We accept

The Romanov Family

Study Sources A and B.

Sources A and B give similar accounts. Does indeed this mean these are reliable?

The simple fact that sources A and B both show similar accounts of what occurred to the Romanov family does not necessarily accounts to the sources being reliable. Alternatively, the similarities of the studies show that there is apt to be some real truth in the sources.

Source is from an American paper written in December 1918. It really is based on facts accumulated by Judge Sergeyev, who was asked to research the scene. He feels that only the Tsar, the family doctor, two servants and the maid were taken in the Ipatiev House.

Source B is from Sir Charles Eliot's report to the British Administration in Oct 1918. In his survey he says how Judge Sergeyev proved him round the house where in fact the Tsar was supposed to have been shot. His report agrees with Source A for the reason that the same five people were shot, yet there have been no corpses remaining inside your home at that time Sir Charles Eliot was shown around.

The trustworthiness of the sources can immediately be questioned because of the authors of the options. Source A is from a written report within an American newspaper. At that time America was a strong challenger of the Bolsheviks as they feared the pass on of communism, therefore may be biased contrary to the Bolsheviks. By creating the communists to appear to be murderers, America could boost the support of the Whites. The publication report is intended for the general public, so may be one-sided to impact the general public. The information is based on findings by Judge Sergeyev. The information in the article is secondary as it is dependant on people who spoken to or read Sergeyev's report. None of the information is given by Sergeyev himself, or established.

In Source B, Sir Charles Eliot's information is based on what Judge Sergeyev proved him, and so is not really a first hand profile. However, he is shown round the house personally, and so his information is major. Both options are also written in 1918, the same year as the murders, therefore the research can be said not to be incorrect scheduled to ram. Source B would depend over a as the author of B, Sir Charles Eliot, is shown round the house by Sergeyev, who is the author of your. The actual fact that the information in both options is the same could mean the sources are reliable. However, even although information in the resources is the same, this is because of the actual fact that only the same evidence is supplied in both options. Sir Charles Eliot had not been given a chance to check out himself; he is merely shown evidence by Judge Sergeyev. As both sources rely upon Sergeyev, if he was incorrect or concealing the truth, the data in both sources would be corrupt.

Both sources are based on intelligence accumulated by Judge Sergeyev. Sergeyev could only study evidence remaining in the Ipatiev House, so his information was limited. Also he had no eyewitness accounts of the murders. He was appointed to the situation by the Whites, and so may have been affected by them. The Whites might well have asked him to withhold certain information, or hand out incorrect facts.

Both sources agree that only five people were wiped out in the Ipatiev House, the Tsar, the family doctor, two servants and the Empress's maid. Resources C, D, E, G, and J all buy into the Tsar being killed in Ekaterinburg. With all the current options agreeing, the trustworthiness of sources A and B is advanced. The sources also say how the victims were taken, and this information is supported by sources C, D, E, F and G.

Judge Sergeyev appears to contradict himself. In Source A he says, 'It is my perception that the Empress, the Tsar's kid and the four other children were not shot in that house. ' However, Source C intimates other recommendations as Judge Sokolov says that, 'My predecessor, Sergeyev, on controlling the case to me, had without doubt about the actual fact that the whole Romanov family have been massacred in the Ipatiev House. ' Sergeyev is seen to have provided two accounts of what happened, so can't be perceived as entirely reliable because both bits of evidence cannot be appropriate. This questions the dependability of the entire source.

To conclude, even although sources show the same information, they are simply contradicted in many ways by other resources. Judge Sergeyev cannot be seen as reliable as he offered out different accounts of the happenings. Also, both sources are centered because they are based upon facts collected by Sergeyev, so the reliability of the resources is questioned.

Study Resources A, B and C.

How far does the account in Source C differ from those in Resources A and B?

Source C is an excerpt from a e book publicized by Judge Sokolov in 1924. Sokolov required over from Judge Sergeyev to research the murders of the Romanov family after Sergeyev was sacked from the truth in January 1919. Sergeyev experienced advised Sokolov he was certain everyone passed away in the Ipatiev House. Sokolov thought the murder was completed with revolvers and bayonets in another of the cellar rooms, which at least several people were shot in the basement.

