World

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 14° London Hi 15°C / Lo 8°C

Mystery solved as tests prove Tsar's entire family was murdered

DNA analysis of bone shards shows no one escaped 1918 slaughter in the cellar

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

Left to right: The Grand Duchesses Maria, Tatiana, Anastasia and Olga, and the crown prince Alexei

Hulton/Getty

Left to right: The Grand Duchesses Maria, Tatiana, Anastasia and Olga, and the crown prince Alexei

In the early hours of a July day in 1918, one of history's most infamous murders was perpetrated on parents, their five children and their loyal servants in a cellar in the city of Yekaterinburg, central Russia.

The gunshot-and-bayonet murder of the Romanovs – the family of the last Tsar and Tsarina of Russia – spawned countless conspiracy theories, including the belief that at least one child had survived to escape abroad.

Since that fatal dawn, about 200 people have claimed to descend from one or other of the Romanovs who had somehow survived the slaughter in the basement of Ipatiev House. But now a scientific study based on meticulous DNA evidence has finally provided irrefutable evidence to show that all five children had indeed perished with their parents at the hands of nervous Bolsheviks of the Ural Soviet, worried about a possible rescue bid by nearby White Russian troops.

Scientists have pieced together DNA evidence from two graves near Yekaterinburg and have conclusively shown that Tsar Nicholas II and his wife, the Tsarina Alexandra, died with all five of their children, Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia and their haemophiliac son, the crown prince, Alexei. The only remaining mystery is whether the girl buried alongside Alexei in a separate grave from the rest of the family was Maria or Anastasia, says a study printed in the online journal Public Library of Science.

The story should have come to a close soon after a mass grave near Yekaterinburg (formerly Sverdlovsk) was revealed in 1991 by a local geologist, Alexander Avdonin, who had kept the discovery secret for more than a decade, until the fall of the Soviet Union.

Scientists, including Peter Gill from Britain's Forensic Science Service and the Russian geneticist Pavel Ivanov, managed to extract enough DNA from the bone fragments of nine skeletons to show that they included a family of two parents and three daughters.

A comparison with the DNA of living Romanov relatives, including Prince Philip, proved that the family was that of the last Tsar and Tsarina, with the four remaining skeletons belonging to the family doctor and three servants.

But the two missing children only generated further conspiracy theories, according to a report on the study written by an international team of scientists, led by Michael Coble of the US Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory in Rockville, Maryland.

"Rather than bring closure to the mystery of the fate of the Romanovs, identification of only five of the seven family members continued to fuel speculation that somehow two miraculously escaped the bullets of the executioners and made their way out of Russia," Dr Coble said.

But then, in 2007, amateur archaeologists found a second grave just 70 metres away, containing dozens of charred human bone fragments that someone had tried to cremate. "Of the 44 bone fragments and teeth present, it was possible to determine that at least two individuals were present, one female and one putative male," the report added. The mystery is solved.

DNA: The detective in the grave

The Romanov study used three different ways of analysing DNA to determine family relationships within the graves – and the relationship, if any, to living relatives of the Russian royal family. Mitochondrial DNA, inherited only down the maternal line, was used to assess the relationship of Prince Philip, who is related to the Tsarina through his mother, with bone fragments found in the grave. This helped to determine that the Tsarina and her four daughters were indeed buried in the two graves. DNA known to be inherited only from fathers by sons on the male Y chromosome was used to determine the relationship between the crown prince, Alexei, and his father, Tsar Nicholas II. And finally, DNA from the rest of the chromosomes was used to find out who was who in the mass graves – separating family members from three servants and a doctor.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Don't tell Fox Motion Pictures
[info]neil_mcgowan wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 12:11 am (UTC)
It will come as a bitter blow to them ;)
Dead and buried
[info]49niner wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 07:09 am (UTC)
It's often forgotten what tyrants the Romanovs were over the years. They invented the gulags which the Soviets took over and used for their own purposes after 1917. So Nicholas and his family can now be buried as a warning to us all. Tyrants often come to a sticky and violent end.
Re: Dead and buried
[info]123pen_pen wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 11:43 am (UTC)
For whatever charges are made against the Tsar, I don't think murdering the children and the servants and others was justifiable.
It was whole-sale carnage that, it seems to me, issued in the twentieth Century which would have even more barbarity.
The murders, as they were, are indefensible.
They were disgusting.
Re: Dead and buried
[info]49niner wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 03:15 pm (UTC)
The murder of the Tsar has given him and his family the status of martyr, which in the case of Nicholas is not justified by the facts. However, Russia was in the throes of a brutal civil war and freeing the Tsar and his family would have proved a vital prize for the White Russian forces.

