The shooting of the Romanovs: tragedy or the greatest hoax?
In his speech, which caused a flurry of indignant emotions of residents of Yekaterinburg, the star of the blue screens of Russia Vladimir Solovyov said that the city “killed the last emperor” and therefore “bears a curse”. We will not evaluate the degree of correctness of the colleague’s statement - here, in the end, it’s not the commission on journalistic ethics ... But the question of whether it corresponds to historical truth is worth pondering. The death of the Romanov family is an event that seems to have a completely unambiguous interpretation, but at the same time represents a completely unimaginable tangle of contradictions, disagreements, ambiguities, as well as secrets not revealed to this day. Let's try to touch at least the main ones.
Before proceeding, in fact, to the analysis and analysis of versions regarding the events in Yekaterinburg, it is necessary to decide on the main point of this story. Namely: even if we assume that in the basement of the Ipatiev House on the night of July 16-17, 1918 exactly that terrible event happened that today, tightly, like a nail in a board driven into an official historiography, will have to admit that there is no “execution of the Emperor and his family ”was not. The couple of Romanov nobles with their children and household were brutally killed! Russian Emperor Nicholas II abdicated on February 27, 1917 - more than a year before the events we are talking about. Moreover, which is characteristic - personally and voluntarily. His son Alexei absolutely did not have any rights to the throne at that time (Nikolai renounced for him too!), And even more so for his daughter. In general, after the transfer by the Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, who did not want to bear the responsibility for the Empire for one day, to the Provisional Government, the cross was placed on both the autocracy and all rights to the Romanov throne.
In the case of a hypothetical victory of the White Movement in a civil war, power would surely be in the hands of either one of the self-proclaimed rulers in general (or admiral) epaulettes, or the next “interim government”. And if people with monarchical views were to take such a lead, they would have to convene a Zemsky Sobor to elect a new Sovereign. According to the results of this, which took place after the well-known Time of Troubles, by the way, the Romanov house reigned in Russia in 1613. About any "direct restoration" of the autocracy, and even with the restoration of the old dynasty, then there was no question. All this, of course, in no way reduces the horror and vileness of the execution in the basement of the Ipatiev House. Whoever they killed there - even a family of tramps, was a crime. However, one should not engage in a substitution of concepts and forget about the most important legal points - regicide, as such, was not in any case. Then Mr. Nightingale certainly gave a blunder ...
And who, by and large, could need this act of senseless cruelty? All the talk about the danger of Nikolai Romanov to the Bolsheviks, as a possible “banner of the white movement”, is, excuse me, utter nonsense - due to the reasons given above. And in truth, which of them was the banner ?! Rather, it’s a rag, forgive me, the "monarchists" that have fairly recently bred in our Fatherland. What of him was the Supreme Commander, it is better not to remember. Quite a lot of events of both the First World War, and, in particular, the February Revolution, demonstrate this. Moreover, a large number of eminent White Guards were ardent haters of Nicholas II. Their real attitude towards him is best characterized by the fact that not a single real attempt to recapture the imperial family from the Reds, to free her from imprisonment, was made by White.
To believe that the execution of the Romanov family was beneficial to the leaders of the Soviet state does not allow the fact that the Urals regional council (in which, by the way, not the Bolsheviks, but the Left Socialist Revolutionaries and anarchists) had enormous power, Moscow did not gave. Moreover, there is historical evidence: Lenin personally demanded that not a single hair fall from the head of the royal prisoners. And the point here, of course, is not at all the philanthropy of the “leader of the world proletariat”. During this difficult time for the Republic of Soviets, the Romanov family presented a wonderful item for bargaining with representatives of the ruling houses of Europe - the same Kaiser Wilhelm II or the British King George V. Russia's exit from the First World War, the conclusion of the Brest Peace and the like were for those who much more pragmatists than fanatics of Bolshevik leaders are much more important than the "destruction of the personification of the autocracy." The Germans or the British would have demanded - and Lenin and Trotsky would have given the entire Romanov family to them as dear ones. But they did not demand ...
