Were There Any Survivors? Two Bodies are Missing!

[komarov]

That's a valid point Belochka makes...it's usually uncertain how 'firsthand' a record (in this case, the Note(s)) really is.  It's not necessarily a high likelihood that an error was made, but it's entirely possible.

[Belochka]

That's a valid point Belochka makes...it's usually uncertain how 'firsthand' a record (in this case, the Note(s)) really is.  It's not necessarily a high likelihood that an error was made, but it's entirely possible.

We do not know how many "Pokrovsky drafts" were made before the alleged Yurovsky Notes were finally archived bearing Yurovsky's signature.

Simple errors such as transcribing a wrong number is not inconceivable. Yurovsky being somewhat illiterate may similarily not have even noticed or cared about any discrepancy on the final document when he signed "his" Notes.

[AGRBear]

Does this mean bodies could have been stolen out of the grave? Is this why 2 are missing? I thought they were burned by the Bolsheviks?

It is entirely possible that the bodies were stolen out of either of the "graves". It seems most probable that Yurovsky was aware there were two missing bodies by the time of the second "burial" and thus his Note accounts for there only being 9 bodies.

[size=12]Pokrovsky the author of the "Notes" maybe the one who faultered in his re-write of what Yurovsky related to him about the event.[/size] [/color]

That's a valid point Belochka makes...it's usually uncertain how 'firsthand' a record (in this case, the Note(s)) really is.  It's not necessarily a high likelihood that an error was made, but it's entirely possible.

We do not know how many "Pokrovsky drafts" were made before the alleged Yurovsky Notes were finally archived bearing Yurovsky's signature.

Simple errors such as transcribing a wrong number is not inconceivable. Yurovsky being somewhat illiterate may similarily not have even noticed or cared about any discrepancy on the final document when he signed "his" Notes.

I am not sure what you mean Belochka.  

Why are you talking about errors, drafts and numbers?

Is there a post missing which most of us didn't see?

Puzzled Bear.

[Belochka]

I am not sure what you mean Belochka.  

Puzzled Bear.

Yurovsky was not the actual author of the so called "Yurovsky" notes.  

[JonC]

The question of survivors has plaqued everyone. I find it interesting that posters like to discuss the idea of survivors actually existing, except for Bob ofcourse, but when someone comes forth with any kind of ' possible evidence ' the so-called evidence is dismissed outright. So why would anyone who possibly is a survivor even try to communicate with this forum for fear of ridicule? It also seems to me that posters are scared to say anything controversial which might get them kicked off the site. JonC.

[Belochka]

The question of survivors has plaqued everyone. I find it interesting that posters like to discuss the idea of survivors actually existing, except for Bob ofcourse, but when someone comes forth with any kind of ' possible evidence ' the so-called evidence is dismissed outright. So why would anyone who possibly is a survivor even try to communicate with this forum for fear of ridicule?

There were NO SURVIVORS and certainly none that would be able to communicate on this forum.    

 

[JonC]

Belochka, to use your color, that is your oppinion!!! And...your oppinion is not fact...so back off!!!  

[Belochka]

Belochka, to use your color, that is your oppinion!!! And...your oppinion is not fact...so back off!!!  

JonC your rudeness is most unacceptable.

I believe that you owe me an apology.  

[Louis_Charles]

Or at least an explanation as to which survivor could be extant and cyber-literate! I am entranced by the idea of 105 year-old Anastasia Nicholaevna valiantly typing away, posting on the AP Forum.

Simon

[AGRBear]

For posters who are not aware of Pokrovsky's relationship with Yurovsky and his "notes", here is more information.

I am not sure what you mean Belochka.  

Puzzled Bear.

Yurovsky was not the actual author of the so called "Yurovsky" notes.  

p. 417 THE LAST TSAR by Edvard Radzinsky:

>>By the way, Yurovsky was alarmed too;  evidently the rumors about Anastasia moved him to take actions as well.  In 1920,  when this mysterious, "miraclously saved' woman appeared in Berlin, he gave the historian Pokrovsky his Note, the idea behind which was  "They all died.'<<

Interesting timing on Yurovsky part, don't you think?