Source C says that the 'bloody carnage occurred in another of the rooms in the basement. ' This is comparable to source A which says that the murders occurred in the lower story of the home. Options A, B and C all agree that guns were used to shoot the victims. However, options A and B only say that the Romanov family were 'taken'. Source C illustrates more than options A and B, declaring that, 'The murder was completed using bayonets and revolvers. ' Source also switches into more depth by saying, 'More than thirty injections were fired because some of the bullets must have remained in the physiques', plus some of the bullets proceeded to go in to the floor and the wall.

Source B declares that 'on 17 July, a train left Ekaterinburg which is believed the making it through people of the royal family were in it. ' This contradicts Source C, which says that a lorry transported the corpses for disposal. It also opposes because Source C says that, 'It is exhibited that between 17 and 22 July a murder occurred inside your home. ' In the event the coach with the surviving members remaining on the 17th, the murders would have took place before this night out, contradicting Source C. However, both Resources are adamant the murders took place towards the end of July.

Source C has concrete evidence regarding the proven fact that several people will need to have been wiped out inn the Ipatiev House, 'because one person cannot change his position so much and post to so many blows. ' However, Options A and B haven't any evidence to support this theory. Source B makes assumptions that several people were wiped out; Sir Charles Eliot acquired no evidence to determine this.

Source C is similar to B that the survey had not been made known to the public, nonetheless it differs to A for the reason that Source A was part of an newspaper report to everyone. Because of this, Source A might be inappropriate as the mass media would like to distribute a certain concept to open public, whereas Source C would be grouped therefore no bias would be needed. As source C is written as a report, it ought to be more factual and accurate.

Furthermore, Source C is far more descriptive than Options A and B. Source C has a great deal of information on what took place, expressing that the bodies were taken up to the 'Four Brothers mine', and 'burnt using petrol and sulphuric acidity'. Alternatively, Sources A and B have little facts and are hazy. Source B says, 'No corpses were determined, nor any trace of these having been used up. ' This also opposes Source C as it says that no using occurred.

While Resources A, B and C agree on the place and date of fatality, that is approximately where the similarities end. The distinctions in Sources A and B and Source C way outweigh the similarities. The Options disagree on the deaths that happened in the Ipatiev House and the disposal of the systems. Furthermore, whereas Resources A and B were vague on some of the details of the evidence, Source C goes into greater detail for the data offered, with Judge Sokolov providing facts with his theory.

Study Options D and E.

Source D must be reliable as it can be an eyewitness' account. Do you really agree?

Just because Source D is an eyewitness account will not necessarily mean that it's reliable. The dependability of the consideration depends after the see, and Pavel Medvedev is quoted by his better half in Source E as saying an alternative version of what he explains to the Whites. Alternatively, the fact that it's a first hand bill of the arena shows that is much more likely to be reliable, as it is, the burkha source.

Source D are notes from the interview of Pavel Medvedev by the Whites. He speaks about how everyone were taken in to the spot room, next to the storeroom. The Empress sat by the wall membrane with three of her daughters. The Emperor was in the centre, next to his boy, with the doctor, Dr. Botkin stood behind him. He says the maid was stood by the storeroom door with the other girl. Then, eleven men walked in to the room. Supposedly Medvedev was advised to '"Go out to the road and see whether anyone's there in case the pictures will be heard"'. Medvedev then supposedly strolled out and noticed the photographs. He says as he walked into the room he noticed the family dead on the floor. The corpses were then taken out to the lorry.

The reliability of this source is disputable by the actual fact that it is an eyewitness' accounts. Pavel Medvedev was at the field, therefore will contain the best account of what took place. However, he might have been lying in what happened, therefore the source could be corrupt. As this Source was extracted from an interview by the Whites, and Medvedev was at the world, he could be resting to appease the Whites as he was area of the Bolsheviks. As he was probably tortured, he could have also lied to pacify the Whites to stop them from torturing him.

The history Pavel Medvedev informed the Whites in the interview immediately contravenes what he informed his own wife, as shown in Source E. Medvedev's better half said that 'My husband fired too'. Also, Medvedev told his partner that 'a paper was read to them that said, "The revolution is dying, and so shall you"'. Within the interview with the Whites, Pavel Medvedev failed to mention this, demonstrating that he could be withholding information in Source D. Also in Source E it says that Medvedev advised another safeguard that he had '"emptied several bullets into the Tsar"'. This backs up his wife's version of incidents. However, neither the partner nor the shield were at the picture therefore were secondary resources. Their information is doubtful against an initial source.

