It is funny to equate Atatürk with Heydar Aliyev, who took over the country at that time as a manifestation of the coup. Atatürk is the one who founded and saved this homeland by fighting. Who are the Aliyevs?
It is a great misfortune for Azerbaijan that a person like Ebulfez Elchibey, who pursued Turkism, was overthrown by a coup.
Really? Am I equating Ataturk with Aliyev? Is that only what you understood from what I wrote?
When Atatürk was establishing this republic, he developed harsh countermeasures against the many rebellion, organisations defending mandate, mullahism, invasion threats etc. Meanwile He intimidated those who betrayed the homeland. He also developed co-operation with the Soviets and showed a balanced attitude towards the West. Atatürk was not a dictator, as the western media has always written and still does not stop writing. He did what was necessary against the conditions around him and the insidious plans against his country.
This is the part I am referring to, I wrote this in more detail in the other thread against Afif who provoked me. Apart from that, I am not making a comparison either in terms of personality or in terms of his previous life and struggle. I have very detailed posts explaining my thoughts with Atatürk, if you had read one of them, you would not fall into this misunderstanding.
What I wrote is clear. Azerbaijan has been under occupation for 30 years, and after breaking away from the Soviet Union, it has to maintain a very careful balance against Russia's influence, and there is a threat to the south that completely denies its national existence and history, and even denies the name of the country. A rebellion has been organised in a part of the country's territory and occupied by a neighbouring state with Russian support. Inside, the cells of the Mullahs and the Armenian-supported 5th column are carrying out their activities. You are not the kind of people who believe that a president who is a butterfly of love will fight against these, I do not believe it. I know why you saying that, actually.
Or, you are not even aware of the seriousness of these conditions. And you do not care. Today, even in Azerbaijan, where many people have left behind old blood feuds and put the homeland first, your concern is whether Azerbaijan is a dictatorship or not... A higher model of this mentality, two years ago, argued that the liberation war of Azerbaijan was fought by Deashli terrorists and advocated a more balanced policy between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Elçibey was a great man of the cause who won the hearts of all nationalists. And the shame of the counter-coup against him in Azerbaijan belongs to Turkiye politics rather than the Turks living in Azerbaijan. First we destroyed it, then we practised romantic nationalism. I am aware of this historical background as much as you are, maybe better or less, to drag the example I gave about Aliyev here, to squeeze it here, is to distort what I want to explain. When Azerbaijan reaches normal conditions, then you can compare it with western democracy. Those who bring this to the forefront today are divided into two groups, the first group has no representatives here. The second group, which has a representative here, mostly ignore the circumstances and imposed conditions, only argue that why this process was carried out with Aliyev. All are a discussion of democracy detached from the historical context and isolated from the external factors that created the current situation. Maybe I'll support you now that the war is over, but not today.
the same things were said about elections and politics in the US. I think in France, too, it was said that Russia was interfering in their internal politics.