How many of you realize Jakob Yurovsky's 1920 report came out after AA jumped into the canal and rumors had spread that she might be GD Anastasia?

AGRBear

[AGRBear]

The following is what King tells us about Yurovsky's quotes on the missing bodies from the grave in Pig's Meadow:

Elisabeth-
I haven't yet mastered the art of being able to cut and paste random quotes, but in reply to your post of 18 October, concerning Yurovsky's motivation in possibly lying about the two missing bodies/separate grave:

To me, at least, it is a plausible theory.  You mention a lack of motive, but I see plenty of motive.  First, let's start with the assumption (whether right or wrong, for the sake of argument here) that two bodies were indeed missing when they got to the Koptyaki Forest.  We know Yurovsky sent almost everyone gathered there away from the scene on the pretext of the jewels hidden in clothing.  It is I think equally possible he sent them away because he wanted to narrow the field of witnesses to only those men on whom he could rely.  So, under this hypothesis, whom does Yurovsky lie to?  Not to the few trusted men still there, and we know both he and Ermakov spent the morning of 17 July before a special emergency meeting of the Ural Regional Soviet's Presidium, essentially getting raked over the coals for something-Isai Rodzinsky hints that this was because of "what had happened."  But what had happened?  The murders?  Everyone knew those were coming.  So it had to be something else, something that happened during the murders or immediately after.  I suspect that these uncomfortable interviews concerned the two missing bodies.  Yurovsky doesn't lie to these men-Beloborodov, Goloshchokin, etc.-after all, they're all in this together, with their collective necks hanging out in the wind from having killed everyone aganst Moscow's orders.  He HAS to trust these guys.  But when it comes to Moscow, that's another issue.  He has every reason to lie to Moscow if through his bungling or lack of order two bodies went missing.  What seems to have happened, as far as I'm concerned, is that a few of the principals involved-Ermakov, Yurovsky, Nikulin, Rodzinsky, Sukhorukov, Kudrin-all of these guys have a pow-wow and it's agreed that Moscow can't know they bungled, so they agree to a cover story-that they burnt the missing bodies.  Only this "accepted version" gets considerably tangled as different people tell different versions, from how many were burnt to where and when; all of them only got 1 basic thing in agreement-that bodies were burned.  Which is why I tend to think it's a hasty cover story to protect themselves from Moscow.

Yurovsky certainly wouldn't admit this in his 1920 Note, which he only wrote at the direction of Soviet historian Michael Pokrovsky, and which he knew would be seen by those in power.  So he sticks to the cover story.  Same with his 1934 talk.  But in 1922, when he writes his private memoirs, which he keeps in his family and remain a secret until his son Alexander hands them over to the Soviet Government in the early 1970s, he slips up and says he only tried to burn a single body.  I don't think you can put that down to him being unconcerned about details or the number of victims-having read his 1922 memoir in its entirety, it is very detailed.  Moscow knew how many people had actually been shot-he couldn't add or subtract victims-his mistake was just that, whereas in his 1922 memoir he was quite clear about attempting to burn only one body.

It's possible, though completely unproved, that the grave was opened in 1927-28, but if so, why would Stalin simply remove the two sets of remains buried separately and not obliterate the others?  That doesn't make sense-especially as he already had Yurovsky's 1920 Note which conveniently explained away the two missing bodies should anyone ever look.  All the Soviet government had to do was to produce it and say, "Here's why they're missing!"  Simply removing two, while leaving the other nine, seems illogical.

I suspect, though it's simply a hypothesis, that someone who knew what happened talked-and this started the ball rolling as it were in 1927-28.  After this, the people who would have known either start dropping like flies, being arrested, or suddenly get special government pensions or write absurd memoirs claiming all manner of inaccuracies.

Admittedly, there's no absolute proof that a second grave didn't exist, but nor is there a shred of evidence to support the idea that it did outside of the few memoirs, which contradict each other and make claims unsupported by science.  Given the weight of the evidence, that's why I suspect Yusovsky lied and that Anastasia and Alexei were missing.  And as I have said elsewhere, their absence doesn't equal survival, but without their remains it does mean that their deaths on that the night of 16-17 July, 1918, remain only a theory.

