Letters to the Editor

Imperial Theories

To the Editors:

Just finished reading the last issue of Russian Life, vol. 41, no. 7. For some time now, my wife and I have been subscribing to your magazine and we enjoy it because of the many positive and accurate cultural and historical articles.

However, in this last issue, I have read something very distressing. The article deals with “Burying the Romanovs,” where in it the reporter [John Varoli] writes about The Russian Expert Commission Abroad. I happen to be the Chairman of this Commission. Therefore, I have to say that most of the statements are fine except for at the end on page 53, the reporter states and I quote:

But while some of their objections may be well taken, the Commission abroad sometimes goes too far. For instance, they claim that Nikolai and his family were spared by the Bolsheviks owing to a secret clause of the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty signed with Germany in March 1918. And that they lived out the rest of their lives in Sukhumi along the Black Sea under the last nameof Beryezkin.”

…. Our Commission in its nine year existence never once made such a statement, nor even touched upon the prospects of the Imperial Family being saved. We always stated and believed the contrary.

Thus, I sincerely hope this ugly mistake will be corrected because many people now are under the wrong impression. We have received numerous calls and letters pertaining to this paragraph which misrepresents what we have believed and what we’ve worked for the past nine years ….

Peter N. Koltypin Wallovskoy

Chairman

Mr. Wallovskoy:

The noted conclusion in this article, written by John Varoli, was based on statements and assessments made, first, by Vyacheslav L. Popov, in his book, Where Are You, Your Highness? In the book, Popov, a member of the Advisory Board of the Russian Expert Commission Abroad, offers the most significant and interesting arguments the Commission has as to why the remains are not genuine. In the book’s introduction, Popov gives serious consideration and deliberation to the idea about Beryezkin, and in such a way that it appears he is inclined towards believing it.

Second, in an open letter from the Commission Abroad to the Russian Orthodox Patriarch, the Commission cites the Beryezkin theory as one among some 16 credible reasons why the government needs to reevaluate the authenticity of the Romanov family remains. To quote [translated from the Russian]:

“6. On July 24, 1992, A. Kislis, a well-known Latvian specialist and senior scientific worker in the Latvian scientific-investigative laboratory for judicial analysis, undertook a photo-portrait analysis. Through this, using modern mathematical equipment, it was categorically proven that Nikolai II and his family lived in Sukhumi under the names Beryezkin, Konosevich, Dotsenko and others.

“Both A. Kislis and S.S. Abramov [another scientist analyzing the remains] used the photo-comparison methodology, the exact same methodology of analyzing a portrait, both had a mathematical basis, but … they came to diametrically opposed results.

“Investigator V.N. Soloviev did not in his case consider the analysis of A. Kislis. It was not included in the list of analyses in the “Spravka” and, thus, fell (perhaps consciously) outside the State Commission’s field of vision.

“Thus, in the State Commission’s materials, and perhaps also in the materials of the case, only that which supports the official version of investigator V.N. Soloviev is included and all that contradicts the official version is swept aside (and not even analyzed).”

One interpretation of this might be that the Commission was using the highly improbable Beryezkin interpretation here to prove a point – to show how the same data could be interpreted in two different ways. But this, we concluded, did not square with the notes in Popov’s book, cited above. Further, it seemed unbelievable that the Commission would cite a theory it felt to be spurious as a credible reason to reevaluate the historical data.

Given the information available to us at the time (and we present the facts here as we had them, so that readers may draw their own conclusions), we feel that John Varoli’s interpretation was correct. However, on closer reading of the cited paragraph, we admit that “might have been spared” would have been a clearer choice of words than “were spared.” Nonetheless, we accept your Commission’s present, direct renunciation of the Beryezkin theory as new data that was not available at the time this report was prepared.

– The Editors

To the Editors:

In your August/September issue, you feature a photograph of Nicholas II (page 24) in a wheelchair and ascribe it to his days in the Ipatiev house “before the execution.” This photo was actually taken in the autumn of 1890 in the old palace at Livadia in the Crimea. The Emperor was recuperating from typhoid…

In the same article, “Burying the Romanovs,” you mention that Alexandra and her children were arrested in Petrograd while Nicholas was abdicating in Pskov. While Nicholas was placed under arrest on March 8, the Empress was told of her arrest in the Alexander Palace at Tsarskoye Selo by General Kornilov on March 9. There was never any formal mention of the children’s arrest.