As a matter of fact, the “first layer” of riddles about the death of the imperial family begins with this. The former not only the crowned "colleagues" of Nicholas, but also his blood relatives, Wilhelm and Georg did not lift a finger to save, if not himself, then at least the children. It is explained easily. Useful to them, I'm sorry for the rude pragmatism of the wording, he couldn’t do it for anything, but to cause problems is as much as you like. First of all, the living Romanovs were categorically not needed by Britain. The reason is as simple as it is base, it fits into only one word: "money." Or, "mani" - in this case. Various historians and researchers call a different amount of Russian gold that has settled in the banks of Misty Albion as security for military loans, but many of them quite confidently call the figure of more than 400 tons! Yes, in addition, according to some statements, somewhere more than 5 tons of the Emperor’s personal gold were “lost” somewhere else. Yes, for such a lot of money, the Anglo-Saxons father and mother of their relatives will be plagued, not like some kind of “cousin Nikki”!
Of no less interest when considering this side of the issue is the “American trace”. Perhaps you should seriously think about the involvement in the Yekaterinburg tragedy of the Rothschild house, which was behind the creation of the US Federal Reserve System, into which, according to some researchers, the Russian Empire and the Romanovs house were supposedly funded initially. So far, no real evidence of such exotic allegations has been presented, but they have a fairly wide circulation in certain circles. Be that as it may, but the complete reluctance to save the Romanovs, manifested by all the countries of the West, which at that time were completely hostile to Soviet Russia, is a historical fact. It may well be financial interests that stand behind him - and, specifically, the desire to get rid of the return of the colossal sums that were transferred to these countries by tsarist Russia precisely as payment for military orders, the vast majority of which have not been fulfilled.
No less logical is the behavior of Admiral Kolchak. This leader, not trifling, declared himself the "Supreme Ruler of Russia." With a living, albeit renounced autocrat, his actions seemed somehow not too acceptable. In any case, if not from a legal, then from a moral and ethical point of view. Many civil war historians simply shrug their heads in amazement: why didn’t White capture Yekaterinburg before the execution of the Romanovs? They could do this without any problems. The "garrison" of the city at that time consisted of some hundred Red Guards, armed with anything. Having subsequently taken (8 days after the murder!) Yekaterinburg, Colonel Wojciechowski reported that he had not defeated, but simply “scattered” his woe-defenders. From the end of May to the end of July 1918, the White Guards and their Czech allies captured more than a dozen cities in the Urals - but not the one where the royal family was kept. Why?! There is no answer and will never be.
According to the available memoirs and documentary evidence, investigators in the Ipatiev House conducted investigations of the events in the Ipatiev House pursuant to the personal order of Admiral Kolchak, investigators Nametkin and Sergeyev, stated that there was actually no execution. There was an imitation - and no more. Such a result (obviously due to the reasons given above) was categorically not satisfied by the “Supreme Ruler” and “slow-thinking” were removed from the case. However, the third investigator, Nikolai Sokolov, came to the same conclusions as a result. And only after a serious “infusion”, possibly carried out by Kolchak personally, did he “give birth” to the version that had since become official - about the corpses “dumped in the mine and filled with acid”. By the way, the further fate of all those who clarified the circumstances of the Romanov’s death a few days after the tragedy, then turned out, to put it mildly, not in the best way: Nametkina was burned down, Sergeyev and Sokolov were completely killed under rather strange circumstances. But these very people, most likely, could know the true truth!
In the end, due to the huge number of "white spots" and simply screaming contradictions in this story, an unimaginable multitude of alternative versions were born. There is not enough space to retell even the main ones, so I will confine myself to a brief extract of the most common passages. So, nobody thought of shooting the royal family in the Ipatiev house. (Perhaps their counterparts were killed.) In fact, the Romanovs were evacuated from there by the people of Leon Trotsky, who wanted to use them for some of his cunning political intrigue. But, on Stalin's initiative, the royal prisoners were kidnapped from under the noses of the "demon of revolution" as a result of some kind of "special operation." Joseph Vissarionovich needed access to the tsarist money that ended up abroad, which he received thanks to Nikolai Romanov. This money subsequently went to industrialization in the USSR. Some of the members of the Romanov family eventually happily left the world, and Nikolai Aleksandrovich himself lived peacefully in the Soviet Union until 1958, died and was buried in Nizhny Novgorod.
