the many Catholic saints who were so called because the wars they waged and the "heretics" they slaughtered were slaughtered in the name of the cross and Holy Mother Church.



30 Dollar Princess, can you please give me four or five examples of the "many" Catholic saints who "slaughtered heretics"? If there are "many", naming four or five should not require much effort.

Offline etonexile

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1231
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Martyrdom, Sainthood. Reburial and Commemoration of IF
« Reply #78 on: June 12, 2005, 10:01:56 AM »
The more I read...the more glad I am to be non-religious.... ::)

rskkiya

  • Guest
Re: Martyrdom, Sainthood. Reburial and Commemoration of IF
« Reply #79 on: June 12, 2005, 10:20:37 AM »
    I suppose that I am still not clear as to what made them "Passion Bearers" ? Many good Russian Orthodox went calmly to their fate in the First World War as tsarfan stated so well, but I doubt that they were all made saints...

Its all politics!
   ROCA made them saints and now the Russian Church has no real choice - also it's nice for all those rich  western tourists keen to see all those dreamy pictures of the cute family; westerners, who as Bob has stated have always had a much more romantic and favourable  opinion of NAOTMAA.
   Any miracles? Maybe there are no such magical events required by the Orthodox church - I don't know.

rskkiya

Offline Elisabeth

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2131
    • View Profile
Re: Martyrdom, Sainthood. Reburial and Commemoration of IF
« Reply #80 on: June 12, 2005, 10:48:17 AM »
Quote
   I suppose that I am still not clear as to what made them "Passion Bearers" ? Many good Russian Orthodox went calmly to their fate in the First World War as tsarfan stated so well, but I doubt that they were all made saints...


Those "good Russian Orthodox" were soldiers carrying weapons and fighting for their lives, so no, they don't qualify as passion bearers. But I believe that at the same time ROCA beatified the IF they also beatified thousands of ordinary Russians (including priests and nuns) who died during the Bolshevik terror.

Quote
Its all politics!


Well, a lot of of it was admittedly politics. But not all of it. Some genuinely religious concerns were also involved in the decision to canonize the family, as Georgiy has outlined in detail.
 
Quote
ROCA made them saints and now the Russian Church has no real choice - also it's nice for all those rich  western tourists keen to see all those dreamy pictures of the cute family; westerners, who as Bob has stated have always had a much more romantic and favourable  opinion of NAOTMAA.


Actually I'm not sure that last statement is true nowadays. The decision to canonize the IF has turned out to be very popular in Russia. My husband just got back from Moscow and he reports that the bookstores are full of books about the IF (he brought me back one, "Tsesarevich," about Alexei). According to him, the IF is every bit as popular as Lenin and Stalin, for example, which is really saying something (and reflects the fragmentation of national identity that has occurred since 1991).

Quote
 Any miracles? Maybe there are no such magical events required by the Orthodox church - I don't know.


I think there are miracles recorded on some Russian Orthodox web sites. But one thing has always puzzled me about the IF's canonization and that is,  I thought it was a requirement for sainthood in the Russian Orthodox Church that the corpse of the saint remain uncorrupted. Supposedly there should be no signs of decay. This was certainly not the case with the IF and their servants.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Elisabeth »
... I love my poor earth
because I have seen no other

-- Osip Mandelshtam

Offline Tsarfan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1848
  • Miss the kings, but not the kingdoms
    • View Profile
Re: Martyrdom, Sainthood. Reburial and Commemoration of IF
« Reply #81 on: June 12, 2005, 11:11:15 AM »
Quote
If you look at an actual timeline of events in the Ipatiev House, it becomes abundantly clear that the Ural Regional Soviet wanted to kill the family all along, and was merely awaiting the best opportunity to do so without getting into trouble with Moscow.


I have no doubt that some members of the Ural Soviet wanted to kill the family all along.  But I think that Moscow was more worried about how to exert effective control over the Ural Soviet than the Ural Soviet was over how to keep Moscow placated.

The Romanovs were important prisoners, and Moscow had some sort of agenda with them -- a public trial, a bargaining chip with the Germans, a bargaining chip with the Whites, a public execution . . . who knows?  Yet the Ural Soviet was quite willing to derail this agenda by seizing the prisoners from a Moscow-appointed custodian.  Why would they have been so worried about flouting Moscow by killing the prisoners?

