CC BY
8IV
IV
tfQ
Introduction
The topic of the death of Nicholas II and his family and retinue in Yekaterinburg in 1918 has been attracting attention of researchers for a long time.1 And this is not surprising, since not only did the extralegal execution of the former monarch, his wife, and five children become one of the key events of the Civil War in Russia, but also it terminated the existence of the three-hundred-year-old Romanov dynasty. The atmosphere of secrecy and mystery in which the so-called execution was held became the reason for the emergence of a large amount of literature on this topic - from essays and journalistic publications to special scholarly works. However, the attempts to reconstruct the prehistory of the crime as well as the details of the murder and concealment of its traces, which have been undertaken in historiography for a hundred years, not only failed to answer the questions but also gave rise to a considerable number of controversial problems. Who bears personal responsibility for the death of the imperial family? Who gave the order? Who was the executor of this political action? What happened to the remains of those killed in the basement of the Ipatiev House? These questions are still being actively discussed in the literature but the discussion is far from being over.
1 See, e.g., S.P. Mel'gunov, The fate of Emperor Nicholas II after abdication: historical and critical essays [in Russian] (Moscow: Veche, 2005); G.Z. Ioffe, Revolution and the fate of the Romanovs [in Russian] (Moscow: Respublika, 1992); Yu.A. Buranov and V.M. Khrustalev, The regicides. Destruction of the dynasty [in Russian] (Moscow: Terra, 1997); I.F. Plotnikov, The truth of the history. Death of the Tsar's family [in Russian] (Yekaterinburg: Sverdlovskaya regional'naya obshchestvennaya organizatsiya "Za dukhovnost' i nravstvennost'", 2003); L.A. Lykova, Investigation into the murder of the Russian imperial family. Historiographical and archaeographical essay [in Russian] (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2007); P.V. Mul'tatuli, Nicholas II: The road to Calvary: Testifying of Christ till death... [in Russian] (Moscow: AST: Astrel', 2010); Yu.A. Zhuk, Question marks in the 'Tsar's case' [in Russian] (St Petersburg: BKhV-Peterburg, 2013); A.A. Obolenskii and E.G. Agadzhanyan, The Tsar's lie: the findings of the investigation [in Russian] (St Petersburg: Omega, 2020).
Historia Provinciae - the Journal of Regional History. 2022. Vol. 6, no. 1 310 ISSN 2587-8344 (online)
To give qualified and scientifically reasoned answers to some of these complex questions is the aim of the monograph by Evgenii V. Pchelov, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Head of the Department of Auxiliary Historical Disciplines and Archaeography of the Historical and Archival Institute, which was published under the title The Regicide of 1918: Sources, Questions, and Versions by the publishing house of the Russian State University for the Humanities at the end of 2020.
It is no coincidence that this work has appeared on book shelves right now. The fact is that in 2015 the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation (SKR) resumed its investigation into the circumstances of the death of the tsar's family. However, unlike the previous investigation of 1993-98, within its framework it was decided to conduct a historical and archival examination of the circumstances of the murder. For its implementation, the SKR involved a number of qualified archivists and historians, including the author of the publication under review. To avoid misunderstanding, Evgenii Pchelov emphasized in the introduction that the results of the research which was carried out within the framework of historical and archival examination and published in the monograph are by no means the "official results" of the investigation but they are only "accompanying" material obtained in the course of scientific research.
In anticipation of a possible question from a sophisticated reader about the novelty and uniqueness of the proposed work in comparison with the works of the predecessors, the historian noted that this monograph was strictly in line with the "source study approach," the essence of which is defined as follows: "Relying primarily on available sources and making conclusions only on the basis of analysis of the information they contain."4 Is this approach (as interpreted by Evgenii Pchelov) not fundamental for all historical research, including that concerning the death of the members of the imperial house?
