Customer Reviews

The File on the Tsar

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Many people have criticized this book because it can be labled as a "conspiracy theory." However, it is remarkably well-researched and has some valuble info, such as the fact that Anastasia and Alexey couldn't possibly have been burned to ashes within one night out in the open. The authors can be forgiven, as it is an attempt to explain the fate of the Romanovs before the definitive DNA analysis concluded that at least 9 of the inhabitants of the Ipatiev house were brutally murdered. Also, it was written before Yurovsky's testimony came to light. I don't think it merits Henry Kissinger's "crap" statement about it. It is outdated, but its authors nevertheless command respect from historians. It was right about one thing - that the Sokolov investigation was fixed and Medvedev's testimony is unreliable, as Yurovsky's "confession" demonstrates. If one wants a definitive book about the fate of Nicky and Alix, I suggest Robert K. Massie's "The Romanovs: The Final Chapter."

File on the Tsar is interesting as a compilation of escape theories popular in the 1970's, most of which have since been proven to be false, particularly in Radzinsky's The Last Tsar (which would be a good book to read after this one). Still, the writing style is engaging and the photos are well chosen. Take it's theories with a grain of salt and it is a fun read.

Many people have dismissed "File on the Tsar" as another Conspiracy theory, however it is far from that. File on the Tsar, is an extremelly well researched investiagtion into an alternative theory about the fate of the Romanovs.

Many people dismiss this book because it does not hold that the family was massacred at Ekaterinburg. The fact is that contrary to popular belief the massacre is still a theory, it has not been proven as fact, and the File on the Tsar provides informative generally unknown information on how some of the evidence for a massacre was fabricated.

WARNING SPOILER

Spoiler; For instance when the massacre theory was first being investigated shortly after the Romanovs disapeared, it was claimed that they were shot in the dinning room, not the basement.

Secondly three seperate investigations were conducted, the last investigation is the only one that ever saw light, primarily because it was the most shocking. Early investigators did not find nearly as many bullet holes, bayonet holes, ect . . . as later ones.

SPOILERS END HERE

Even the discovery of bodies does not prove that the alternative theory in File on the Tsar is untrue. The Imperial grave was opened more then once after the family was believed to have been shot and buried, and the remains could have been disturbed.

In short File on the Tsar simply provides comprehensive information, and an alternative theory as to the familys fate, whats more it also could explain the absence of two bodies from the Imperial grve site. The massacre theory does not.

Is it somewhat dated? Yes. Unproven by modern science and DNA? No.

All scientific and fernsic evidence can equally be used to support the File on the Tsar's theory, as it can the massacre.

I recomend if nothing else, that even if you disagree, that you read it.

To those of you who believe the DNA 'evidence' even though the British lab failed to provide the original lab report, I have news for you. Stanford University repeated the DNA tests and found no match to the Romanov family. In Japan there is actual blood from Nicholas from a 1904 assassination attempt and their DNA tests show no match for the bones the Russians conveniently 'found' in an area that had been searched many times including digging and seives to sift the clay topsoil. The Russians are desperate to close the case and are still fabricating evidence just like they did in 1918, 1919, etc.

Read this book (the updated 2002 edition) and you will understand the enormity of the Biggest Con in History.

Sadly, with the advent of DNA and the fall of the iron curtain there is less and less mystery in history.

This book is a fine example of the fog and questions which surronunded the death (or disappereance) of the russian imperial family. However, as time has moved along, we now know that most of the ideas the authors suggest never occured.

That said I liked the book and felt that it gave a good treatmeant of the context within which the last Tsar and his family met their tragic end. The reader must always exercise caution about the conclusions even as you enjoy the text.

Despite the many years that have passed since the first publication, Summers and Mangold provide many clues to what really happened to the Imperial Family of Russia. They were not massacred...they just dissapeared and lived under fake names in different parts of Europe, USA and Japan. I recoment the readers to get that latest edition (2004)since there have been several, (including one in Spanish). Still in 2011 the Russian Orthodox Church and the Head of the Romanov Family don't accept the remains that appeared in 1979 as those of the Romanovs. That just supports some of the theories in this book that the family was evacuated and that Anna Anderson was indeed Grand Duchess Anastasia of Russia.

Anthony Summers and Tom Mangfold did something extrordinary when they discovered Sokolov's original file on the Tsar. They discovered he had withheld evidence to what he found on the Tsar's murder. The book pretty much dispells of the Sokolov investigation and its faults and is way ahead of its time in that sense. But of course the second half of the book has lost most of its validity since the bodies have been located. But it is interesting how many people claimed to have seen the Empress and her daughters alive and being used by Lenin as pawns. It's a perfect story for those in Russia who still believe that the Romanov bones are not authentic. I think they are though. The part of the book which discusses Anna Anderson is very interesting as well, and makes you wonder how this woman could have truly been a Polish factory girl.