Greg King

AGRBear

Let me repeat the part which talks about numbers:

Greg King:

>> But in 1922, when he writes his private memoirs, which he keeps in his family and remain a secret until his son Alexander hands them over to the Soviet Government in the early 1970s, he slips up and says he only tried to burn a single body.<<

"a single body"!

Not two bodies.

Not eleven bodies?

"a single body".



AGRBear

[JonC]

The question of survivors has plaqued everyone. I find it interesting that posters like to discuss the idea of survivors actually existing, except for Bob ofcourse, but when someone comes forth with any kind of ' possible evidence ' the so-called evidence is dismissed outright. So why would anyone who possibly is a survivor even try to communicate with this forum for fear of ridicule?

There were NO SURVIVORS and certainly none that would be able to communicate on this forum.    

 

Belochka, when you write in blue color you project a rational, pleasant demeanor BUT when you write in RED concluding with an angry face smiley, and directing your anger at me simply because we don't agree about anastasia and her family surviving, well then, I'm gonna yell back!! You appologize first for yelling! JonC.

[Tania]

Bear,
I cut and pasted these quotes you re entered on this thread below, so I might offer my opinion. It might be very good if when people posted a subject on the AP thread, if we had these particular instances of understandings of past findings, so people are better to centering their statements, don’t you think?
When we have something of direct focus of which to base our arguments, it offers something specific, rather than punching back and forth needlessly.When I think of the long drawn out arguments of posters, it is somewhat distracting. Still, Thanks to you, you have brought back focus to what is relevant, and of significant notice, past to present day.

#1] What seems to have happened, as far as I'm concerned, is that a few of the principals involved-Yermakov, Yurovsky, Nikulin, Rodzinsky, Sukhorukov, Kudrin-all of these guys have a pow-wow and it's agreed that Moscow can't know they bungled, so they agree to a cover story-that they burnt the missing bodies.  Only this "accepted version" gets considerably tangled as different people tell different versions, from how many were burnt to where and when; all of them only got 1 basic thing in agreement-that bodies were burned.  Which is why I tend to think it's a hasty cover story to protect themselves from Moscow.

With this above statement, here it has been discussed to the nth degree by many posters that this was a reality of what Yurovsky said initially. However, nobody in all their postings ever brought out the main information that it was more of a cover story to protect all ‘the murders’ from Moscow.

#2] But in 1922, when he writes his private memoirs, which he keeps in his family and remain a secret until his son Alexander hands them over to the Soviet Government in the early 1970s, he slips up and says he only tried to burn a single body.

Of course, [Yurovsky] his family would keep this a secret, it makes sense! It meant his neck, and of course, his place in history…but by this time the deed was long over, and he was dying

#3] I don't think you can put that down to him being unconcerned about details or the number of victims-having read his 1922 memoir in its entirety, it is very detailed
I agree, he went into exact and specific detail didn’t he.

#4] Given the weight of the evidence, that's why I suspect Yurovsky lied and that Anastasia and Alexei were missing.  And as I have said elsewhere, their absence doesn't equal survival, but without their remains it does mean that their deaths on that the night of 16-17 July, 1918, remain only a theory.

Yurovsky was a pathological liar from the word go! Therefore, we remain with a very large question indeed.

Tatiana+

[Tania]

Bear, you really bring out the best points on issues.  

Like :

How many of you realize Jakob Yurovsky's 1920 report came out after AA jumped into the canal and rumors had spread that she might be GD Anastasia?

I saw no one bringing out this point either

Tatiana+

[Louis_Charles]

Perhaps because her claim wasn't advanced until the fall of 1921.

It did not receive publicity until after Peuthart left Dalldorf in January 1922.

Source: Kurth, Peter. ANASTASIA: THE RIDDLE OF ANNA ANDERSEN.
Little, Brown:New York, 1983, p.14.