The following statement (especially its second part) cannot but raise questions:
This book is based almost exclusively on documents and therefore references to
historiography are given only when necessary.5
However, the use of sources, both published and unpublished ones, does not in any way replace the necessity for a historiographical review to precede the study. Unfortunately, instead of analyzing the literature, the author limited himself to listing "the most noteworthy works" although he did not explain the criteria for the selection
2 E.V. Pchelov, The regicide of 1918: sources, questions, and versions [in Russian], ed. A.B. Bezborodov (Moscow: RGGU, 2020).
3 Pchelov, The regicide of 1918: sources, questions, and versions, 7.
4 Pchelov, The regicide of 1918: sources, questions, and versions, 12.
5 Pchelov, The regicide of 1918: sources, questions, and versions, 12.
of these particular works. It should be noted that out of the six authors mentioned, only three are related to academic historical science;6 the list includes the works of a
7 8 9
geologist, a lawyer, and, apparently, a journalist. Given this fact, it is surprising that the author undeservingly criticized Doctor of Historical Sciences I. Plotnikov, a prominent expert in the history of the Russian Civil War. According to Pchelov, he found himself "in captivity of false information," having put his complete trust in "the false documents and memoirs of Johann Ludwig Mayer and the absolute fiction of pseudo-historian I. Bunich."10 However, in his fundamental research,11 Plotnikov
analyzed in detail the memoirs of the Austrian prisoner of war Johann Ludwig
12
Mayer and noted their high source potential, although he did not rule out their partial or even complete fabrication (as, in fact, was the case of the so-called Meyer's
13
documents about the death of the tsar's family). The historian was also moderately cautious towards the well-known book by I. Bunich,14 emphasizing that "the issue of the credibility of the documents cited by the specified author requires additional verification."15 Thus, the statement about the scholar's complete "trust" in the information by the specified authors is erroneous. Moreover, the monograph by I. Plotnikov is recognized by the experts and has been taking a worthy place in the historiography of the death of the Romanovs for a long time, and a reasoned opposition to the Ural historian would undoubtedly make Evgenii Pchelov's judgment more remarkable.
In his research, the author focused on some "acute and controversial issues related to the Yekaterinburg tragedy."16 These four issues raised by the historian, in fact, determined the four-part structure of the monograph. However, the absence of a historiographical preface does not allow the reader to follow Pchelov's arguments on
6 See, e.g., Buranov and Khrustalev, The regicide. Destruction of the dynasty; Lykova, Investigation into the murder of the Russian imperial family.
7 A.N. Avdonin, Ganina Yama: the history of the search for the remains of the tsar's family [in Russian] (Yekaterinburg: Real-Media, 2013).
8 Zhuk, Question marks in the 'Tsar's case'.
9 N.L. Rozanova, Royal passion-bearers. Postmortem fate [in Russian] (Moscow: Vagrius, 2008).
10 Pchelov, The regicide of 1918: sources, questions, and versions, 12.
11 Plotnikov, The truth of the history. Death of the Tsar's family.
12 How the tsar's family died. Eyewitness testimony of J.L. Mayer [in Russian], trans. P.A. Konovnitsin (Moscow: Tovarishchestvo "Vozrozhdenie" Vserossiiskogo fonda kul'tury, 1990).
13 Plotnikov, The truth of the history. Death of the Tsar's family, 173-200.
14 I.L. Bunich, The true story of total lawlessness, or the Syndrome of Nicholas II [in Russian] (St Petersburg: Oblik, 1995).
15 Plotnikov, The truth of the history. Death of the Tsar's family, 168.
16 Pchelov, The regicide of 1918: sources, questions, and versions, 12.
Historia Provinciae - the Journal of Regional History. 2022. Vol. 6, no. 1 312 ISSN 2587-8344 (online)
how he came to the conclusion that it was necessary to solve these very problems, whether there were answers to these questions in the literature, and if there were some, in what way the author would try to clarify or refute the views of other researchers.
Main body
The first chapter of the book is dedicated to the fate of documents from the White Guard investigation of the murder of the imperial family. Despite the fact that this issue has rarely been raised in the literature, its solution is necessary for a full-fledged study of the circumstances of the Romanovs' death.
