Kermal Ataturk Was A Bolshevik Sympathizer

[kılıç_mehmet]

He certainly wasn't sympathetic to the Soviets, yet he knew that with the recent change of power, he knew what needed to be done. Yet even when dealing with the Soviets, we have never abandoned our honor-we have not accepted anything that might have put us under debt later. We paid for the weapons we received from the union with thousands of bags of cereal that we needed to fuel the war effort, but without guns, a soldier with a full belly is not a soldier at all.
After the whole war, Bashbugh Atatürk ousted the communists from the cabinet. The Soviets knew that he was no communist, and he had been harboring Turkish nationalists that have had escaped from Russia, but they too were relatively alone in the world, so they were keen on establishing relations with whom they saw as those who fought against "imperialists".
Our leader was an enemy of Communism, and a Nationalist(which is pretty much the opposite of "communist"). No matter how you try to stain his name, he was a true Statesman who knew how to use his connections to his advantage.

He wasn't trying to implement communism in Turkey, but he was none the less a supporter of Lenin & Bolshevik sympathizer.

Supporter he was, as the existence of a communist, rootless Russian empire was preferrable to the existence of an Orthodox Russian Empire, which provided the main external support for the Orthodox Christians in what was left of the Ottoman empire. Not to mention that the Allies of WWI just lost a one of their allies with the coming of the Communist revolution.

He also was quite sure that the Bolsheviks would collapse some day eventually.
So calling him a supporter could be ruled out as true, but a sympathizer, he was not.

As to ataturk, a great leader needs to have something at least average to lead. One who manage to count pipsqueak would-be jingoistic racists like kılıç_mehmet and other similar low brow Anatolian yokels, yahoos and riffraffs amongst his admirers could never qualify.

It really matters little what you think of him or us. You're still the colony of another major power, while we're still the inheritors of the dozens of Empires we have founded throughout Eurasia. And Atatürk himself was a member of such a great people, and he showed it on both the battlefield and on the table.

Iit is a mark of a great leader that he achieved what he did despite Turkey being full of pipsqueak would-be jingoistic racists like kılıç_mehmet and other similar low brow Anatolian yokels, yahoos and riffraffs

Leading great peoples is simple. Modernising early 20th century Turkey was a different matter entirely.

We are a great people. We have held the Ottoman empire together for 600 years with our blood and sweat, whereas the Americans sat in their continent raping primitive indians to death, stealing their land and resources. The British weren't really any different. Even with all the years of cultural, economical and social dominance in Ireland, they lost it. They lost India against Ghandi, who didn't even use any weapons or violence.
So who is the greater people?
Us, who have endured attacks from three different directions (not to mention the internal strife) and sustained an empire for 600 years, or those who sat in idly in their Islands reaping the benefits of their colonies?

And Atatürk did not do this alone. He had the support of a great nation of warriors behind him. Surely, the state of early 20th century Turkey is nothing more than a testimony to our greatness. Even with its humble beginnings, it was still the sole inheritor of the Ottoman empire, and its people were those who have founded and expanded the empire, and even its corpse was enough to foil the plan of the Allies and defeat their proxies(the Greeks and the Armenians).
Atatürk himself said as such: "Do not think of me as someone extraordinary. If there is something extraordinary in my creation, it is because I was born a Turk."
He never gave the credit to himself, but always to his people. He was a servant to his people, not a master.