One thing I find odd

[Elisabeth]

but I do like that there is some sort of mystical untertow in life and that sometimes it shows itself in the most unlikely places...

Lori C.

You'll be surprised, but I agree with you, Lori. I myself can be very superstitious in my personal life (my husband calls me a real Russian woman, even though I'm not Russian at all!). And I do believe that it's perfectly all right, even as a historian, to point out odd coincidences in history, so long as you describe them as odd coincidences and don't go all "mystical" on your readers.

Strangely enough what I object to most in Radzinsky as a historian also happens to be the very same quality that I admire most in him as an artist... Did you know that he was not originally famous as a historian in Russia but as a playwright?!?  In other words, he's first and foremost an artist, not a social scientist... At any rate, artists always look for patterns in order to find a higher meaning to life. There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself, and in fact a whole lot right with it, so long as it stays within the realm of art. But this is why I regard Radzinsky as primarily an artist, a mythologist or mythologizer, and not a true historian... he's always working out these elaborate, some would say even beautiful myths to explain why Russian history went so wrong in the twentieth century.

So, in other words, I read Radzinsky's works because I enjoy seeing what he will come up with next in his fanciful ongoing myth of Russia in the twentieth century. Also because, as I said before, by virtue of his fame and connections in Russia, he does sometimes have the inside scoop on previously unknown information still locked away in the archives. (Back in the early 1990s, he was the first to publish hitherto unknown information about the murders of the imperial family.) But I think this consideration is less and less important as the years go by and increasingly more material is published by other scholars, both in Russia and the West, about the last days of the imperial family.

[Romanov_fan]

Well, there was much plot and counter plot involved in the death of the IF. It is true that no one claimed to be the adults because there was no room for speculation there. It was easier to claim to be the kids, and perhaps even get an inheiritence! ( I KNOW some hoped for that). But that doesn't mean anybody survived, even accounting for the missing bodies. There simply is no proof any one survived in spite of numerous claims and investigation. Of course, the accounts were confused and much of what we think we know on the historical record isn't something we know for sure, perhaps. There might also be things left off of the historical record.

Coinicidences do happen, and I don't think you should look at life merely straight up- there are many things that are so weird, that have little or no explanation. There are things you simply can't put into words. I am a firm believer in that, and that life both of the past that we can see in history and the future that we can only guess are fascinating. I believe in the connection of people to one another, and events to one another. Events and people influence each other.. but back on topic.

[Annie]

In other words, he's first and foremost an artist, not a social scientist... At any rate, artists always look for patterns in order to find a higher meaning to life. There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself, and in fact a whole lot right with it, so long as it stays within the realm of art. But this is why I regard Radzinsky as primarily an artist, a mythologist or mythologizer, and not a true historian.

So that's why he's not well respected. I can see how an imaginative person can insert their own myths and speculation as truth, and that is a disservice to history. IMO a history book should be pure history, not theory, with nothing added in because it was more interesting, and never leading a reader astray for the purpose of excitement when there is no evidence or proof of what is implied. I have seen this elsewhere as well, only to a worse degree, because the authors claimed to have 'new' evidence that turned out to be just elaborated theories that were either mistranslated, inaccurate, or sensationalistic speculation with no basis. If authors want to mix history with their own ideas, then perhaps historical fiction and not nonfiction should be their genre.

[AGRBear]

 Red Army soldiers stopped trains to look for GD Anstasia and Alexis in July 1918. 

Anyone wonder why?

Was it because the two bodies were missing?


AGRBear

[Belochka]

 Red Army soldiers stopped trains to look for GD Anstasia and Alexis in July 1918. 

Anyone wonder why?

Was it because the two bodies were missing?


AGRBear

Bear I am a bit fuzzy about this revelation. Where did you extract this information from please?

Margarita 

[Annie]

Is there any real evidence of that train search actually occuring or is it just a rumor? Where did the details originate? I don't remember hearing it until I came to this board.

[Guinastasia]

I will add that I personally find Radzinsky's work enjoyable, but since he is a romantic and a playwright, I simply enjoy his books as I would fiction, and take them with a huge grain of salt.

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

The trains search stuff, is, I believe, in File on the Tsar, but I can't be sure as I don't have my copy with me.

I have always thought that was nothing but a rumour too.  I've never read it anywhere other than on this board and possibly in one book, which I believe to be File on the Tsar, but I can't be sure.