My point was that the way in which the captivity was handled indicates, at least to me, that there was some sort of indecision behind the scenes of just what to do with the imperial family.  Maybe it was that initially some members wanted their deaths and others didn't.  Maybe it was that all members wanted their deaths, but some wanted it immediately and others wanted to hold out for some benefit in trade.  Maybe it was a debate over whether to include everyone in the massacre (some available evidence actually indicates this decision came late in the game).  Maybe everyone initially wanted their immediate deaths, but something occurred to give them pause.

There are a host of techniques used in industrial engineering (six sigma, Kepner-Tregoe, etc.) that are designed to deduce underlying causality from observable events.  The tenet they all hold in common is that when a suspected cause leaves key elements of the observed event unexplained, you probably have the cause wrong.  I think this approach can be applied in the study of history to test hypotheses.

If the Ural Soviet was worried about Moscow, why did they dare to seize the Romanovs from Moscow's control?

I haven't yet heard that explanation.

If the Ural Soviet was motivated solely by hatred and was determined from day one to kill all the prisoners at the first opportunity, then I want to hear a logical explanation for why they weren't simply tossed into the town prison to await that opportunity.

And I haven't yet heard that explanation.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Tsarfan »

Offline etonexile

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1231
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Martyrdom, Sainthood. Reburial and Commemoration of IF
« Reply #82 on: June 12, 2005, 11:27:46 AM »
Yes...I should imagine that the Ural Soviet had planned to kill them all along...How had Moscow lost control of these high-profile prisoners?....Did they WANT control of the IF?....Did they think that the IF would just disappear in the  confusion?....And why the killing just then,just there?....The business about..."Your family have tried to liberate you....bang-bang...."....they could have just been loaded into more trucks and moved away.... ???

Offline Elisabeth

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2131
    • View Profile
Re: Martyrdom, Sainthood. Reburial and Commemoration of IF
« Reply #83 on: June 12, 2005, 12:01:04 PM »
Quote
But I think that Moscow was more worried about how to exert effective control over the Ural Soviet than the Ural Soviet was over how to keep Moscow placated.


I disagree, for reasons I'll explicate below.

Quote
My point was that the way in which the captivity was handled indicates, at least to me, that there was some sort of indecision behind the scenes of just what to do with the imperial family.  Maybe it was that initially some members wanted their deaths and others didn't.  Maybe it was that all members wanted their deaths, but some wanted it immediately and others wanted to hold out for some benefit in trade.  Maybe it was a debate over whether to include everyone in the massacre (some available evidence actually indicates this decision came late in the game).  Maybe everyone initially wanted their immediate deaths, but something occurred to give them pause.


I actually agree with you here. But I think most of the indecision derived from one source: ambition. How far were certain members of the Presidium of the Ural Regional Soviet willing to go in flouting Moscow's orders? At what risk to their future careers in the Bolshevik party? How many of these men like Beloborodov were dreaming of eventual promotion to a post in Moscow as opposed to staying in a provincial backwater like Ekaterinburg for the rest of their lives? This is why, IMO, we can't easily conclude that the men in charge at Ekaterinburg were on their own when they decided to execute the Romanovs. I think it was a joint decision, made with Moscow, over a period of about a month (Michael's murder was a "trial balloon," as King and Wilson put it, to see not only how Moscow but also how the rest of the world would react to the grand duke's sudden disappearance). With the Whites advancing rapidly, Ekaterinburg was in a strong position to demand what it had presumably wanted all along in seizing Nicholas and Alexandra en route to Moscow: the historical honor of executing the last Romanov tsar and whatever family members they could get their hands on.

Quote
If the Ural Soviet was motivated solely by hatred and was determined from day one to kill all the prisoners at the first opportunity, then I want to hear a logical explanation for why they weren't simply tossed into the town prison to await that opportunity.

And I haven't yet heard that explanation.