The case of the murder of the tsar's family, which was started in Yekaterinburg at the end of July 1918 (less than two weeks after the crime) and completed in Paris only in September 1923, had a complex and confusing history. During that time, three investigators changed: Aleksei Nametkin (1918), Ivan Sergeev (1918-19) and Nikolai Sokolov (1919-23), and eleven volumes of materials they had collected over the years of investigation were scattered across various archives and libraries in Russia and the United States. The story that unfolds in front of the readers of the book is almost a detective story, which includes copying the documents in order to ensure their safety in the conditions of the Civil War (Chita, 1919), their transportation through the Far East (Harbin) to Western Europe (Paris) in 1920, the transfer of some documentary materials to the former Russian ambassador to Italy M. von Giers, the theft of a part of Nikolai Sokolov's archives by Russian and German communists in Berlin in 1921, and then their discovery and return to the
17
USSR by the Soviet military authorities in 1945.
The result of thorough work related to the study of the movement of investigation
18
materials was a summary table, in which the author presented in tabloid form basic information about the extant originals and copies of the case files as well as the places of their storage now.
Unfortunately, most of the documents of the investigation survived only in copies, but the materials that have survived generally make it possible to reconstruct the content of the eleven-volume case.
The second chapter analyzes the issue of what was found in the area of the Ganina Yama mine near Yekaterinburg, where the bodies of the tsar, his family and his entourage were brought after the murder, and what conclusions were drawn from this by the White investigators.
17 Pchelov, The regicide of 1918: sources, questions, and versions, 23-31.
18 Pchelov, The regicide of 1918: sources, questions, and versions, 40.
Like his predecessors, Nikolai Sokolov could not detain and interrogate either the participants in the murder19 or those who participated in the concealment of the remains of the tsar's family. That is why he was forced to make his own conclusions about the bodies' postmortem fate relying only on physical evidence and circumstantial evidence provided by the persons he interrogated.
Scrupulously and meticulously, like an investigator, Evgenii Pchelov reconstructs the history of the finds in the Ganina Yama area, paying special attention to the assessments that were given to this physical evidence first by semiliterate peasants
and then by the White partisans and farmers who visited the mine, a group of white
20
officers, and the judicial authorities of Yekaterinburg. Without using spectacular artistic means and expressive rhetorical twists, the author nevertheless gradually immerses the reader in the atmosphere of the summer of 1918, leads him along the traces of the crime; together with the persons under interrogation, he measures the bonfires in which the clothes of the murdered were burned, accepts some versions, and rejects others, moving further and further along the path of investigation.
It must be admitted that in the issue of the fate of the remains, unlike Nikolai Sokolov, the author comes to the conclusion that the bodies of the monarch, his family and retinue were not destroyed by fire and sulfuric acid in the Ganina Yama area. As arguments, Pchelov points out, in particular, that the investigation found a small number of burnt bones on the bonfire sites near the so-called open air pit;
neither they nor the traces of sebaceous masses were accurately attributed as
21
human. It would seem that the version widely known today from the so-called note of the key man of the murder Yakov Yurovskii is logically built into the mainstream
of the author's reasoning. According to this version, the corpses of the family of
22
Nicholas II were buried in Porosyonkov Log, a few kilometers from Ganina Yama. Apparently, the author also sympathizes with that version, evaluating it as "truth."
However, it is difficult to fully agree with Pchelov's conclusion that the bone remains found by Sokolov are not enough to confirm the complete destruction of the Romanovs' bodies.
19 An exception in this case is P. Medvedev, the head of the external security of the House of Special Purpose where the family of Nicholas II was kept, who was interrogated by the Whites. However, the question of whether he participated in the murder is still debatable.