Anyway, given what happened to so many ordinary Russians including civilians at that time, the fate suffered by the Tsar and his family is not so unusual. Why should royalty be spared? I don't condone murder, but who unleashed all this brutality in the first place. The Romanovs had more than enough blood on their hands so the fall of their regime was poetic justice.
Re: Dead and buried
[info]arthur_ide wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 01:32 am (UTC)
For those who read Russian, it would be good to note that the daughters and young brother delighted in glee when learning that peasants were killed while harvesting by drunken royal soldiers. It is a just punishment that these children were also killed, as the soldiers massacred tens of thousands of children of the poor, laborers, and emerging industry workers who had no protection from automatic or a lust crazed boss. To feel any sympathy for the children is a waste of time, for more children were killed than the vile brood of the Tsar and Tsarina.
Re: Dead and buried
[info]drg40 wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 12:24 pm (UTC)
Wow, someone else who remembers that the Romanovs were the scum of the earth! Just another minor point - it was them and their syncophants who, by their incompetence and militaristic stupidity, helped launch the world on WWI.
good riddance
[info]doug_piranha wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 01:05 pm (UTC)
Don't worry drg 40 - there are quite a few who remember this lunatic was an autocrat - who resisted democratice reforms - instigated the Jewish progrom - and dined and danced till dawn - while his people were starving.

123 pen pen says it's wholesale carnage - er not really.

Wholesale carange was firing on unarmed workers who were trying to present a petition to the Czar (many cheering the Czar - thinking he would listen )

The Czar's troops killed 100 people and wounded 300 - the original Bloody Sunday

Where are the tears for these ordinary - innocent human beings ?
Re: good riddance
[info]123pen_pen wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 01:26 pm (UTC)
All acts of barbarity are to be condemned. Of course they are.
I just don't happen to condone the slaughter of the Czar's family, his children to be exact.
They weren't making policies, they didn't order programs or attacks. They were young women and the boy was a child of eight!
Whatever the Czar was, that could have been addressed--WITHOUT THE MURDER OF HIS CHILDREN.
That's my point, understand?
Re: good riddance
[info]okonos wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 04:11 pm (UTC)
In fact, none shoull have been killed, but all adults should have been brought to trial.
Re: good riddance
[info]arthur_ide wrote:
Monday, 13 April 2009 at 12:40 am (UTC)
Would you make a similar apology for the 10 and 11 year old brothers who sit in a UK courtroom having be arrested for attempted murder of other young people. The two boys who knifed their victioms should be hung immediately. Age is not a respector of crimes or vile acts, and no one should be exempt from full retribution of or for her or his acts of carnage or murder. It does not matter if the killers are 10 or 11--they both must be executed or no one will be safe and there will be less respect for law than there already is.
Re: good riddance
[info]alfie1982 wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 04:18 pm (UTC)
The Tsar wasn't anywhere near as bad as what followed with Stalin and no child deserves that.
Re: good riddance
[info]arthur_ide wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 01:38 am (UTC)
The boy of eight cheered when hearing the news that the royal troops invaded churches where the poor were huddled in fear and then murdered in cold blood. The daughters were known to laugh loudly at tales of soldiers' rape and pillage. You grieve for some of the most treacherous, evil and cunning youth who stood with their father when the poor petitioned for food and wood to burn in their small ovens? The children were not murdered but rightfully and corrected executed for their own callousedness and vindictiveness--for the sins of the father was visited on to the second generation.