See, I don't think they were motivated solely by hatred. I think the top people were motivated by two things: ideology and ambition. We can see these factors at work even - or especially in - Yurovsky's memoirs. (And he wasn't even a top-level player.) He's at pains to present himself as the ideal revolutionary: cool, calm, controlled, organized, a rational instrument of history and the people's justice. Not a sadist, not filled with hatred: no, on the contrary! Rather, he explains that the original plan of execution, to shoot directly at the victims' hearts, was intended to prevent unnecessary suffering. The Revolution is not vengeful or sadistic! Any suffering that was caused was a result of the victims' own "greed," in wearing vests armored with concealed jewels. And so on, and so forth. Whatever Yurovsky felt deep down towards the Romanovs, he kept it very close to the chest. These were ideological murders, planned murders, not murders committed in a fit of passion.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Elisabeth »
... I love my poor earth
because I have seen no other

-- Osip Mandelshtam

Offline Tsarfan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1848
  • Miss the kings, but not the kingdoms
    • View Profile
Re: Martyrdom, Sainthood. Reburial and Commemoration of IF
« Reply #84 on: June 12, 2005, 12:50:07 PM »
Quote
With the Whites advancing rapidly, Ekaterinburg was in a strong position to demand what it had presumably wanted all along in seizing Nicholas and Alexandra en route to Moscow: the historical honor of executing the last Romanov tsar and whatever family members they could get their hands on.


I agree with some of your analysis.  However, the point about "historical honor" still leaves a couple of loose threads.  If they were seeking honor in killing the whole family, why did official communiques for so long mention only the execution of Nicholas and claim the rest of the family was moved?  And why wasn't Michael's death also announced to garner such honor?  Wouldn't one of the points of the murders be to show the populace that there was no hope of going back at a juncture when the survival of the revolution was in doubt?  And wouldn't even the Bolsheviks have understood that killing the retainers would raise eyebrows among many who might have accepted the Romanovs' deaths as necessary or just vengeance?

Quote
See, I don't think they were motivated solely by hatred. I think the top people were motivated by two things: ideology and ambition.


I agree with this.  Remember, my original point was that hatred just seemed too pat an explanation for an event so riddled with inconsistencies.

However, amid all this agreement, I still cannot divine an explanation of the Ipatiev house captivity.  Yes, the captivity was inherently cruel, and some specific actions -- no matter what the motivations of the captors -- certainly were cruel in effect.  But, no matter how much we want to paint the captors as nothing but despicable, ambitious murderers, there were signficant aspects of the conditions of the captivity that simply don't jive with that simplistic a view.

To rehash a perhaps silly example:  Nicholas complained of pilfering of their personal effects.  So their jewelry was collected, placed in a locked box left in their living quarters, and Nicholas was given a receipt.  Was the whole Ipatiev episode just a collossal, elaborate charade, mounted with a cast of dozens, logistically complex, and at considerable cost?  For what purpose?  For what audience?

It just doesn't add up.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Tsarfan »

Offline Elisabeth

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2131
    • View Profile
Re: Martyrdom, Sainthood. Reburial and Commemoration of IF
« Reply #85 on: June 12, 2005, 01:29:05 PM »
Quote
I agree with some of your analysis.  However, the point about "historical honor" still leaves a couple of loose threads.  If they were seeking honor in killing the whole family, why did official communiques for so long mention only the execution of Nicholas and claim the rest of the family was moved?  And why wasn't Michael's death also announced to garner such honor?  Wouldn't one of the points of the murders be to show the populace that there was no hope of going back at a juncture when the survival of the revolution was in doubt?  And wouldn't even the Bolsheviks have understood that killing the retainers would raise eyebrows among many who might have accepted the Romanovs' deaths as necessary or just vengeance?


Ah, but you see you're mistaking revolutionary "honor" with honor in the universal sense. The Bolsheviks were well aware that their sense of revolutionary justice was not shared by the rest of the civilized world, or even the rest of Russia, particularly if that justice was exercised at the expense of the innocent offspring of the imperial dynasty. Nicholas and Alexandra might have been widely hated by their countrymen, but Russians are notoriously sentimental about children.

The disappearance of Michael was a "trial balloon" on many levels, not least of which was simply to gauge how much public - and international - outrage could be avoided by a simple "disappearance" as opposed to an announcement of an execution.  Remember, Lenin allowed Nicholas II's death to be widely publicized but the IF itself, like Michael, simply "disappeared" without a trace for a few years before the Bolsheviks admitted that they had all been killed. This is the classic Richard III model of getting rid of one's political opponents - deprive your enemies of a banner to rally around, deprive them of righteous indignation, instead let them stew in frustration, not knowing if the rightful successor to the throne is alive or dead. Thus Sokolov's vehemence in insisting that Nicholas and Alexandra and their children were all dead, despite the absence of bodily remains. Because otherwise the monarchists among the Whites were left in confused disarray.  