20 Pchelov, The regicide of 1918: sources, questions, and versions, 42-78.
21 Pchelov, The regicide of 1918: sources, questions, and versions, 91-92.
22 Note by Yakov Yurovsky about the execution of the tsar's family and the concealment of corpses [in Russian], in Archive of the latest history of Russia, Publications, vol. 3, The mournful journey of the Romanovs (1917-1918). The death of the tsar's family: collected documents and materials, ed. V.M. Rhrustalev (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2001), 236-39.
23 Pchelov, The regicide of 1918: sources, questions, and versions, 107.
Historia Provinciae - the Journal of Regional History. 2022. Vol. 6, no. 1 314 ISSN 2587-8344 (online)
Considering the fact that according to Chekist Isai Rodzinskii, the night of July
24
17-18 was "damp" and "cold," the bodies could be burned not on the ground but in some container (for some reason, the author categorically rejects the rumor about a
25
"tar barrel" in which the tsar's body was burned). In addition, due to objective reasons (the Red attack on Yekaterinburg) Sokolov did not have enough time to conduct a complete survey of the clay site where traces of a bonfire had been found and the clothes of the dead had been burned. It would also be strange to assume that the Bolsheviks left unburned bones behind as traces of the crime on the surface of the site where they could be easily found.
Pchelov also mentions the third bonfire at the mine, about three meters in diameter, which was accidentally discovered by Sokolov on the eve of the completion of the Yekaterinburg stage of the investigation and therefore was not fully studied.26 Firstly, the size of this bonfire calls attention to itself: it was three to four times larger than the diameter of the others, where clothes were burned. Secondly, two bonfire sites were easily discovered back in July 1918, and the third one was found much later; therefore, was it more carefully camouflaged? What could be burned on this larger bonfire? The White investigation did not have time to give an answer to this question. Consequently, it is still too early to decide whether the Sokolov's version is correct or not. This topic needs additional research within the framework of historical science as well as biology, chemistry, anthropology, and other disciplines.
Of particular interest in the second chapter is the part dedicated to rumors about the fate of the Romanovs' remains. Unfortunately, the author limited himself to a
27
brief summary of the rumors, without subjecting them to a thorough analysis and classification. Nevertheless, the analysis of rumors as a historical source is an important part of a comprehensive source study analysis of the materials of the White investigation (after all, for the most part, those rumors were collected by the White Guards). Of course, this storyline could have been developed in a separate chapter of
the book. As this did not happen, it leaves room for more detailed study in the
28
future.
24 M.A. Knyazev,"'Surely, the most important thing was to cover it up so that there would be no traces left': the memoirs of chekist Isai Rodzinskii about the concealment of the remains of the Tsar's family near Yekaterinburg in 1918" [in Russian], Vestnik Ekaterinburgskoi dukhovnoi seminarii, no. 34 (2021): 334, https://doi.org/10.24412/2224-5391-2021-34-318-340
25 Pchelov, The regicide of 1918: sources, questions, and versions, 112-13.
26 Pchelov, The regicide of 1918: sources, questions, and versions, 92.
27 Pchelov, The regicide of 1918: sources, questions, and versions, 104-15.
28 Some preliminary results of studying this problem were presented by the author of the review in a separate publication (M.A. Knyazev, "Burnt or hidden? The fate of the remains of Nicholas II and his family in the mirror of rumors: to the problem statement" [in Russian], in Civil War in the east of Russia: outlook through the documentary heritage: materials of the Fourth International Scientific-Practical Conference dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the West
The third chapter of the monograph is dedicated to an issue that is being actively discussed in historiography: what do the mysterious inscriptions in the Ipatiev House mean? This refers to the two writings on the wallpaper of the execution room in the basement: a quote from the poem "Belsatzar" by Heinrich Heine and handwritten signs and numbers left behind by an unknown hand.
In the journalistic-oriented historiography, there is a long-held opinion that these writings were of a mystical or even cabbalistic character. It may seem that the solution to this issue is hardly possible within the framework of historical science. Nevertheless, the source study approach helps the author again.