Stephen R. de Angelis

Bronxville, NY

Mr. de Angelis:

Thank you for your copious attention to these points of historical fact.  You are indeed correct on both points and we apologize to readers for the errors.

– The Editors

To the Editors:

 My first question, after reading John Varoli’s article, “Burying the Romanovs,” is: why do so many people believe Sokolov’s report … ?

Sokolov was an agent of White forces in the Ekaterinburg area. Isn’t it possible that he was told what to find when he went into Ekaterinburg? And isn’t it possible that he reported what he did in an effort to get sympathy and help from Western countries for the White’s attempt to take power in Russia?

Everything that has happened in recent years, the finding of the bones, whether by bona fide searchers or by a movie producer, and everything that has happened since then, is predicated on a belief in Sokolov’s report.

I don’t want to go into detail about what he claimed to have found, but there are many contradictions and impossibilities. I’ve always been surprised that intelligent people around the world have accepted his report, and it has become a part of history.

It’s rather late in the day to try to prove or disprove the truth of the report, but if that can’t be done, all that has happened recently doesn’t mean much.

Ruta Lucas

West Hartford, CT

Sweet Smoke

To the Editors:

In your “Survival Russian” in the last [June/July 1998] issue of Russian Life, there is an error.

The words, “—˚Ï ÓÚ˜ÂÒÚ‚‡ Ì‡Ï Ò·‰ÓÍ Ë ÔËflÚÂÌ” are linked to Griboyedov. In actuality, they belong to Gavril Derzhavin. Griboyedov was only citing them. They were written on the occasion of Paul I’s visit to Kazan. Here they are:

“á‚Û˜Ë Ó ‡Ù‡, ‚Ò Ú˚ Ó ä‡Á‡Ì ÏÌÂ!

á‚Û˜Ë Í‡Í è‡‚ÂÎ ‚ ÌÂÈ fl‚ËÎÒfl ·Î‡„Ó‰‡ÚÂÌ

åË· Ì‡Ï ‰Ó·‡ ‚ÂÒÚ¸ Ó Ì‡¯Â ÒÚÓÓÌÂ

à ‰˚Ï ÓÚ˜ÂÒÚ‚‡ Ì‡Ï Ò·‰ÓÍ Ë ÔËflÚÂÌ.”

Respectfully yours,

Peter Nicolaevsky

Langley, WA

Orthographic Errors

To the Editors:

I read Mikhail Ivanov’s article on Turgenev [Russian Life, Oct/Nov 1998] with great interest…

However, I was shocked at the mistakes in the French names cited. Turgenev’s French love was Pauline Viardot.

To call her Paline Guiardo is unacceptable, if not to say preposterous. If the author did not know the lady’s name, he should have omitted it, and just said that Turgenev loved a French woman.

Better yet, the author should have checked the names out before writing.

The same applies to Prosper Mérimée, who was mentioned as Prosper Merime. Accents in French are not a decoration. They change the pronunciation!!! All names should be treated with respect…

Thank you for your excellent and most enjoyable magazine.

Elaine Carducci

Montreal, Canada

Dear Elaine:

I welcome all your comments Re. the spelling of “Viardot” vs “Guiardo”.  I could, of course, try to excuse myself referring to Robert dictionary where her middle name is “Garcia”, which could in theory partially explain the provenance of the “G.” But let me instead note that you are of course correct and tell you that we always welcome such input from our readers. All the more so since French is my first foreign language, and since I used to work for Canadian businesses here in Moscow and have friends in Montreal. The accenting, in this case, seems to have simply failed to be communicated to our designer. Donc, ne vous en faites pas, maintenant on va le faire comme il faut.

Encore une fois - merci.

Amicalement,

M. Ivanov

Travel Tips

To the Editors:

Early this year I began to plan a trip to Russia with two friends who had never been overseas. I’d been to Russia on eight prior occasions. All of those trips were business trips planned by others. This trip was to be arranged by me.  

As I began to plan my trip, I was pleasantly surprised to receive the March 1998, and then the May 1998 issues of Russian Life.  The information on travel to Russia was very helpful. I especially appreciated the information on cheap hotel accommodations in Moscow. This was to be a budget trip, and thanks to you, it was. We spent $30 to $35 per night per room in Moscow at the Izmailovo Hotel, and were very satisfied.

I used travel agencies listed in the March issue to arrange for train and air transportation within Russia.

Our trip to Russia and our travels there were completed almost glitch-free.

Thanks for your informational and practical magazine.

Jeff Rotering

Hettinger, ND