A child is not necessarily innocent--and studies prove that most small children are more selfish than others of advanced years for it is a me-first complex and thus they throw themselves into temper tantrums when they do not get their way (ever been to a grocery store and watched those little children beside their parents? I have even seen little children 3 and 4 years of age kick, hit, spit on, and pound their parents because of too much permissiveness). Little children think they are adults and thus Alfie Patten claims to be a father at age 12 while playing games and does not even get an allowance. But the Tsar's children did get allowances--more in a month that the average worker made in a year. That is what is wrong with this picture. The children of the Tsar were as contemptible as the Tsar.
Re: good riddance
[info]mushka1904 wrote:
Thursday, 19 March 2009 at 04:48 pm (UTC)
Which books do you read to get such information? I believe, far from being scientific.
Do you have children? I have strong doubts and as for your mental health too. For what sound ideas can a man approving of the murder of children express?
Re: good riddance
[info]arthur_ide wrote:
Friday, 20 March 2009 at 01:34 am (UTC)
Children are not innocent or naive--from birth, for they develop rapidly a "me first" psychology, and adapt only with social education. But the rich and the idle do not discipline their children, and you can go into any store and watch children "misbehave". No child's arrogance should be tolerated--I have five children of my own--and they learned to behave as civilized beings--by instruction, and if they were to unruly, by a slap of the hand across their buttocks. To be discourteous or rejoice in suffering--as can be seen in most terror movies today and even "mainstream" cinemas, is common--even in the commercial propaganda for breakfast cereals and other foods you can watch children demanding, stamping their feet etc until they are catered to.

Executing a child who committed murder is not murder but execution. The boy in Arkansas who killed his father's 8-month pregnant girlfriend should be executed. The 11-year-old in Pennsylvania who killed his parent should also die. Throughout time there has been a sane and just law: "a life for a life". Only the effete and the mindless would let a murderer go free or be imprisoned--for the former allows the murderer to repeat the killings, and the latter takes from society food, medicine, and the rest of mortal comforts to sustain the person who committed murder. What have you read to justify allowing cold blooded murderers to live? There are numerous records available if you do your research that will show you that murderers who are given parole commit murder again--regardless of the age.
Killed by the Rothchilds
[info]zecchetti wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 05:17 pm (UTC)
The Tsar family was ruthlessly slaughtered by the Bolsheviks on orders from the Rothschild banking family. The Rothschilds had a grudge against the family for rejecting the proposal for a central bank.
Re: Killed by the Rothchilds
[info]ancientoneuk wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 07:02 pm (UTC)
I had read an article on that or was it a book, can't be too sure but it touched on the subject that "London's" man, whilst didn't pull the trigger, was certainly a witness to it and he was working outside his remit as an intelligence officer.
Re: Killed by the Rothchilds
[info]arthur_ide wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 01:40 am (UTC)
What is the source for this absurd claim. I read Russian. I have never read such nonsense. The Rothschilds did not fund the Bolsheviks--they were firmly opposed to the group, especially Lenin.
Sheesh Louise
[info]eetmyne wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 11:48 pm (UTC)
Some of you assholes honestly want to provide historical context for child killers? No wonder it keeps happening.
Facts
[info]histprof54 wrote:
Thursday, 12 March 2009 at 02:42 am (UTC)
You folks need to get some of your facts straight if you want to be thought credible in your comments. For example, Alexis was 14 years old in July 1918; Tsar Nicholas II was not in residence during the unfortunate shootings on Bloody Sunday; Nicholas' grandfather, Alexander II, was the originator of pogroms against Russian Jews; WWI began when Germany invaded Austria, which would make Kaiser Wilhelm II responsible, not Tsar Nicholas II; etc., etc.
Re: Facts
[info]sashlewis wrote:
Thursday, 12 March 2009 at 10:35 am (UTC)
At least some of the Romanov daughters could have been saved if Alexandra had been prepared to allow them to be separated from her, as was suggested while the family was in confinement at Tobolsk. She wasn't. Many of the evils of Nicholas's policies were in fact inspired by Alexandra, who insisted on his preserving his autocratic status and gave him advice on his choice of ministers and military strategy which he was unfortunately only too ready to accept. Alexandra was a domestic monster, a stupid, bigoted and possessive wife and mother whose vices had world-shattering consequences. Those who criticise the execution of the "children" (the youngest was a teenager) forget that Russia had had several Tsarinas who ruled alone, and any of them would have provided a rallying point for the White opposition and could have been accepted as a ruler. They might do better to weep over the death of Alexandra's sister Elizabeth, a nun who was thrown alive down a mine shaft and left to die. None of this is intended to suggest that the Tsar's regime was worse than Stalin's. Probably the only comparison for dreadfulness is the Khmer Rouge, but the world as a whole will continue to pay for Stalin's (and Lenin's) monstrosities for a long time to come. Tibetans pay for them every day.
I thought World War I began when Germany invaded Belgium. Why would Germany invade its ally Austria?
Re: Facts
[info]arthur_ide wrote:
Sunday, 5 April 2009 at 05:06 pm (UTC)
World War I came after the assassination of the archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie in Serejvo, Bosnia-Herzegovina by a radical. The emperor of Austria waited for months for a reply from that government and none came. It was the Serbs who rattled their sabers, not the Austrians, and Germany did not invade Belgium until late in the Fall after the war began--because Serbia had the backing of the nobility of Russia who wanted another "sport of war" game to see the gore and glory mixed. Try reading a real history book on World War I--three come to mind instantly: old but reliable texts by Barnes, Fay, and Peterson.
Re: Facts
[info]arthur_ide wrote:
Sunday, 5 April 2009 at 05:21 pm (UTC)
Try getting your facts straight. On June 28, 1914, a young Bosnian member of the "Black Hand / Union of Death" acting with the knowledge of Serbian officials assassinated the heir to the Hapsburg empire: Francis Ferdinand. The Austrians demanded that the Serbs/Slavs act--but the latter refused. Russia then issued a blank check vowing full support of Serbia as it was "Orthodox", and invited France to join them. Germany did not delcare war on Russia until August 1, and on France on August 3. Sir Edward Gray, the Foreign Secretary of Britain, was in no hurry to take sides, but the warhawks in Parliament declared war on Germany on August 4. Thus Germany found itself encircled by Russia, France, and England, and had its own internal crises with the Social Democrats where were antimilitarists and antiwar. Belgium was invaded only to get to France after being assured it would be supported by Bulgaria and Turkey.