Reproducing the quotation from Heine according to N. Sokolov's materials, Pchelov came to the conclusion that the verses written on the wallpaper (except for one preposition) reproduced the German original, which excludes the version of a play on words or any manipulations with the name of the Babylonian ruler
29
Belsatzar. The remark about the time when the inscription appeared is also important: it could be made in the period between July 17 and July 25, 1918 when the
30
house was guarded. Thus, any person who visited the Ipatiev House at that time and knew Heine's poem by heart could leave it there.
A fragment of wallpaper with the inscription in German, discovered by a member of the court Ivan
Sergeev in the basement room of the Ipatiev House where the tsar's family was shot: "Belsatzar ward in selbiger Nacht Von seinen Knechten umgebracht" [Belshazzar however in that same night Was done to death by his own vassals], lines from the poem "Belsatzar" by Heinrich Heine. Source: F. 1837, op. 1, d. 57, l. 1. Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii [State Archive of the Russian Federation]), Moscow, Russia.
Siberian uprising and the 10th anniversary of the Center for the Study of Civil War History (Omsk,
October 20-21, 2021), ed. D.I. Petin et al. (Omsk: OmGTU, 2021), 132-41.
29
30
Pchelov, The regicide of 1918: sources, questions, and versions, 125. Pchelov, The regicide of 1918: sources, questions, and versions, 130.
When discussing the nature of the numeric inscriptions in the execution room, the author inclines to the view that has already been expressed in historiography: they are the traces of arithmetic calculations and could be made before the murder because the basement of that building housed the office of Makeev and Gollandskii's agency for
31
trade in ferrous metals for some time.
Evgenii Pchelov paid special attention to the analysis of information about the decoding of the "secret" signs placed next to the numbers. The historian critically examined the brochure The Sacrifice (1925) by the parascientist M. Skaryatin (Enel), which was and still is the main source for the exegetic analysis of these symbols. The author noted the inaccuracies in Enel's arguing and the arbitrariness of the interpretation of individual signs, which, of course, discredits the conclusions about the cabbalistic background of this inscription. Nevertheless, E. Pchelov emphasized that his own conclusion was intermediate, noting that "the analysis of the inscription. . . should be carried out anew, with the involvement of relevant specialists in the field of cryptography, cabbalism, and oriental scripts and
32
languages."
The question of whether the Bolsheviks sanctioned the murder of the imperial family, which is the title of the fourth chapter, is one of the most controversial issues of the topic. The reason for the discussion is quite understandable: no document has been found so far which would be authored by Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars Vladimir Lenin and Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee Yakov Sverdlov and would contain the order to exterminate the Romanovs recorded in black and white. While some readers might view this as proof of Moscow's innocence of the Yekaterinburg tragedy, for others it is evidence that the Bolshevik leaders tried to conceal their participation in deciding the fate of the tsar's family as much as possible. A weak link in the chain of this kind of arguing is the lack of reliance on the extant sources, albeit indirect ones.
In contrast to the previous sections of the monograph, not the materials of the White investigation but Soviet memoir texts telling the story of the murder of the reigning house members constitute the main source for solving the problematic issue in this chapter. A noteworthy fact is that the author identified the so-called memoir waves of the 1920-30s and 1950-60s dedicated to the death of the Romanovs, in which the evolution of interpretations and assessments of the tragic events of 1918
33
can be observed. The reconstruction of the events by the author convincingly proves that the death of the imperial family could hardly be a result of the arbitrariness of local Ural authorities. It was given a tacit sanction by the top Bolsheviks in Moscow.
