ATOM BOMBASININ TÜRK BASININDA TEMSİLİ (1945-1946)

Öz

Atom bombasının 2.Dünya savaşında kullanılması, nükleer silahlara yönelik dünya kamuoyunun tutumunda bir dönüşümün başlangıcı olmuştur. Düzenlenen protestolar, kurulan organizasyonlar, basında çıkan yazılarla farkındalık oluşmuş, nükleer silahlara karşı duyulan korku ve endişe, siyasal karar alıcılar üzerindeki baskıyı artırmıştır. Makalede, bu dönüşümün başlangıcında, Türkiye’deki atom bombası imgesi, dönemin Cumhuriyet gazetesinden takip edilmiştir. Araştırma sorusu, “Atom bombasının kullanılışı o dönemde Türk basınında nasıl değerlendirilmiştir?” şeklindedir. Ağustos 1945’ten itibaren 16 ay boyunca gazetede çıkan atom bombasıyla ilgili haberler içerik analizi yöntemiyle incelenmiştir. İnceleme neticesinde Cumhuriyet gazetesinin dengeli bir dil kullandığı, halkı korkutmaktan kaçındığı, ancak atom bombasının zararlarını da topluma aktardığı tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Atom bombası
• Nükleer
• 2.Dünya Savaşı
• Hiroşima
• Cumhuriyet.

REPRESENTATION OF ATOMIC BOMB IN TURKISH PRESS (1945-1946)

Öz

Use of the atomic bomb in the World War II was the beginning of a transformation in the world public opinion towards nuclear weapons. Frequent protests, activities of non-governmental organisations and news in the press caused a kind of consciousness and in turn fear and anxiety in the world public about nuclear weapons. Increase in the fear and anxiety of people started to transform the politics. In this article, the image of atomic bomb in Turkey during this early transformation period was examined through Cumhuriyet newspaper between 6 August 1945-31 December 1946 by content analysis method. The research question is "How was the use of the atomic bomb evaluated in the Turkish press at that time?". As a result of this study, it is seen that Cumhuriyet newspaper used a balanced language and avoided intimidating the public. Even though the newspaper suceeded to give information about the negative effects of the bomb, it could not have a leading role in giving rise to a movement against nuclear weapons.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Atomic bomb
• Cumhuriyet
• Hiroshima
• Nuclear

Kaynakça

1. Abazlıoğlu, U. (2019). Nükleer Silahsızlanmanın Tarihsel Gelişimi ve Nükleer Silahsızlanmayla İlgili Uluslararası Anlaşmaların Önemi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Atılım Üniversitesi Sosyal bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
2. Aubrey, C. (1982). Nukespeak: The Media and the Bomb. London: Comedia Publishing Group.
3. Askew, J. and Gray, R. (2017). The science of Little Boy: Investigating the Chemistry Behind the First Use of A Nuclear Weapon in Warfare. The Science Teacher. 84, 45-51.
4. Bass, A. (2009). Those about Him Remained Silent: The Battle Over W.E.B. Du Bois. Minneapolis: Minnesota Press.
5. Bernstein, Barton J. (1998).Truman and the ABomb: Targeting Noncombatants, Using the Bomb, and His Defending the ‘Decision’. Journal of Military History, 62 (3), 547-570.
6. Bernal, J.D. (1958). World Without War. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
7. Bingham, A. (2012). The monster'? The British popular press and nuclear culture, 1945–early 1960s. The British Journal for the History of Science, 45 (4), 609-624.
8. Björkdahl, A. (2002). Norms in International Relations: Some Conceptual and Methodological Reèections. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 15 (1), 9-23.

