A) They are both similar because they are using evidence from the same primary source; Sergeyev's findings, therefore one cannot say that they are reliable just because they have the same information. Judge Sergeyev, the person that conducted the investigation was a "white" judge and therefore we must assume that he is bias towards the whites and he will try and make the Bolsheviks look bad. Also, he was a supporter of the provisional government, which means that he probably didn't like the Bolsheviks for destroying it. In addition to this the providence tells us that Judge Sergeyevs findings only known from comments of people who spoke to him or from people who read his report.
Since there are no hard copies of the report we cannot be certain that what these people say is accurate, and people have a tendency to sometimes forget information over time. In addition, the providence says its from an American newspaper, newspapers editors want the paper to be sold, therefore they will make a story that the people want to know about and that will sell, and therefore make them money. Also an American would be bias towards the whites, because the Bolsheviks made Russia leave the war, it meant that there was more pressure on the allies to hold Germany back, and therefore more American soldiers died. The war was a bug issue in America and it would also be a selling point for the newspaper.Source B is from a report by Sir Charles Eliot to the British government.
This report is not reliable either because it is using the evidence that was gathered by Judge Sergeyev, and because Sergeyev is a "white" and a supporter of the provisional government then he is bias, therefore Sir Charles's evidence is bias and therefore not reliable either. In addition, Sir Charles is working for the British government. The British don't like the Bolsheviks because they made Russia withdraw from the war, and therefore nearly lost Britain, France and America. With this information, we can see that his report may have been bias. In addition to this, Britain also sent troops to help the whites and many died, again another reason to be bias.B) Sources A & B were using evidence from Judge Sergeyev's investigation, source C however is using information from the investigations of another, Judge Sokolov.
Sources A;B claim that only the Tsar, Dr Botkin (the family doctor), two servants and the Empress's maid were shot in Ipatiev house, and source B goes onto say that the Tsarina and her children were led taken out of the city to a safe place by means of a sealed train.Source 3 however claims that all of the family were shot in Ipatiev house, and then after the murder a lorry took mine them to the Four Brothers mine. Here they were cut up, and then burnt using sulphuric acid and petrol.Judge Sokolov also says that because there are holes in the walls that mean there has been a murder, and that because the holes are so widespread it must have been for more than 1 person. However, the holes could have been made someone shooting at he wall to fake a murder, or just someone shooting for fun! In addition to this, Sokolov's report is about 7 years later than the alleged murder, so therefore if he questioned people, their memories may have been vague and could have given incorrect accounts, or the house could have been damaged itself either normally or during some other incident, in which the resulting damage could be interpreted as a bullet hole, or a sign of struggle.
C) No, this is not reliable for many reasons.The providence from source D states that Pavel Medvedev as a Bolshevik in charge of the men guarding the imperial family, and that he was interviewed by the whites and possibly tortured. I think that he was tortured, and anyone would say anything under the stress of torture. Another strange thing that the source says is that Medvedev was told to go outside and listen to see if any shots could be heard. I would think that what he said here is a lie, because if he was in charge of a group of soldiers, then he must have had some sort of authority, and normally you send normal soldiers for these types of jobs.
In addition, one could make an argument and say why was he the only one to be sent out? Again this shows that this excuse was probably made up quickly without thought, a sign that he might have been under torture.The confession from Medvedev seems also to resemble the report from Judge Sokolov in source C. Sokolov mentions that he thinks all the royal family was murdered, and Medvedevs confession says the same thing, "Walking into the room he saw all the members of the Tsars family lying on the floor." Sokolov also mentions the use of a lorry to transport the corpses away; Medvedevs confession also mentions the use of a lorry. The similarities between the two sources are striking, this leads me to believe that the whites tortured Medvedev to comply with all the results of Sokolovs investigation, and therefore support the findings of his investigation.Another reason is that in source E, his wife tells a different story.
His wife says that Medvedev was actually in the room, wasn't asked to go out and in addition to all this, she says that he actually fired at the royal family and even "emptied two or three bullets into the tzar."This shows a cinflict of sourcwes. The white interview said that he was sent out, but his wife says that he was in the room all the time and actually fired. Again this can prove that the source is unreliable.D) All the sources are usefull, but they are not reliable. In source F we can see the "alleged" murder room.
All we can see in the picture is a wall with hole in and some rubble lying on the floor in front of it. Some investigations have claimed that these are bullet holes from the murder, but anyone can easily come into a room and shoot randomly at the wall and produce the same effect, maybe to fake a murder. The photograph has no date and so could have been taken long after the murder, maybe 5 or even 10 years.By that amount of time the wall could have natrually corroded. In addition, a photograph can easily be faked.
The photo could be an overlay of some damage to a wall etched onto a photograph of that wall, we have no way to tell if it's genuine or not. However if it is genuine it could be usefull to a historian to see how the bullets have hit the wall and in what pattern, this could help him to see how the famly was organised, if they ever were there.Source G is a painting, which has been painted using the results from a white investigation. This immediately means that its using bias evidence, and therefore the painting is bias towards the whites. As above, this painting doesn't have a date, and so we don't know when it was painted.
It could have been painted over 20 years later, after the murder. This is usefull because it shows us how the murder was taken out in the eyes of other people, and it can also show us the results of the investigation since this picture uses that evidence.Finally source F; this is not reliable for many reasons.Firstly, the investigator, Judge Sokolov is a white, and therefore is bias towards the whites and will try and make the Bolshevik crime seem even worse. It also says that he got his information from "witnesses".