31 Pchelov, The regicide of 1918: sources, questions, and versions, 130; Zhuk, Question marks in the 'Tsar's case', 464.
32 Pchelov, The regicide of 1918: sources, questions, and versions, 141.
33 Pchelov, The regicide of 1918: sources, questions, and versions, 151-53.
But were these top Bolsheviks - Vladimir Lenin and Yakov Sverdlov - united in their view of the fate of the Romanovs? E. Pchelov gives an unequivocally affirmative answer,34 although the materials that have been recently introduced into scientific circulation do not allow such a definite conclusion. It was established, in particular, that at the end of August 1918, after F. Kaplan's assassination attempt on Lenin, the leader of the Petrograd Bolsheviks G. Zinoviev proposed to transfer the supreme power in the country to the tandem of Sverdlov and Trotsky in the
35
conditions of the mortal (as it was believed) wound of Lenin. Although this fact is not directly related to the history of regicide, it cannot but push us to certain arguing, namely, about the Sverdlov-Zinoviev liaison.
It is noteworthy that the representatives of the Ural Regional Council F. Goloshchyokin and G. Safarov sent the telegram to Moscow with a camouflaged request about the possibility of the murder of the Romanovs not directly but through Petrograd and through Zinoviev personally. Why was it necessary if there was a direct connection between Yekaterinburg and Moscow? Pchelov rightly notes that "the Bolshevik leadership of Yekaterinburg wanted Zinoviev to be aware of the events and to act as a kind of an 'outside' witness to this situation."36 Unfortunately, the author did not elaborate the idea of what purpose the inclusion of Petrograd's leader in these negotiations could pursue.
Another fact that draws attention is that in the telegram addressed to Lenin and Sverdlov, the Urals representatives asked to reply provided that "their opinions were the opposite." Is this not indirect evidence of the contradictions about the fate of the imperial family between the leaders of the Soviet state? The address of the telegram sent by Zinoviev to Moscow is also noteworthy: on the upper margin it says "Moscow, to Lenin", but in the Zinoviev's text we read: "Moscow, Kremlin, to
37
Sverdlov, copy to Lenin." Does this not mean that not Lenin but Sverdlov was the first to be informed by Zinoviev and therefore the vote of Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee was the deciding one? At the same time, there is no documentary evidence that Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars received such a telegram, which makes it impossible to unambiguously and fully
34 Pchelov, The regicide of 1918: sources, questions, and versions, 150.
35 S.S. Voitikov, A bridle for Trotsky. Red leaders during the Civil War [in Russian] (Moscow: AIRO-XXI, 2016), 121-42.
36
Pchelov, The regicide of 1918: sources, questions, and versions, 174.
37
'Telegramma G.E. Zinov'eva Predsedatelyu Sovnarkoma V.I. Leninu i Ya. M. Sverdlovu o poluchennom soobshchenii iz Ekaterinburga otnositel'no uchasti tsarskoi sem'I" [The telegram from Grigory Zinoviev to Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars Vladimir Lenin and Yakov Sverdlov on the message received from Yekaterinburg regarding the fate of the tsar's family]. F. P-130, op. 2, d. 653, l. 12. Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii [State Archive of the Russian Federation], Moscow, Russia.
Historia Provinciae - the Journal of Regional History. 2022. Vol. 6, no. 1 318 ISSN 2587-8344 (online)
assert that he gave his personal sanction for the murder: Lenin could be silent not due to disagreement with Sverdlov but due to the fact that he did not receive a copy of the telegram from the Urals.
Thus, it is still too early to assert that Lenin and Sverdlov had a common point of view on the fate of the Romanovs, and the problem of making that decision, undoubtedly, should be solved in the context of the struggle for power among the top Bolsheviks in the summer of 1918.
Conclusion
Summing up the reflections about the monograph by E. Pchelov, I would like to note that despite its importance, the source study approach that the author declares in the preface should by no means become a panacea for a historian, especially when studying an interdisciplinary topic. However, this serious tool in the hands of a researcher can be useful in a comprehensive study of the historiography of the Romanovs' death that has been accumulated over a hundred years. Using the potential of such an approach as historiographical source study will make it possible to more accurately determine the main directions in the discussion on the topic, to identify strengths and weaknesses in the arguments of scholars, and, taking into account the results obtained, to find the best ways to solve certain issues.