As for people in 1918 knowing that two children were missing, this simply isn't true.  No two people had the gumption to show up as Alexei AND Anastasia; it's always just been one solitary 'survivor'. These survivors haven't necessarily been Alexei or Anastasia, either; you've all seen the stats- there were even 'survivors' showing up pretending to be Nicholas, Alexandra, Olga, Tatiana, Maria,etc.  I'm sure there must be someone who's tried to pass their dog off as Jemmy too!  None of these other 'survivors' tie in with the concrete finds that we have and so therefore these 'survivors' don't prove anything except how you'll always get people who want to make a personal gain out of someone else's tragedy.  It's human nature and nothing more. Let's not make something out of nothing.

Rachel
xx

[J_Kendrick]

None of these other 'survivors' tie in with the concrete finds that we have and so therefore these 'survivors' don't prove anything...

What concrete finds are those?

There are NO "concrete finds" as far as the two missing are concerned.

That's why they're still missing.

Until that day finally comes when bones of the two missing have actually been found and properly identified... whether you like or not... anything is possible.

[Romanov_fan]

Well, back to Radszinsky. I loved his Nicholas book, yes, it might be romanticzed, but it is very readable and evocative. You can tell he was a playwright before he wrote that book, that was his background, because some of the dialogue sounds like it was from a play. But, like a play, it tells you not only the facts of the story but the meaning of it. The facts of the story are there, if a bit distorted, and yet the meaning is as well, more than in books of just dry facts. I think you should take him with a grain of salt, for sure, but you should also take away the meaning that he gives events that no other book can give. I think he just brings things to life, one way or the other. That is not a bad thing when you are writing history, as long as you don't stray too far from the facts of course.

[lori_c]

Radzinsky's book was very evocative.  and yes Elisabeth I did know he was a playwright first.  You can sort of even tell in the layout of the The Last Tsar.  However, I loved The Last Tsar.  He does cite factual information and where he got it from.  The most interesting of which is what came from the Archives.

I especially enjoyed the way as imperial angel said - he brought the story to life.  There was a disctinct Russian feel to book which I thoroughly enjoyed.  I haven't found that in other factual historical books on the subject of the last IF.   

I honestly didn't know he wasn't well respected though.

[Romanov_fan]

I thought it felt very Russian too, Radzinsky's book. He wasn't a western historian writing from a remove, but a playwright who is Russian, and one that knows the connections, and events, and can feel them, and make you feel them. I guess he won't ever be respected as much as a serious historian though. One thing I didn't agree with that he stated, was the thing about the guy who might be Alexei in his book, that is too far for me.

[Elisabeth]

 I think it's pretty clear in File on the Tsar that the false rumors put out by the Ural Bolsheviks in Perm had to do with one or more of the grand duchesses escaping (Anastasia, but I think Tatiana was also mentioned once). There was no mention made of Alexei.  IMHO this was because most people would have found it very hard to believe that the Bolsheviks had not executed the tsarevich with his father. That rumor simply wouldn't have "flown," in other words.

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

None of these other 'survivors' tie in with the concrete finds that we have and so therefore these 'survivors' don't prove anything...

What concrete finds are those?

There are NO "concrete finds" as far as the two missing are concerned.

That's why they're still missing.

Until that day finally comes when bones of the two missing have actually been found and properly identified... whether you like or not... anything is possible.

Concrete finds- the bodies of Nicholas, Alexandra, 3 GDs and the three servants.

Therefore no 'survivors' purporting to be them could have been telling the truth.  Correct?

Concrete find- there are two bodies missing.

No two survivors have shown up purporting to be a missing GD and Alexei who escaped together, and no purported survivor claiming to be a missing GD has ever claimed that Alexei also escaped but perished later from haemophilia.  No survivor claiming to be a GD has ever mentioned anything about Alexei being with them too.  So that doesn't tie in with the missing bodies, does it?

Therefore, no one survivor has been able to support the forensic evidence we have at this point in time, as I said.

Rachel
xx

[Lemur]

No two survivors have shown up purporting to be a missing GD and Alexei who escaped together, and no purported survivor claiming to be a missing GD has ever claimed that Alexei also escaped but perished later from haemophilia.  No survivor claiming to be a GD has ever mentioned anything about Alexei being with them too.  So that doesn't tie in with the missing bodies, does it?

That is a big factor there, good point. Since both were 'missing' why did no claimant of either ever mention that the other was, at least in the beginning, with them? The answer is of course obvious, because all  of the claimants were lying, they weren't really there so they didn't know the other was missing too, but this is yet another gaping hole in their stories.