To conclude, even though Pavel Medvedev was there at the scene when the event happened, his consistency is probably doubtful. As he was probably tortured by the White Russians, what he said in the interview cannot be viewed as reliable. Alternatively, his wife had no cause to be bias against her hubby, therefore her reliability is more concrete. However, even if the information she offered is truthful, as it is not a first hands account the data might be inappropriate as well.

Study Sources F, G and H.

Which of these sources is most readily useful to a historian learning the fatalities of the Tsar and his family?

Sources F, G and H are visual resources on the murder of the Romanov family. Two factors limit if the information pays to; the information provided and the dependability of this information.

Source F is an image of the cellar room where in fact the murders are stated to have taken place. Since it is a photograph, it instinctively sticks out as reliable. In the picture there are bullet holes and marks where possibly bayonets will have been used. This is supported by source C, which claims, 'The murder was carried out using revolvers and bayonets. ' Furthermore, source I, a message to the Bolsheviks, says, 'decided to perform, by firing, Nikolai Romanov. ' This backs up the utilization of guns in the murder. Also, weapons and bayonets can be seen in source G, a painting of the loss of life of the Tsar.

Additionally, on the right of the photo a door is seen. That is most possibly the room to the storeroom door, as shown in the layout in source H, where it says in the very best right 'Door to the storeroom'. That is also backed up by source D where it says, 'The maid stood by the storeroom door with the other girl. ' What's shown in the picture is supported by other sources, displaying that is very probable to be reliable. However, there continues to be the probability that the photo is fraudulent, or was recreated.

On the other hand, whilst the picture is reliable, the information provided is very obscure. It implies that guns and bayonets were used in the murder, but that is essentially the only real useful information it supplies.

Source G is a painting of the fatality of the Tsar, based on information gathered by the research completed by the Whites. The painting shows the Tsar being taken by the guards. That is presumably true, as much other sources relate with the guards taking pictures the victims. Left a bayonet can be seen, and this is reinforced by source C, 'using revolvers and bayonets'. It is further guaranteed by source J, 'possessed to be completed off by bayonets'.

From the painting a layout can be deduced of where in fact the associates of the Romanov family were at the firing, which supports source H, also showing approximately the same layout. All the family is seen, as recognized by source D, 'The Empress sat down by the wall, behind her stood three of her daughters. The Emperor was in the centre, next to the heir, and behind him stood Dr Botkin. The maid stood by the storeroom door with the other little princess. ' Alternatively, resources A and B disagree with this, expressing that only the 'Tsar, Dr Botkin, the Empress' maid and two servants', were present in the shooting in the Ipatiev House. However, this can be because the painting was established upon information gathered in the exploration carried out by the Whites, and Pavel Medvedev, author of Source D, was interviewed in the exploration. But because the information was predicated on the analysis of the Whites, who opposed the murdering of the royal family, it can be biased. While Source G is a painting, therefore therefore has margin for wrong information to be put into the painting, it is been shown to be predicated on reliable information obtained. Furthermore, plenty of information can be deduced from source G.

Source H is a diagram from Judge Sokolov's publication showing the positioning of people in the cellar at the shooting. It implies that everyone and the doctor and maid will need to have been there, for enough people to maintain the diagram. This reinforces what Pavel Medvedev identifies in Source D, that everyone was present. However, as Judge Sokolov was a White supporter, and the diagram is dependant on witnesses he interviewed, it might be likely that he interviewed Pavel Medvedev. This concurs with Source G, which shows all the customers of the royal family to be there. In addition, it shows the amount of guards presents, matching with source H. In source D, Medvedev said there were 'Eleven men'. Adding Medvedev to this, there are twelve guards, which matches the number of guards in Source H. Alternatively, this opposes resources A and B, which declare that only the 'Tsar, the doctor, two servants and the maid were taken in the Ipatiev House. ' Source H also shows a storeroom door at the top right. This will abide by source F, which ultimately shows a door to the right.

Overall, source G would be the most readily useful for a historian. Whilst this is a painting, so is not definitive information, it is apparently based on reliable information gathered by the White Russian's analysis. Source F is a photograph, so is reliable, yet will not give much useful information, only demonstrating that weapons were used in the filming. Source H offers more info than F, yet will not give just as much information as G. Source H shows how many victims and guards were present, yet will not show the process where the patients were murdered, obviously shown in Source G.

Study Source I. Are you amazed by this source?