Список литературы
Авдонин А.Н. Ганина яма: история поисков останков царской семьи. Екатеринбург: Реал-Медиа, 2013. 291 с.
Буранов Ю.А., Хрусталев В.М. Убийцы царя. Уничтожение династии. Москва: Терра, 1997. 394 с.
Войтиков С.С. Узда для Троцкого. Красные вожди в годы Гражданской войны. Москва: АИРО-XXI, 2016. 432 с.
Жук Ю.А. Вопросительные знаки в «Царском деле». Санкт-Петербург: БХВ-Петербург, 2013. 640 с.
Иоффе Г.З. Революция и судьба Романовых. Москва: Республика, 1992. 349 с.
Князев М.А. «Конечно, самое-то ответственное было, чтобы укрыть, чтобы следов не осталось»: воспоминания чекиста И.И. Родзинского о сокрытии останков Царской семьи под Екатеринбургом в 1918 г. // Вестник Екатеринбургской духовной семинарии. 2021. № 34. С. 318-340. DOI: 10.24412/2224-5391-2021-34-318-340
Князев М.А. Сожжены или сокрыты? Судьба останков Николая II и его семьи в зеркале слухов: к постановке проблемы // Гражданская война на востоке России: взгляд сквозь документальное наследие: материалы IV Международной научно-практической конференции, посвященной 100-летию Западно-Сибирского восстания и 10-летию Центра изучения истории Гражданской войны (Омск, 20-21 октября 2021 г.) / под редакцией Д.И. Петина и др. Омск: ОмГТУ, 2021. С. 132-141.
Лыкова Л.А. Следствие по делу об убийстве российской императорской семьи. Историографический и археографический очерк. Москва: РОССПЭН, 2007. 320 с.
Мельгунов С.П. Судьба императора Николая II после отречения: историко-критические очерки. Москва: Вече, 2005. 544 с.
Мультатули П.В. Николай II: Дорога на Голгофу: Свидетельствуя о Христе до смерти... Москва: АСТ: Астрель, 2010. 637 с.
Оболенский А.А., Агаджанян Э.Г. Царская ложь: итоги расследования. Санкт-Петербург: Омега, 2020. 344 с.
Плотников И.Ф. Правда истории. Гибель Царской Семьи. Екатеринбург: Свердловская региональная общественная организация «За духовность и нравственность», 2003. 527 с.
Пчелов Е.В. Цареубийство 1918 года: источники, вопросы, версии / ответственный редактор А.Б. Безбородов. Москва: РГГУ, 2020. 192 с.
Розанова Н.Л. Царственные страстотерпцы. Посмертная судьба. Москва: Вагриус, 2008. 560 с.
References
Avdonin, A.N. Ganina yama: istoriya poiskov ostankov tsarskoi sem'i [Ganina Yama: the history of the search for the remains of the tsar's family]. Yekaterinburg: Real-Media, 2013. (In Russian)
Buranov, Yu.A., and V.M. Khrustalev. Ubiitsy tsarya. Unichtozhenie dinastii [The regicide. Destruction of the dynasty]. Moscow: Terra, 1997. (In Russian)
Ioffe, G.Z. Revolyutsiya i sud'ba Romanovykh [Revolution and the fate of the Romanovs]. Moscow: Respublika, 1992. (In Russian)
Knyazev, M.A. "'Konechno, samoe-to otvetstvennoe bylo, chtoby ukryt', chtoby sledov ne ostalos'': vospominaniya chekista I.I. Rodzinskogo o sokrytii ostankov Tsarskoi sem'i pod Ekaterinburgom v 1918 g." ['Surely, the most important thing was to cover it up so that there would be no traces left': the memoirs of chekist Isai Rodzinskii about the concealment of the remains of the Tsar's family near Yekaterinburg in 1918]. Vestnik Ekaterinburgskoi dukhovnoi seminarii, no. 34 (2021): 318-40. https://doi.org/10.24412/2224-5391-2021-34-318-340