Quote
However, amid all this agreement, I still cannot divine an explanation of the Ipatiev house captivity.  Yes, the captivity was inherently cruel, and some specific actions -- no matter what the motivations of the captors -- certainly were cruel in effect.  But, no matter how much we want to paint the captors as nothing but despicable, ambitious murderers, there were signficant aspects of the conditions of the captivity that simply don't jive with that simplistic a view.

To rehash a perhaps silly example:  Nicholas complained of pilfering of their personal effects.  So their jewelry was collected, placed in a locked box left in their living quarters, and Nicholas was given a receipt.  Was the whole Ipatiev episode just a collossal, elaborate charade, mounted with a cast of dozens, logistically complex, and at considerable cost?  For what purpose?  For what audience?

It just doesn't add up.


It does add up, if you understand the Bolshevik revolutionary model of asceticism and extreme conscientiousness. Everything is very "scientific," "rational," and "organized," for the ultimate good of the people - not the Romanovs, but the people. Of course Yurovsky took an inventory of the jewelry the IF wore, with the ultimate purpose of confiscating all of it and sending it off to Moscow, intact, not a single item pilfered (Yurovsky would have taken an especial pride in this fact!). After all, this was only the beginning of his final inventory, which will ultimately include all the items hidden on the grand duchesses' bodies...

Recall the fact that the Bolsheviks knew, from Baroness Buxhoeveden, that the IF was carrying millions of rubles' worth of jewelry on their persons. Yurovsky might have had the idea that he would come across some of this jewelry in his inventory, or, more likely, he was simply lulling the prisoners' fears and allowing them to believe that his regime would be more controlled and organized than Avdeev's (as indeed it was). There's something very pedantic about Yurovsky; he's the type who is at especial pains to dot all his i's and cross all his t's. Be that as it may, after the murders he complained to the Ural Regional Soviet and Cheka that he had not been allowed to conduct personal body searches of each prisoner - so no doubt this rather cursory jewelry inventory had been ordered from the powers on high.

Of course the audience for this elaborate "charade" was the Presidium of the Ural Regional Soviet, the Cheka, and ultimately of course - Moscow.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Elisabeth »
... I love my poor earth
because I have seen no other

-- Osip Mandelshtam

rskkiya

  • Guest
Re: Martyrdom, Sainthood. Reburial and Commemoration of IF
« Reply #86 on: June 12, 2005, 03:15:18 PM »
Quote


Actually I'm not sure that last statement is true nowadays. The decision to canonize the IF has turned out to be very popular in Russia. My husband just got back from Moscow and he reports that the bookstores are full of books about the IF (he brought me back one, "Tsesarevich," about Alexei). According to him, the IF is every bit as popular as Lenin and Stalin, for example, which is really saying something (and reflects the fragmentation of national identity that has occurred since 1991).


I think there are miracles recorded on some Russian Orthodox web sites. But one thing has always puzzled me about the IF's canonization and that is,  I thought it was a requirement for sainthood in the Russian Orthodox Church that the corpse of the saint remain uncorrupted. Supposedly there should be no signs of decay. This was certainly not the case with the IF and their servants.


Good points
   Yet my friends back from Russia tell just the opposite story... that most Russians don't care, and it's mostly westerners and the new Orthodox converts (often repatriated emigrees) who really believe... Hmmm....  :-/
   Your friends and mine certainly seem to run in different circles!

About the bodies -- well maybe Georgiy can advise us on that point!

rskkiya

Lizameridox

  • Guest
Re: Martyrdom, Sainthood. Reburial and Commemoration of IF
« Reply #87 on: June 12, 2005, 07:42:08 PM »
Two points re incorruption of saints' relics:  

Two much admired saints in the Russian Orthodox Church that have been found to be little more than bones are St. Seraphim of Sarov (glorified during Tsar-Martyr Nicholas' reign) and St. Nektary of Optina.  In the words of a recent article in The Orthodox Word, no. 240, 2005,  

    'As regards the Russian New Martyrs of the twentieth century incorrupt relics are rarely encountered (the holy relics of Nun-Martyr Elizabeth {sic} being one of the few exceptions).  Likewise, one does not hear about a multitude of remarkable miracles from their holy relics, as is the case with the relics of the martyrs of the first centuries.

