BİR SÜREÇ İKİ PERSPEKTİF: LONDRA KONFERANSINI ANADOLU’DA YENİ GÜN VE ALEMDAR’IN SAYFALARINDAN KARŞILAŞTIRMALI OKUMAK

Abstract

The “Anadolu’da Yeni Gün” (A New Day in Anatolia) byYunus Nadi has been one of the leading representatives of the independence struggle. The “Alemdar”, which was associated with Refi’ Cevad, was in favor of the Istanbul Government. The London Conference (February 21-March 12, 1921), which was convened after the First Battle of İnönü, was followed by these two newspapers with different identities, as is generally the case. While warning as “Don’t Forget Sevres!” in the Anadolu’da Yeni Gün, it was emphasized that the desired peace could not be achieved without expelling the Greeks. It was pointed out that there was no search for a solution in London and that the policies of the Allied power were tried to be realized, and the publications of the Anadolu’da Yeni Gün have been confirming this. In addition, the London and Moscow negotiations took place side by side in the newspaper. In Alemdar, on the other hand, the idea of “Let’s hope for the London Conference” was defended. Refi’ Cevad, who wrote that an Istanbul-Anatolian reconciliation was not possible, asserted that Anatolian discourses could reach Europe through Istanbul. The Alemdar had followed the influence of the Ankara delegation with its activities in Europe. The opening of the London Conference was on the headline in Alemdar as “The most important day of our destiny”, and the attitudes of the participants were monitored/recorded during the conference. Considering the historical developments, consistent and high level of accuracy evaluations are observed in the Anadolu’da Yeni Gün, from the beginning of the process. Focusing on Istanbul-Ankara contacts at the first stage, Alemdar’s editorial policy/evaluations for the conference with high expectations from the Istanbul Government and the Entente States would not be validated in the future. This study aims to present a comparative analysis by considering the approaches of two newspapers with different founders and identities to the London Conference, their way of conveying and evaluating, their common points as well as their different aspects.