Knyazev, M.A. "Sozhzheny ili sokryty? Sud'ba ostankov Nikolaya II i ego sem'i v zerkale slukhov: k postanovke problemy" [Burnt or hidden? The fate of the remains of Nicholas II and his family in the mirror of rumors: to the problem statement]. In Grazhdanskaya voina na vostoke Rossii: vzglyad skvoz' dokumental'noe nasledie: materialy IV Mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii, posvyashchennoi 100-letiyu Zapadno-Sibirskogo vosstaniya i 10-letiyu Tsentra izucheniya istorii Grazhdanskoi voiny (Omsk, 20-21 oktyabrya 2021 g.) [Civil War in the east of Russia: outlook through the documentary heritage: materials of the Fourth International Scientific-Practical Conference dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the West Siberian uprising and the 10th anniversary of the Center for the Study of Civil War History (Omsk, October 20-21, 2021)], edited by D.I. Petin, et al., 132-41. Omsk: OmGTU, 2021. (In Russian)
Lykova, L.A. Sledstviepo delu ob ubiistve rossiiskoi imperatorskoi sem'i. Istoriograficheskii i arkheograficheskii ocherk [Investigation into the murder of the Russian imperial family. Historiographical and archaeographical essay]. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2007. (In Russian)
Mel'gunov, S.P. Sud'ba imperatora Nikolaya IIposle otrecheniya: istoriko-kriticheskie ocherki [The fate of Emperor Nicholas II after abdication: historical and critical essays]. Moscow: Veche, 2005. (In Russian)
Mul'tatuli, P.V. Nikolai II: Doroga na Golgofu: Svidetel'stvuya o Khriste do smerti... [Nicholas II: The road to Calvary: Testifying of Christ till death...]. Moscow: AST: Astrel', 2010. (In Russian)
Obolenskii, A.A., and E.G. Agadzhanyan Tsarskaya lozh': itogi rassledovaniya [The Tsar's lie: the findings of the investigation]. St Petersburg: Omega, 2020. (In Russian)
Pchelov, E.V. Tsareubiistvo 1918 goda: istochniki, voprosy, versii [The regicide of 1918: sources, questions, and versions], edited by A.B. Bezborodov. Moscow: RGGU, 2020. (In Russian) Plotnikov, I.F. Pravda istorii. Gibel' Tsarskoi Sem'i [The truth of the history. Death of the Tsar's family]. Yekaterinburg: Sverdlovskaya regional'naya obshchestvennaya organizatsiya "Za dukhovnost' i nravstvennost'", 2003. (In Russian)
Rozanova, N.L. Tsarstvennye strastoterptsy. Posmertnaya sud'ba [Royal passion-bearers. Postmortem fate]. Moscow: Vagrius, 2008. (In Russian)
Voitikov, S.S. Uzda dlya Trotskogo. Krasnye vozhdi v gody Grazhdanskoi voiny [A bridle for Trotsky. Red leaders during the Civil War]. Moscow: AIRO-XXI, 2016. (In Russian)
Zhuk, Yu.A. Voprositel'nye znaki v 'Tsarskom dele' [Question marks in the 'Tsar's case']. St Petersburg: BKhV-Peterburg, 2013. (In Russian)
Информация об авторе
Марк Андреевич Князев - аспирант кафедры зарубежного регионоведения и локальной истории, kn.mark.nn@mail.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1654-637X, Институт международных отношений и мировой истории Нижегородского государственного университета им. Н.И. Лобачевского (603022 Россия, Нижний Новгород, пр. Гагарина, д. 23).
Information about the author
Mark A. Knyazev - postgraduate student, Department of Foreign Regional Studies and Local History, kn.mark.nn@mail.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1654-637X, Institute of International Relations and World History, Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod (23 Prospekt Gagarina, Nizhny Novgorod 603022, Russia)
Статья поступила в редакцию 28.06.2021; принята к публикации 01.09.2021. The article was submitted 28.06.2021; accepted for publication 01.09.2021.