If there were any witnesses at the murder, they all have to be Bolshevik soldiers (because according to him all the royals family died), and I don't think that any Bolshevik soldiers remained after the whites took over Ekaterinburg, they must have either ran away or got killed in the fighting. This makes me beleive that he actually didn't get any information, but instead made a plan to suit his own theory and results; that all the family were killed and some were kneeling down or sitting on chairs. In addition to this, he providence says that this was taken from a book that he wrote.The only reason people write a book is to make money, and he could have put that in his book so people would buy it, its not nescessarily the truth. However, the alleged picture in source F backs up this source. In the picture there is a door next to the damage, and if you look on the layout of the people in source H, you can also see a door behind the imperial family.
However, even with this information it is hard to prove this is genuine, because anyone could easily make a plan of a room and guess where people are standing.E) I don't think it is strange at all. They probably announced this because they knew that if they didn't say something, then when the whites take over they will make an investigation and people will believe anything they say. They killed the tsar because they thought that if he escaped, he could unite the whites in a common cause, this would mean they had better leadership and that they could possibly beat the Bolsheviks.
The reason why they said that they shot the Tsar, I think is because they wanted to make the people think that they are telling the truth, and that it was for their own good. The peasants wouldn't really have cared, because they didn't like the Tsar for taking their land, and for the famines, and they didn't like the Tsarina, because they thought she was a German spy.However, many other people did like the tsarina, and I think that's why they explicitly said that the tsarina and her son have been sent off to a safe place.If they had said that they killed all the family including the children and the tsarina, then there would have been an outrage for many reasons.
First of all the tsarina was German, and Lenin was trying to make peace talks with the Germans. If she was killed, and the Germans found out, it would throw the peace talks into jeopardy and the Germans would continue to attack Russia.Secondly, if the Bolsheviks said that they killed the entire family, including the maids and the children they would be considered to be "monsters" and they would have committed a serious crime. Killing children is not a way to gain support, and the Bolsheviks knew that, that might also be a reason why they said that they sent the son along with the tsarina.
Strangely however, they do not mention if the daughters were with them, this discrepancy could be seen as a mistake under pressure, possibly because they wanted to publish this as soon as possible that they forgot to mention other important details, in this case the whereabouts and welfare of the daughters.I think also, that when they said, "His wife and son have been sent off to a secure place", they were trying to make themselves seem caring. By sending the tsarina off to a safe place with their son, they are making sure they are not in danger. This will work in their favour, the Germans would think that they care for their tsarina and respect them more, also people would think that the Bolsheviks are kind and help people be safe.Also notice that this was not a majority decision, it was the decision of the District Soviet of the Ural, and not the main Petrograd Soviet, so if things did get out of hand, and reports came out that the Bolsheviks had murdered the Royal family, then the Petrograd soviet can blame it on them for allowing it to happen. This would mean they don't get the blame and that the District of the Ural soviet would have to deal with the accusations.
F) Source J supports and confirms to a point that some of the Imperial family members were killed, coinciding with sources C, D, E and I. however, it does not tell us how they were killed. The source tells us only that "marks on the skeletons show that the girls, protected by jewels sown into their underclothes, had to be finished off with bayonets.". This does not tell us how the Tsar, Tsarina their son or any other member were killed.
Whereas these sources say that all the family were killed, source J says that 2 of the skeletons were missing. Source J also fails to say who is missing and where the skeletons could be, so we cannot be sure if the other sources match. The two children could have been killed, but then dumped somewhere else, perhaps the mine collapsed partially on them, or maybe they could have survived.Source J mentions the use of a lorry and that a mine was used to cover it up. Sources C and D also mention use of a lorry that was used to take the bodies away, however only source C mentions that it was used to take the bodies to the four brothers mine, source J however only mentions a mine not a specific mine.Also, source J doesn't not tell us or confirm that the family was killed in Ipatiev house, as sources C, D, E and I claim they were.
This leaves the argument open to discussion. They could have been killed in the house, on the spot in the road or on their journey etc... the possibilities are endless. All the other sources however claim that they were killed in Ipatiev house.
Source J also partially could help source A ; B, in that they claim that only Tsar, Dr Botkin (the family doctor), two servants and the Empress's maid were shot in Ipatiev house. Since source J doesn't mention the location of the shooting or when each member was shot, one could argue that these members were shot first and then later the rest of the family was shot. However, source J doesn't support the following sources well enough/ not at all however:* Source F: This picture shows a wall with bullet holes and extensive damage. It is claimed that this is a photograph from Ipatiev house, and more accurately, the wall in front of which the family were sitting.
Source J mentions nothing about where or how the family were killed, so it doesn't support this source at all. In addition, this could have just been someone damaging the wall on purpose.* Source H: This source shows us a plan of possibly how the murderers and the family were arranged at the time of the murder, again, source J did not give us any information on the whereabouts or the method of the killing, so again this source receives no support.* Source G: To a certain point, it also does not support this source. The painting shows us the Bolsheviks attacking the imperial family. However, the position of the people in the painting seems to resemble the plan of source H.
Suffice is to say, that the plan of source H was probably used to construct the painting in conjunction with the description in source D.The painting however does show the family being murdered, which is what source J is saying. However, the painting doesn't show where all the members are. There only seems to be 5 women in the picture (including the one laying on the ground) and only 2 men, however, according to the other sources there is one more woman, the Empresses maid, and 2 more servants, which could either be male or female. These 3 people are missing from the painting.Source J says that there are 2 children missing, not 3 servants.
Again this shows that this source cannot be properly supported, because its using information from source H, another unsupported source and it's "telling" a different story to what source J is saying.