Prior to the twentieth century an Russian Orthodox saint named Feodor was martyred, by the process of burning.  No relics of him are extant, but he is no less a saint for the lack of them.  Sort of reminds you of the Tsarevich and his sister....

Offline Tsarfan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1848
  • Miss the kings, but not the kingdoms
    • View Profile
Re: Martyrdom, Sainthood. Reburial and Commemoration of IF
« Reply #88 on: June 12, 2005, 08:24:56 PM »
Quote
Ah, but you see you're mistaking revolutionary "honor" with honor in the universal sense. The Bolsheviks were well aware that their sense of revolutionary justice was not shared by the rest of the civilized world, or even the rest of Russia, particularly if that justice was exercised at the expense of the innocent offspring of the imperial dynasty. Nicholas and Alexandra might have been widely hated by their countrymen, but Russians are notoriously sentimental about children.  


Sounds logical.  Also explains why Yurovsky removed the kitchen boy before the massacre.

Quote
The disappearance of Michael was a "trial balloon" on many levels, not least of which was simply to gauge how much public - and international - outrage could be avoided by a simple "disappearance" as opposed to an announcement of an execution.  Remember, Lenin allowed Nicholas II's death to be widely publicized but the IF itself, like Michael, simply "disappeared" without a trace for a few years before the Bolsheviks admitted that they had all been killed. This is the classic Richard III model of getting rid of one's political opponents - deprive your enemies of a banner to rally around, deprive them of righteous indignation, instead let them stew in frustration, not knowing if the rightful successor to the throne is alive or dead. Thus Sokolov's vehemence in insisting that Nicholas and Alexandra and their children were all dead, despite the absence of bodily remains. Because otherwise the monarchists among the Whites were left in confused disarray.  


This makes sense, except for one thing.  If Lenin was in on this, why wait so long to execute the plan?  Why take the risk that the prisoners would be rescued in the meantime?  Why wait until the White army guns were within earshot?  Remember, the executioners cut it so close that they were afraid of the Whites coming upon them during the destruction of the bodies.  And why set up such an elaborate household in the center of a town where an execution would be difficult to conceal (which Yurovsky nevertheless tried rather clumsily to do)?  The Ipatiev house only makes sense as a prison if there was some concern for the comfort of the prisoners, and it makes no sense as a place in which to carry out a mass execution.  A relatively cramped basement room was an absurd venue for a firing squad to take out almost a dozen people simultaneously.  I can make no sense of it unless the execution was carried out with minimum time for advance planning.

Quote
Recall the fact that the Bolsheviks knew, from Baroness Buxhoeveden, that the IF was carrying millions of rubles' worth of jewelry on their persons.

Be that as it may, after the murders he complained to the Ural Regional Soviet and Cheka that he had not been allowed to conduct personal body searches of each prisoner - so no doubt this rather cursory jewelry inventory had been ordered from the powers on high.


Baroness Buxhoeveden was apparently quite the double-dealer, and she no doubt compromised the family.  But if Yurovsky knew specifically about the jewels on the prisoners' persons, why did he risk the destruction of the jewels during a fusilade of gunfire . . . and risk the jewels forming body armor?

Quote
Of course the audience for this elaborate "charade" was the Presidium of the Ural Regional Soviet, the Cheka, and ultimately of course - Moscow.  


If not the Presidium of the Ural Regional Soviet, who was authorizing the considerable expense and manpower required to turn the Ipatiev house into a prison?  This was an operation of considerable political sensitivity that required funding and the diversion of significant resources.  Why would they have needed to put on a show for themselves?  And why would Moscow or the Cheka have cared whether or not the prisoners were well cared for, if there was a prior understanding they were going to be killed at the first politically-expedient opportunity?  What was the purpose of the show?

And I only used inventorying the jewelry as one example of the "charade".  Why were priests allowed in for religious services?  Why was an additional doctor allowed to visit?  Why were cleaning women provided instead of having the prisoners clean their own quarters?

I still don't understand why the Presidium, the Cheka, and Moscow needed such a show.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Tsarfan »

rskkiya

  • Guest
Re: Martyrdom, Sainthood. Reburial and Commemoration of IF
« Reply #89 on: June 12, 2005, 09:47:03 PM »
As I understand it, the most up to date evidence suggests that Lenin was NOT involved.