Some people, in their assumptions on this subject, go even further, and, for example, undertakes to declare that the well-known chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR Alexei Kosygin is, in fact, the saved Tsarevich Alexei. What is characteristic is also Nikolayevich ... There are bolder seekers of truth, who find enormous external similarities between Nicholas II and the current Prime Minister of Russia Dmitry Medvedev. Those who decide to argue that this is not by chance at all, and, consequently, the Romanovs didn’t get anywhere from ruling Russia .... We will probably leave such “versions” to professional science fiction writers - or comedians, as you like. But let us dwell on the fact that the Yekaterinburg events today nevertheless remain largely a contradictory and insufficiently reliable historical fact, largely based on indirect or extremely doubtful evidence. For those who were not convinced by the arguments set forth above, I will offer a short list of questions that need to be answered unequivocally, before talking about the execution of the Romanov family in the basement of the Ipatiev House, as a proven fact:
- Why did the Russian Orthodox Church, which ultimately canonized Nicholas II, for a very long time flatly refused to recognize the human remains found in Yekaterinburg as the ashes of the royal family?
- Why did the numerous expert groups from around the world who conducted the DNA examination of these remains did not agree on their identity, while a number of researchers (for example, the Japanese, who possessed 100% genuine samples of the Emperor’s biomaterials) denied the kinship of those killed with the Romanovs?
- why did these remains reveal a mass of discrepancies with the alleged indisputable signs of those to whom they theoretically should belong - such as a dental card, the lack of a trace from a saber strike on the skull of Nicholas II or the growth of “Princess Anastasia”?
- Why are a number of documents supposedly written by the hand of the “chief regicide” Yurovsky (list of firing squad, note indicating the place of burial, etc.) subsequently, after conducting relevant examinations, were recognized as fakes?
- and what, in the end, will you order to do with the preserved evidence and testimonies received by Kolchak’s investigators from people who claimed that they had seen Nicholas II and his family members safe and sound after the “execution”? And also - with the stubborn reluctance of some priests of that time to serve a memorial service for the Sovereign, as for the deceased, based on a firm belief that he was alive?
When the answers are found - then we'll talk. In the meantime, let's not blame Yekaterinburg and its inhabitants for at least something that may never have happened.
Regicide, which was not
Before proceeding, in fact, to the analysis and analysis of versions regarding the events in Yekaterinburg, it is necessary to decide on the main point of this story. Namely: even if we assume that in the basement of the Ipatiev House on the night of July 16-17, 1918 exactly that terrible event happened that today, tightly, like a nail in a board driven into an official historiography, will have to admit that there is no “execution of the Emperor and his family ”was not. The couple of Romanov nobles with their children and household were brutally killed! Russian Emperor Nicholas II abdicated on February 27, 1917 - more than a year before the events we are talking about. Moreover, which is characteristic - personally and voluntarily. His son Alexei absolutely did not have any rights to the throne at that time (Nikolai renounced for him too!), And even more so for his daughter. In general, after the transfer by the Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, who did not want to bear the responsibility for the Empire for one day, to the Provisional Government, the cross was placed on both the autocracy and all rights to the Romanov throne.
In the case of a hypothetical victory of the White Movement in a civil war, power would surely be in the hands of either one of the self-proclaimed rulers in general (or admiral) epaulettes, or the next “interim government”. And if people with monarchical views were to take such a lead, they would have to convene a Zemsky Sobor to elect a new Sovereign. According to the results of this, which took place after the well-known Time of Troubles, by the way, the Romanov house reigned in Russia in 1613. About any "direct restoration" of the autocracy, and even with the restoration of the old dynasty, then there was no question. All this, of course, in no way reduces the horror and vileness of the execution in the basement of the Ipatiev House. Whoever they killed there - even a family of tramps, was a crime. However, one should not engage in a substitution of concepts and forget about the most important legal points - regicide, as such, was not in any case. Then Mr. Nightingale certainly gave a blunder ...
