To what extent can Nicholas II be blamed for 1917 revolution?

Answer 1

Throughout his reign, Nicholas II made many poor decisions which discredited his regime and provoked fury against his governance. In terms of internal problems, he was unable to deal with the growing concerns over poverty and the poor living conditions of the lower classes, partially due to his ignorance and his unwavering belief that the people had unconditional adoration for their tsar. The growing problem of food shortages culminated in spontaneous revolts in 1917. His dogmatic belief in his divine right to rule led to a policy of systematic repression of dissidents, liberals and minorities, which further infuriated the populace. The tsar also dealt his foreign relations inadequately, and the losses during the Russo-Japanese War and WWI were blamed on his misguided leadership. He disregarded his ministers' advice, which alienated the aristocracy and led to poor decision making. His choice to go to the front during WWI to lead the army and grant temporary power to his wife and Rasputin was a horrible decision that completely discredited him in the eyes of the upper class. By the end of his reign, he had provoked fury among the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie and the lower classes.

Source: The Fall of the Romanovs by Khrustalev and Steinberg

The above answer is a correct one, however, the main reason in that point of time was the tsar's entry into WW1. How long his regime would have lasted if he never entered the war is open to speculation.

Answer 2

To some extent we can blame Nicholas II:

- Autocracy rule- not wanting to share power/give power to the Russian People

- Bloody Sunday (his guards) but no exact telling to shoot but he trained them (debated)

- War With Japan- Increased poverty and taxes of the peasants

To some extent we cannot blame Nicholas II:

- Poor land quality (5% good farming quALITY)- LED TO THOUSANDS OF PEASANTS DYING

- Economic Problems- Sergei Witte

there are more...

hope this helped :) x