Source I is a message from the District Soviet of the Ural to the Bolsheviks in Petrograd. It claims that because 'Ekaterinburg was really threatened by the threat of counter-revolutionaries', the Presidium of the District Soviet of the Ural made a decision to perform the Tsar, Nikolai Romanov by firing. It says that his better half and kid have been dispatched off to a safe place.

There is information for panic in this meaning, stating that 'Ekaterinburg was really threatened by the threat of counter-revolutionaries. ' As the Whites needed over Ekaterinburg in May, the Bolsheviks could have had to take action. For this, they decided to implement the Tsar. That is unsurprising, as numerous other sources relate to the Tsar being killed. However, what's surprising is that such a short while was considered for the Bolsheviks to decide to execute the Tsar. The communication was delivered on July 20 1918; only a short period after Ekaterinburg was captured. Furthermore, if the Bolsheviks were been shown to be the killers of the Tsar, it would lose their standing up in the civil war. Many people still reinforced the Tsar, in case he was killed, there would be open public outrage. The Bolsheviks cannot afford to get this done. The actual fact that the meaning was directed on July 20 will abide by Source C, in which Judge Sokolov involves the final outcome that 'between 17 and 22 July a murder happened'.

It is surprising it says the 'better half and boy have been delivered off to a secure place. ' In Source J, the Tsar's partner was positively indentified in DNA tests, shown to be almost definitely accurate. What is unexpected is that proves the note to be lying down. The concept was directed within the Bolsheviks, to a older authority. It is unexpected that the Region Soviet would lie to the major Bolsheviks centre in Petrograd.

What else is surprising is that there is no reference to Dr Botkin or the maid in the message. All sources concur that the maid and doctor were present at the murders, even options A and B and D, which contain a different variety of patients. Source D says that, 'The Emperor was in the centre, next to the heir, and behind him stood Dr Botkin. The maid stood by the storeroom door with the other girl'. This also contradicts Source I, which says that the kid was sent to a safe location.

The fact that the message was directed is quite surprising. The Bolsheviks would make an effort to keep tranquil about the death of Tsar. If it received out their standing up would be lost, and the Whites, strongly opposed to the death of the Tsar, would have their standing up boosted. When the message was found out it could verify disastrous for the Bolsheviks. Also, other options show the Bolsheviks to be discreet about the murders. Source C suggests that, 'under the cover of darkness, a lorry transported the corpses to the Four Brothers Mine. ' Source J underlines this with 'The bodies were motivated to a mine and the mine blown up by grenades. ' The actual fact that the Bolsheviks visited quite some measures to cover up the fatality of the Tsar, yet then directed a note between themselves describing of his fatality is unusual. Also, as they tried to cover up the evidence, it is quite unusual that in Source F, it could be seen that the filming of the subjects leaves a whole lot of evidence of the murder occurring.

Overall, the fact that a subject matter was sent detailing of the fatality of the Tsar is very unusual. This is because of the reality they made a decision to execute him rather quickly and decisively, only a tiny time after Ekaterinburg had been bought out by the Whites. Also, it is shocking that they decided to execute the Tsar at all. This was at a crucial time in the Bolsheviks marketing campaign, and they cannot risk coverage or the civil warfare would be practically lost for the kids. Furthermore, sending the letter itself is startling, because if it was disclosed to the general public the revelation would be startling. There would have been a far better way to get the information to the head of the Bolsheviks that didn't put them vulnerable to discovery.

F) Study all the options.

How far does Source J confirm what the other sources said about what happened to the Tsar and his family?

Source J is from a British newspaper posted in 1994. It shows recent innovations into the deaths of the Romanovs after several archaeologists opened up a shallow burial pit near Ekaterinburg in 1991. DNA tests were used on the remains of the burial pit to positively identify Nicholas II, his partner and three of the daughters. Grades on the skeletons of girls show that bayonets were used to complete them off. It details the way the bodies were driven to a mine and the mine then inflated. When the mine didn't collapse, the body were put back again on the lorry. The lorry then became bogged down in a swamp and the remains were buried there.

As modern genetic technology was used to verify these as the physiques of the Tsar and family, Source J can be seen as the utmost reliable. Exact 'DNA tests combined with the dental documents', were used to identify. As well as this, as the exams were completed over seventy years after the murders of the Romanov family, the British would have no reason to be bias. As a result, the reliability of other options can be analysed based on the scope that they agree with Source J.