And who, by and large, could need this act of senseless cruelty? All the talk about the danger of Nikolai Romanov to the Bolsheviks, as a possible “banner of the white movement”, is, excuse me, utter nonsense - due to the reasons given above. And in truth, which of them was the banner ?! Rather, it’s a rag, forgive me, the "monarchists" that have fairly recently bred in our Fatherland. What of him was the Supreme Commander, it is better not to remember. Quite a lot of events of both the First World War, and, in particular, the February Revolution, demonstrate this. Moreover, a large number of eminent White Guards were ardent haters of Nicholas II. Their real attitude towards him is best characterized by the fact that not a single real attempt to recapture the imperial family from the Reds, to free her from imprisonment, was made by White.
Nobody needs it, but inconvenient for everyone
To believe that the execution of the Romanov family was beneficial to the leaders of the Soviet state does not allow the fact that the Urals regional council (in which, by the way, not the Bolsheviks, but the Left Socialist Revolutionaries and anarchists) had enormous power, Moscow did not gave. Moreover, there is historical evidence: Lenin personally demanded that not a single hair fall from the head of the royal prisoners. And the point here, of course, is not at all the philanthropy of the “leader of the world proletariat”. During this difficult time for the Republic of Soviets, the Romanov family presented a wonderful item for bargaining with representatives of the ruling houses of Europe - the same Kaiser Wilhelm II or the British King George V. Russia's exit from the First World War, the conclusion of the Brest Peace and the like were for those who much more pragmatists than fanatics of Bolshevik leaders are much more important than the "destruction of the personification of the autocracy." The Germans or the British would have demanded - and Lenin and Trotsky would have given the entire Romanov family to them as dear ones. But they did not demand ...
As a matter of fact, the “first layer” of riddles about the death of the imperial family begins with this. The former not only the crowned "colleagues" of Nicholas, but also his blood relatives, Wilhelm and Georg did not lift a finger to save, if not himself, then at least the children. It is explained easily. Useful to them, I'm sorry for the rude pragmatism of the wording, he couldn’t do it for anything, but to cause problems is as much as you like. First of all, the living Romanovs were categorically not needed by Britain. The reason is as simple as it is base, it fits into only one word: "money." Or, "mani" - in this case. Various historians and researchers call a different amount of Russian gold that has settled in the banks of Misty Albion as security for military loans, but many of them quite confidently call the figure of more than 400 tons! Yes, in addition, according to some statements, somewhere more than 5 tons of the Emperor’s personal gold were “lost” somewhere else. Yes, for such a lot of money, the Anglo-Saxons father and mother of their relatives will be plagued, not like some kind of “cousin Nikki”!
Of no less interest when considering this side of the issue is the “American trace”. Perhaps you should seriously think about the involvement in the Yekaterinburg tragedy of the Rothschild house, which was behind the creation of the US Federal Reserve System, into which, according to some researchers, the Russian Empire and the Romanovs house were supposedly funded initially. So far, no real evidence of such exotic allegations has been presented, but they have a fairly wide circulation in certain circles. Be that as it may, but the complete reluctance to save the Romanovs, manifested by all the countries of the West, which at that time were completely hostile to Soviet Russia, is a historical fact. It may well be financial interests that stand behind him - and, specifically, the desire to get rid of the return of the colossal sums that were transferred to these countries by tsarist Russia precisely as payment for military orders, the vast majority of which have not been fulfilled.
No less logical is the behavior of Admiral Kolchak. This leader, not trifling, declared himself the "Supreme Ruler of Russia." With a living, albeit renounced autocrat, his actions seemed somehow not too acceptable. In any case, if not from a legal, then from a moral and ethical point of view. Many civil war historians simply shrug their heads in amazement: why didn’t White capture Yekaterinburg before the execution of the Romanovs? They could do this without any problems. The "garrison" of the city at that time consisted of some hundred Red Guards, armed with anything. Having subsequently taken (8 days after the murder!) Yekaterinburg, Colonel Wojciechowski reported that he had not defeated, but simply “scattered” his woe-defenders. From the end of May to the end of July 1918, the White Guards and their Czech allies captured more than a dozen cities in the Urals - but not the one where the royal family was kept. Why?! There is no answer and will never be.