If the nefariously odious opportunists, the Romanovs, were not so bent on war--prodded by the Tsarina's secret lover, the priest Rasputin--the Serbs may have arrested the assassin and the war blocked. But World War I was definitely initiated by the Serbs with the backing of Russia. Austria was an innocent victim of Slavic intrigue, and Germany was merely responding to the common language, cultural, and heritage bond it had with Austria--which once was a united empire.
[info]darwufche wrote:
Thursday, 12 March 2009 at 08:27 pm (UTC)
Russians being Russians...enough said.
Russians being Russians
[info]arthur_ide wrote:
Sunday, 5 April 2009 at 05:25 pm (UTC)
The Russian people have always been a simple, passive people--as they had no choice because of a corrupt police state led first by the nobility and now the rich and even more corrupt leaders of business. Like people everywhere, the poor suffer for the glorification and enrichment of the lazy few who do no work but like the clergy of all religions live off of the labor of those they keep uneducated and near at hand to use as fodder in useless wars. The rich, the nobles, have formal education but little common sense and no willingness to help the poor raise up from the base of humanity for it would cut into the wealth and position of the wealthy, who like religious leaders everywhere, thrive on the ignorance of the masses who they feed superstition and mythology: Islam, Christianity, Judiasm, Buddhism, and all the other inane mental mindblocks from sanity.
Re: Russians being Russians
[info]darwufche wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 01:30 pm (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. This sounds remarkably like USA over past eight years. :-/
Re: Russians being Russians
[info]arthur_ide wrote:
Monday, 13 April 2009 at 12:35 am (UTC)
Correct. The USA under George W. Bush became a police state with the erasure of Habeus Corpus and laws protecting human rights. The USA became equal to Tsarist Russia with the rise of Alberto Gonzales and Dick Cheney, force-fed with the nonsense of Prof. Yoo of California who justified torture. The Tsar's mercaneries were actually more kind to the captured in battle than the USA military in Iraq--and while Tsarist Russia had its covert prisons and water-boarding, it was not on the grand scale of Abu Gharib prison and the vile CIA operatives who cutout tongues, put electric shocks to testicles and worse. The CIA in its prisons from Poland to Peru, Romania to Bulgaria, and elsewhere, is far worse a force today than were the goons of Adolf Hitler and far more dangerous--supported by the neocons--all who take their instructions from religious zealots worse than any Old Testament prophet--on par with Sarah Palin of Alaska and her prayer warriors who rejoice in the carnage the USA continues in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whereas Obama came in with a message of change and hope, he is little better than Bush, pushing for more mercaneries in Afghanistan and doing nothing to prosecute and punish his predecessor or the gaggle of pages such as Condi Rice who lied about everything from WMDs to smoke screens with the blessing of Ashcroft and Powell. What is happening today in the USA and with its killers in the fields and cities of Iraq and Afghanistan is identical to what happened to the people in Tsarist Russia, and like the people in Tsarist Russia, the people of the USA are so afraid of their government and its courts that they sit by idly and pretend that their nation will live on for 1000 years--like the First and Second Reich--all which ended with a thud.
None of Russia's nobility were noble or
[info]arthur_ide wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 01:28 am (UTC)
saints or gentlepeople, but thugs, cutthroats, and butchers--like Peter "the Great" who personally chopped off the head of his best friend, or Catherine "the Great" who found her sexual trysts among the military afterwhich she poisoned the hapless stud. If you read true Russian history, you will see a "nobility" that was anything but noble: finding sport in riding their horses over the small gardens of the laborers, raping small girls during their picnics, festering with the irrational religiosity of the Russian Orthodox church that gave the Romanovs Rasputin and other miscreants who created their own images of god and declared they spoke for god. While the majority of the Russians were underfed and education limited to only the nobility and a choice few, the aristocracy was out of control -- much as is the case of today's Russian billionaires who jet into a Starbucks for coffee -- while the poor continue to search for food and Putin grooms himself to become the new tyrant and czar.

