101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia

[Belochka]

The article was published .... Associated Press.  I am still trying to link the original article.

My main reason for bringing it up was that in the article it was meant to be taken in the context that only people  in the west would have the idea that anybody had survived such a slaughter as what had happened to the Romanovs especially since they were Romanovs.  Not that this is a fact.  I'm just relaying what I read in the article.

I am only interested in the Associated Press article. I look forward to the link if it is still available.

Thanks in anticipation,

Margarita

[Belochka]

The article was published .... Associated Press.  I am still trying to link the original article.

My main reason for bringing it up was that in the article it was meant to be taken in the context that only people  in the west would have the idea that anybody had survived such a slaughter as what had happened to the Romanovs especially since they were Romanovs.  Not that this is a fact.  I'm just relaying what I read in the article.

I am only interested in the Associated Press article. I look forward to the link if it is still available.

Margarita - I think the article she is referring to was published in 1993, and thus do not expect for there to be a link.

Thanks in anticipation,

Margarita

Well that is most unfortunate if correct. Then we have no way of knowing exactly what Ryabov stated.

Margarita

[LisaDavidson]

I think this is another tempest in a teapot. It is your choice to disbelieve the published source and your choice to feel that you can only evaluate it in Russian. It's not a major point by any stretch of the imagination and neither adds to nor subtracts from the facts surrounding the Tsar's murder.

[lori_c]

I think this is another tempest in a teapot. It is your choice to disbelieve the published source and your choice to feel that you can only evaluate it in Russian. It's not a major point by any stretch of the imagination and neither adds to nor subtracts from the facts surrounding the Tsar's murder.

That is true about believing or disbelieving published sources.  I also believe it ins't a major point but i disagree with you in that for those of us who don't speak Russian and have only read the articles and quotes in books, I feel that it DOES add something to the facts surrounding the Tsar's murder. 

[LisaDavidson]

I think this is another tempest in a teapot. It is your choice to disbelieve the published source and your choice to feel that you can only evaluate it in Russian. It's not a major point by any stretch of the imagination and neither adds to nor subtracts from the facts surrounding the Tsar's murder.

That is true about believing or disbelieving published sources.  I also believe it ins't a major point but i disagree with you in that for those of us who don't speak Russian and have only read the articles and quotes in books, I feel that it DOES add something to the facts surrounding the Tsar's murder. 

I'm not understanding your logic at all. Someone's opinion (not a fact) about the Bolsheviks of 70 odd years prior has something to do with the facts surrounding the Tsar's murder? Could you explain your reasoning, please?

[Romanov_fan]

Opinions are, of course only opinions. I think though that although you should not believe everything you read, you should take into account anything that might bear on the subject initially. I don't know much about Ryabov; his statement is a viewpoint others seem to have sometimes too.I think the Bolsheviks wre quite cruel, all the evidence points to that; many senseless atrocities were commited by them.It would be hard to find a communist showing mercy. Of course, they were human, as well, but mercy wasn't much in their line. I think one would have to consider the specific sitiuation before saying either they had some mercy or they didn't have any. Making sweeping statements is generally not good. I read this book- the subtitle is Death and Memory in 20th Century Russia, I can't remember the main title, it was published in 2001. After reading that book, you come to the conclusion that 20th century Russia after the Revolution was more brutal than the tsars, but that's just my opinion. This isn't the topic of this thread though...

[lori_c]

I think this is another tempest in a teapot. It is your choice to disbelieve the published source and your choice to feel that you can only evaluate it in Russian. It's not a major point by any stretch of the imagination and neither adds to nor subtracts from the facts surrounding the Tsar's murder.

That is true about believing or disbelieving published sources.  I also believe it ins't a major point but i disagree with you in that for those of us who don't speak Russian and have only read the articles and quotes in books, I feel that it DOES add something to the facts surrounding the Tsar's murder. 

I'm not understanding your logic at all. Someone's opinion (not a fact) about the Bolsheviks of 70 odd years prior has something to do with the facts surrounding the Tsar's murder? Could you explain your reasoning, please?

Certainly Lisa,

My reasoning is this:  I am  1) relaying a quote from an article I read with a quote by Geli Ryabov about the Bolsheviks not showing mercy and 2) by choosing to believe this published source I ams stating that it does add something to the known facts about the murder of the Tsar and his family ---- for me.   That though sweeping generalization is not good, I am saying I believe the source and that nobody survived the execution on the night the Tsar and his family died.  I agree with Ryabov that notions of survivors are purely western ideas.  This is of course what I believe. I am no scholar.  I am not Russian.  I have no facts to back up my opinion except the article I read and quoted in a previous post which is what I choose to believe. 

I don't understand why more of the original post is being made of than what it is.  Strictly an observation on something I read and wanted to share on this Forum.

Please tell me if you feel my post was inappropriate, and please explain your reasoning as to why.   After all, this is a discussion.

Thanking you in advance

Lori C.

[LisaDavidson]

I think this is another tempest in a teapot. It is your choice to disbelieve the published source and your choice to feel that you can only evaluate it in Russian. It's not a major point by any stretch of the imagination and neither adds to nor subtracts from the facts surrounding the Tsar's murder.

That is true about believing or disbelieving published sources.  I also believe it ins't a major point but i disagree with you in that for those of us who don't speak Russian and have only read the articles and quotes in books, I feel that it DOES add something to the facts surrounding the Tsar's murder. 

I'm not understanding your logic at all. Someone's opinion (not a fact) about the Bolsheviks of 70 odd years prior has something to do with the facts surrounding the Tsar's murder? Could you explain your reasoning, please?

Certainly Lisa,

My reasoning is this:  I am  1) relaying a quote from an article I read with a quote by Geli Ryabov about the Bolsheviks not showing mercy and 2) by choosing to believe this published source I ams stating that it does add something to the known facts about the murder of the Tsar and his family ---- for me.   That though sweeping generalization is not good, I am saying I believe the source and that nobody survived the execution on the night the Tsar and his family died.  I agree with Ryabov that notions of survivors are purely western ideas.  This is of course what I believe. I am no scholar.  I am not Russian.  I have no facts to back up my opinion except the article I read and quoted in a previous post which is what I choose to believe. 

I don't understand why more of the original post is being made of than what it is.  Strictly an observation on something I read and wanted to share on this Forum.

Please tell me if you feel my post was inappropriate, and please explain your reasoning as to why.   After all, this is a discussion.

Thanking you in advance

Lori C.

Not inappropriate at all! I'm just trying to understand what you're saying and I think that's a benefit of discussion. Of course I agree with you - I said it was a tempest in a teapot, after all.

[lori_c]

I totally agree and enough said on the subject!

Lori C.

[Guinastasia]

One of my professors, a staunch anti-Bolshevik, who spent a year or more in a gulag in Perm, is close friends with Sergei Khrushchev, the son of Nikita, who wasn't a cold-hearted butcher like Lenin, or a sociopath like Stalin.

No one is black or white.  People are always shades of grey, I believe.  There are very few Hitlers, or Gandhis.  Most people fall somewhere in between.

[dmitri]

Anna Anderson was a total fraud. The DNA tests proved it. She had no connection whatsoever with any Romanov living or dead.