Firstly, resources A and B trust source J that five individuals were killed. However, the options name different fatalities. Sources A and B declare that, 'the Tsar, the family doctor, two servants and the maid were shot in the Ipatiev House. ' Yet Source J says 'Nicholas II, his partner and three daughters. ' On the other hand, Source A partly will abide by source J when it says, 'four other children were not shot'. Source J mentioned two of the five children absent. Also, Source J will not specify where the victims were wiped out, and Source A says that, 'the Empress, the Tsar's kid and the four other children weren't shot in that house', offering the opportunity that some of the victims were not shot inside the house.

At the beginning of Source C Judge Sokolov expresses, 'the entire Romanov family have been massacred. ' The 'corpses' that are carried to the Four Brothers mine are most probably that of the 'whole Romanov family'. However, Source J says that 'two of the imperial family's five children were lacking' and so Source C contradicts Source J in this manner. Source D has a similar disagreement, with Medvedev expressing he noticed 'all the members of the Tsar's family lying on the floor' and then the 'corpses were taken out to the lorry. ' Source E backs up Resources C and D by expressing 'they killed them all. '

Source J demonstrates that bayonets were a tool in the massacr

Source J shows that bayonets were an instrument in the massacre. This shows the statement in source C to be true where it says, 'The murder was completed using bayonets and revolvers. ' That is reiterated in source F where the wall structure and floor has been ripped apart, seemingly through bayonets. Source C, in concord with Source D, also backs up source J by stating that 'a lorry taken the corpses to the Four Brothers mine. ' This complements Source J's comment, 'The physiques were motivated to a mine'. However, even though the sources agree on the method of transport, the technique of removal is contradicted. In source J it states that 'the mine inflated by grenades', whereas in Source C it says 'The bodies were sliced into portions and burned using petrol and sulphuric acidity. ' This shows that Source J partially disagrees with source C. The phrases 'chopped into items and burned', 'The fatty matter in the corpses ran out and blended in with the earth', exaggerate the firmness of the murders. This might have been because the writer of C, Judge Sokolov, was a White and could have been told to help make the Bolsheviks look as bad as is feasible.

All options are in agreement that the Tsar was killed in the Ipatiev House, with Medvedev expressing in Source E he '"emptied several bullets in to the Tsar"', and Source I proclaiming that, 'chosen to implement, by shooting, Nikolai Romanov'. Source J is within compliance with this, as it says that 'dental records positively identify Nicholas II'.

Source J gives a reason behind why such brutality was used on the victims. Source C says 'more than thirty photographs were terminated', and source F demonstrates a great deal of brutal power was found in the murders. Source D backs this up, as 'eleven men' were used to get rid of the family. Source H further reiterates this, as there are a lot of white dots representing guards in the area. Source J explains this by stating, 'Grades on the skeleton show that girls, secured by jewels sown to their underclothes, had to be completed off by bayonets. ' This illustrates that excessive force was needed to lower the family.

Source G shows the guards to be firing downwards, on the body of the patients. Source F reiterates this as the majority of the harm to the area is on to the floor and lower wall membrane. Source J proves this by saying 'jewels sown to their underclothes, needed to be finished off by bayonets. ' This shows that as the jewels were in the underclothes of girls, and the underclothes would not have shielded them from injections to the top, the guards will need to have been firing downwards towards your body.

Source G shows the Tsar's son with his father being shot, however this contradicts source J as the source says 'two of the imperial family's five children were absent', and 'three of the daughters' were found in the burial pit. This shows that is the son had not been murdered with the rest of the family, and so source G disagrees with source J.

Sources J and I do not agree, such as source I it clearly suggests that, 'His wife and boy have been delivered off to a secure place. ' On the other hand, the Tsar's better half was clearly within the burial pit with the Tsar. This shows that source I used to be most probably fake. The Area Soviet may have lied in the subject matter, to cover up for the mistake of killing the whole family, instead of just the Tsar, or the meaning might have been artificial. However, this shows how sources J and I do not match.

Overall, I believe Source J is not confirmed by the other resources of what took place to the Tsar and his family. However, there are many similarities to the other sources, even though source J mostly contrasts the other sources. Nevertheless, source J is considered to be the most dependable as it is reinforced by precise clinical evidence such as DNA tests and dental data. In general, the amount that a source confirms what's shown in source J is down to the stability and standing of the other sources and the information present in that source.

More than 7 000 students trust us to do their work
90% of customers place more than 5 orders with us
Special price $5 /page
Check the price
for your assignment