The greatest and most blessed thing that happened to Russia was the Bolshevik Revolution and the liquidation of a useless, pathetic class of nobles that destroyed the nation, fought wars "for glory" and metals while hundreds of thousands of innocent lives of civilians were destroyed or snuffed out. The increasing arrogance and ignorance of the Russian Orthodox church today knows no bounds of idiocy and make-believe by declaring the Romanovs to be saints on its calendar, yet not a Romanov including the witless Tsarina or her son ever did one good deed in their lives nor can be found to have produced a "miracle" save in the minds of the desperate. The Russian Orthodox religion is absurd and foully based as is Greek Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Mormonism, and all the other quaint and manmade religions of the world. But it will take a more massive revolution to rid the world of these religious parasites who deprive women of the right of choice over their own bodies, or preach against family planning as if all people were animals. The UK will suffer the most when the German pope, Benedict XVI, installs a far right radical into Westminster, and then the eating away of basic civil and human rights will begin in the once proud and free UK.
Re: None of Russia's nobility were noble or
[info]wswswsws wrote:
Sunday, 5 April 2009 at 04:09 am (UTC)
Rabbi arthur_ide wrote: "The Russian Orthodox religion is absurd and foully based as is Greek Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Mormonism, and all the other quaint and manmade religions of the world. But it will take a more massive revolution to rid the world of these religious parasites..."

That Rabbi arthur_ide criticized Christian religions with such hateful words without being censored in this forum is business as usual. Would this forum have allowed his hate speech if he had included his own religion in this list of religious "parasites"?

Rabbi arthur_ide's defense of his Bolshevik tribesmen is understandable, since Palestinians are being treated as savagely in their own homeland every day.

Too bad America: your time has come. These Bolsheviks will soon bring their atrocities to your hometown via the police state that the Patriot Act has crammed down our throats.

Communism is being ruled by the people whom your god chose to be above all others, for your own good of course. American sheeple will get a taste of what communism truly is before long.

How long before the police bust down your door because you posted something they do not like in this forum?
Re: None of Russia's nobility were noble or
[info]arthur_ide wrote:
Sunday, 5 April 2009 at 04:58 pm (UTC)
I am no rabbi. Never was. I was a Lutheran pastor, years ago, then turned Roman Catholic--but finally gave up all that nonsense in favor of reality and sanity.

The treatment of the Palestinians is unforgiveable, and the holocaust launched by the Israeli government is tantamount to the Nazi holocaust costing millions of lives of Jews, gays, White Russians, gypsies, etc. The Jews like to pretend that they were singled out for extermination which is not true.

