After President Ilham Aliyev stated in an interview with Al Arabiya that in 1920 the 11th Red Army of Russia occupied Azerbaijan, a heated debate broke out in the Russian media space. The Azerbaijani president was met with a wave of criticism: he was accused of “rewriting history,” “anti-Russian rhetoric,” and “denigrating the Soviet past.” Yet behind this emotional reaction lies a deeper question — the origins of Azerbaijani statehood and its continuity.
For decades, Soviet historiography promoted the thesis that it was the Bolsheviks who “created” Azerbaijani statehood. Today, this myth is resurfacing in the rhetoric of some Russian politicians and experts. But the facts tell a different story: the Azerbaijan Soviet Republic emerged on the foundations of the already existing Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR), inheriting its territorial, institutional, and political framework. Proclaimed on May 28, 1918, the ADR was the first parliamentary republic in the Muslim East and possessed all internationally recognized attributes of statehood: a parliament, a government, an army, a currency, and diplomatic missions.
After its fall on April 28, 1920, the Bolsheviks announced the establishment of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic, but it was built on the same geographical basis: its borders were defined according to the maps and administrative divisions of the ADR, Baku remained the capital, and key regions such as Karabakh and Nakhchivan were discussed precisely in the context of their belonging to the Azerbaijani state. Thus, the claim that Soviet power “created” the territorial boundaries of Azerbaijan does not correspond to reality.
An important element of continuity was the name itself: “Azerbaijan Republic” was invented by the Musavatists in 1918; the Bolsheviks merely modified it, turning it into the “Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic.” Moreover, in their 1920 declarations, the Bolsheviks emphasized that they were not creating a new state but merely changing the political order — replacing bourgeois power with Soviet rule. State institutions were preserved as well: ADR ministries were renamed people’s commissariats but in practice continued performing the same functions. This continuity clearly shows that the administrative system was not created anew but only repainted in Soviet terminology. In this context, President Aliyev’s statement should be understood as follows: in April 1920 Azerbaijan still had a parliament, a government, and international ties, but under direct military pressure from the 11th Red Army, it was forced to hand over power to the Bolsheviks.
This was not a voluntary transformation but a classic military intervention, legitimized afterward by political declarations. Therefore, the term “occupation” in this case reflects reality: independence was interrupted by external interference. The criticism directed at Aliyev in Russia indicates that the Soviet myth of “granted statehood” continues to exist. For Russia, acknowledging the fact of the 1920 occupation would mean abandoning the narrative of the Bolsheviks’ “constructive mission.” For Azerbaijan, however, affirming the continuity between the ADR and the Azerbaijan SSR is a matter of historical justice and national identity.
The history of Azerbaijan in the early 20th century clearly shows that the country’s statehood was not a product of Soviet power. The Azerbaijan SSR emerged on the basis of the ADR, inheriting its territorial borders, capital, name, and institutional system. The Bolsheviks merely replaced the political model, substituting parliamentary democracy with the Soviet system. That is why President Ilham Aliyev’s words — that in 1920 Azerbaijan was occupied by the Red Army — are not a provocation but an accurate characterization of historical reality: Soviet power did not grant Azerbaijan statehood, it interrupted its natural development.
Ilgar Velizade