Questions and versions
According to the available memoirs and documentary evidence, investigators in the Ipatiev House conducted investigations of the events in the Ipatiev House pursuant to the personal order of Admiral Kolchak, investigators Nametkin and Sergeyev, stated that there was actually no execution. There was an imitation - and no more. Such a result (obviously due to the reasons given above) was categorically not satisfied by the “Supreme Ruler” and “slow-thinking” were removed from the case. However, the third investigator, Nikolai Sokolov, came to the same conclusions as a result. And only after a serious “infusion”, possibly carried out by Kolchak personally, did he “give birth” to the version that had since become official - about the corpses “dumped in the mine and filled with acid”. By the way, the further fate of all those who clarified the circumstances of the Romanov’s death a few days after the tragedy, then turned out, to put it mildly, not in the best way: Nametkina was burned down, Sergeyev and Sokolov were completely killed under rather strange circumstances. But these very people, most likely, could know the true truth!
In the end, due to the huge number of "white spots" and simply screaming contradictions in this story, an unimaginable multitude of alternative versions were born. There is not enough space to retell even the main ones, so I will confine myself to a brief extract of the most common passages. So, nobody thought of shooting the royal family in the Ipatiev house. (Perhaps their counterparts were killed.) In fact, the Romanovs were evacuated from there by the people of Leon Trotsky, who wanted to use them for some of his cunning political intrigue. But, on Stalin's initiative, the royal prisoners were kidnapped from under the noses of the "demon of revolution" as a result of some kind of "special operation." Joseph Vissarionovich needed access to the tsarist money that ended up abroad, which he received thanks to Nikolai Romanov. This money subsequently went to industrialization in the USSR. Some of the members of the Romanov family eventually happily left the world, and Nikolai Aleksandrovich himself lived peacefully in the Soviet Union until 1958, died and was buried in Nizhny Novgorod.
Some people, in their assumptions on this subject, go even further, and, for example, undertakes to declare that the well-known chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR Alexei Kosygin is, in fact, the saved Tsarevich Alexei. What is characteristic is also Nikolayevich ... There are bolder seekers of truth, who find enormous external similarities between Nicholas II and the current Prime Minister of Russia Dmitry Medvedev. Those who decide to argue that this is not by chance at all, and, consequently, the Romanovs didn’t get anywhere from ruling Russia .... We will probably leave such “versions” to professional science fiction writers - or comedians, as you like. But let us dwell on the fact that the Yekaterinburg events today nevertheless remain largely a contradictory and insufficiently reliable historical fact, largely based on indirect or extremely doubtful evidence. For those who were not convinced by the arguments set forth above, I will offer a short list of questions that need to be answered unequivocally, before talking about the execution of the Romanov family in the basement of the Ipatiev House, as a proven fact:
- Why did the Russian Orthodox Church, which ultimately canonized Nicholas II, for a very long time flatly refused to recognize the human remains found in Yekaterinburg as the ashes of the royal family?
- Why did the numerous expert groups from around the world who conducted the DNA examination of these remains did not agree on their identity, while a number of researchers (for example, the Japanese, who possessed 100% genuine samples of the Emperor’s biomaterials) denied the kinship of those killed with the Romanovs?
- why did these remains reveal a mass of discrepancies with the alleged indisputable signs of those to whom they theoretically should belong - such as a dental card, the lack of a trace from a saber strike on the skull of Nicholas II or the growth of “Princess Anastasia”?
- Why are a number of documents supposedly written by the hand of the “chief regicide” Yurovsky (list of firing squad, note indicating the place of burial, etc.) subsequently, after conducting relevant examinations, were recognized as fakes?
- and what, in the end, will you order to do with the preserved evidence and testimonies received by Kolchak’s investigators from people who claimed that they had seen Nicholas II and his family members safe and sound after the “execution”? And also - with the stubborn reluctance of some priests of that time to serve a memorial service for the Sovereign, as for the deceased, based on a firm belief that he was alive?
When the answers are found - then we'll talk. In the meantime, let's not blame Yekaterinburg and its inhabitants for at least something that may never have happened.
Information