The USA is among the most evil nations in the world with the rise of the neocons under George W. Bush and his gang of goons (from Condi Rice and Prof Yoo of UCBerkeley, to the corrupt CIA and the military on a rampage of killing, rape, and theft on the streets and torture in Abu Gharib prison in Iraq--and the Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, and Yoo argument that waterboarding is not torture--but waterboarding has a long history beginning with the Babylonians and Akkadians, refined by the Roman Catholic Inquisition and used by the Lutherans, Calvinists, and Anglicans in the 16th century. It is still used by the Israelis--and by the Iranians and other people who believe in the myth of religion and a special people.

George W Bush will, indeed, go down in history as among the worse men on this planet by allowing Tom DeLay and Dick Armey (both from Texas) to push through the Patriot Act, to create the neo-Nazi Department of Homeland Security, and to glorify a war and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan (an invasion nearly identical to that of Hitler's putsche into Poland and the Sudetenland (western rgions of Czech Republic).

I have no god (none exists) so read my responses carefully. We actually agree on every point--where you came up with the idea I am a rabbi is beyond me.
Remember Their Greatness
[info]vone747 wrote:
Sunday, 15 March 2009 at 06:30 am (UTC)
How dare you, you smug bastards. The Romanoff family was devoted to their people for centuries! the Grand Dutchesses served in the red cross. How dare you spit on the memory of this family, think of their poor relatives who have to put up with ignorant trash like you
Re: Remember Their Greatness
[info]arthur_ide wrote:
Sunday, 5 April 2009 at 05:02 pm (UTC)
Have you ever studied Russian history. From Peter "the Great's" sadistic pleasure in chopping off heads, to Catherine "the Great's" trysts with military before blinding them, there was not one Russian Tsar that loved his people. The Romanovs, in every book written before the 20th century revolution finds little to say favorable about this dispicable family that preferred personal pleasures before feeding their own people.
Re: Remember Their Greatness
[info]arthur_ide wrote:
Sunday, 5 April 2009 at 05:10 pm (UTC)
Try reading the papers before their execution. Read the journals of tourists who lamented at the squalid conditions the Romanovs left their people in, where poverty was the order of the day, and fights broke out over a potato. Read the records of parties the Romanovs had, where the poor stood outside the palace walls and then watched as food they could not have were thrown to dogs. It is a shame that the entire Russian nobility had not been executed in 1890, when their distain for the people was so great that the Tsar sent his horsement with mad dogs to invade hamlets and burroughs. There is not a single Romanov alive who is worthy of a bullet.
Re: Remember Their Greatness
[info]simplemines wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 08:44 pm (UTC)
Boy, arthur, you sure are insane.

By the way, what's your take on the ukrainian famine?

Why is it I bet arthur doesn't have nearly the vitriole for stalin that he does for the murders of dead kids? ("they LAUGHED, they should be shot and stabbed to death!"
[info]ms_manic wrote:
Monday, 16 March 2009 at 09:04 am (UTC)
It just goes to show you can't be too careful!!
Romanov murders
[info]markos215 wrote:
Tuesday, 24 March 2009 at 03:16 am (UTC)
Nicholas was an autocratic tyrant to be sure, but to justify his murder as well as that of his children is insane. The Romanovs did not invent gulags, nor was Nicholas a bloodthirsty tyrant "drinking and dancing until dawn", and you can't blame him for World War I. These are fantasies fabricated by Soviet "historians". He was an incompetent, simple man, who inherited a broken system. It would have taken an extraordinary man to change 300 years of Romanov rule into something that could have worked in the 20th century. Nicholas Romanov was not an extraordinary man.
Re: Romanov murders
[info]ahoop1692 wrote:
Friday, 5 June 2009 at 03:02 am (UTC)
Goodness. Everyone is all hot on the trail to prove who is right and who is wrong. But in all honesty who really gives a damn how it happened or who has the facts straight? So what if someone doesn't get it exactly right. There are so many versions to all of history, who knows what is really true anymore. But all in all, it still happened. You can argue all day who was to blame, but in the end, there was probably something they all could have done that may have changed the outcome for the better. But its pointless to lament about that either because nothing can be changed and whats hapened has happened. The best we as a society can do is take their experiences into account in making our own decisions, and live with what we do, for better or worse and record it accurately. Someday we'll be in history books, and they will be looking to us for answers as well.

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date