9. Boyer, P. (1985). By the Bomb's Early Light: American Thought and Culture at the Dawn of the Atomic Age. New York: Pantheon Book.
10. Bull, H. (1995). The Theory of International Politics 1919–1969. International Theory: Critical Investigations, J. Den Derian (ed.). London: MacMillan, 181–211.
11. Burkett, J. (2012). The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and changing attitudes towards the Earth in the nuclear age. The British Journal for the History of Science, 45 (4), 625-639.
12. Campbell, A. (2003). Participatory Reactions to Policy Threats: Senior Citizens and the Defense of Social Security and Medicare. Political Behavior, 25 (1), 29–49.
13. Crawford, N. C. (2000). The Passion of World Politics: Propositions on Emotion and Emotional Relationships. International Security, 1, 116-156.
14. Çelik, A. (2018). İkinci Dünya Savaşı’nda Hükümet-Basın İlişkileri ve Gazeteci Mebuslar. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 28 (2), 315-331.
15. Çetin, H. (2012). Korku Siyaseti ve Siyaset Korkusu. İstanbul: İletişim Yayıncılık.
16. Deringil, S. (1994). Denge Oyunu. İtanbul: Türk Tarih Vakfı.
17. Dillard, J. P., Plotnick, C. A., Godbold, L. C., Freimuth, V. S., and Edgar, T. (1996). The multiple affective outcomes of AIDS PSAs: Fear appeals do more than scare people. Communication Research, 23, 44 –72.
18. Divine, R. (1978). Blowing on the Wind : The Nuclear Test Ban Debate , 1954-1960 . New York: Oxford University Press.
19. Doğan, H. (2014). Cumhuriyet Gazetesi'ne göre II .Dünya Savaşı döneminde Almanya (1939-1945). Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Konya.
20. Doyle, M. W. (1997). Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism. New York: Norton.
21. Ezer, F . (2020). Müttefik Devletlerin Türkiye'yi II. Dünya Savaşına Dahil Etme Girişimleri ve İnönü Churchill Görüşmesi. Belgi Dergisi, 20 (2), 2595-2611.
22. Fierke, K.M. (2013). Political Self-Sacrifice: Agency, Body and Emotion in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Finnemore, M.and Sikkink, K. (1998). International Norm Dynamics and Political Change International Organization, International Organization at Fifty: Exploration and Contestation in the Study of World Politics, International Organisation, 52 (4), 887-917.
24. Gavin, J. M (1958). War and Peace in the Space Age. New York: Harper and Brothers.
25. Giugni, M. (2004). Social Protest and Policy Change: Ecology, Antinuclear, and Peace Movements in Comparative Perspective. Rowman and Littlefield.
26. Güvenir, M. (1991). 2. Dünya Savaşı’nda Türk Basını. İstanbul:Gazeteciler Cemiyeti Yayınları.
27. Hall, Todd H. (2015). Emotional Diplomacy: Official Emotion on the World Stage. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
28. Hovland, C.I., Janis I.L., and Kelley H.H. (1953). Communication and Persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press.
29. İrvan, S. (2001). Gündem Belirleme Yaklaşımının Genel Bir Değerlendirmesi. Gazi İletişim Dergisi, 9, 69-107.
30. James, P. (1995). Structural Realism and the Causes of War. Mershon International Studies Review, 39 (2), 181-208.
31. Jervis, R. (1976). Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
32. Katz, M. S. (1986). Ban the Bomb: A History of Sane, the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, 1957–1985 . New York: Greenwood.
33. Kozok, F. (2007). 1938-1946 yılları arası Cumhuriyet Gazetesi'nin genel yayın politikası (1938-1946). Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
34. Maddux, J. E. ve Rogers, R. W. (1983). Protection motivation and selfefficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 469 – 479.
35. McCrea, Frances B. and Gerald E. Markle (1989). Minutes to Midnight: Nuclear Weapons Protest in America. Newbury Park, California: Sage.
36. Miller, J. M., and Jon A. Krosnick (2004). Threat as a Motivator of Political Activism: A Field Experiment. Political Psychology. 25 (4), 507–23.
37. Mueller, J. E. (1973). War, Presidents, and Public Opinion. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
38. Müller, H. (2018). The Future of the Non-proliferation Treaty, In book: International Cooperation for Enhancing Nuclear Safety, Security. Safeguards and Non-proliferation–60 Years of IAEA and EURATOM, 139-147.
39. Perloff, R. M. (1993). The Dynamics of Persuasion. New Jersey: Erlbaum.
40. Ramirez, F. O. (1997). Yasemin Soysal and Suzanne Shanahan, The Changing Logic of Political Citizenship: Cross-National Acquisition of Women's Suffrage Rights, 1890 to 1990. American Sociological Review, 62 (5), 735-745.
41. Rosenberg, D. A. (1983). The Origins of Overkill: Nuclear Weapons and American Strategy, 1945–1960. International Security, 7 (4), 3–71.
42. Seymour-Ure, C. (1996). The British Press and Broadcasting since 1945. Oxford: Blackwell.
43. Stein, A. and Udum, Ş. (2012). A Complicated Decision: Why Turkey Is Not Likely To Follow in Iran’s Nuclear Footsteps. Turkish Policy Quarterly, 11 (2), 141-149.
44. Tannenwald, N. (2005). Stigmatising the Bomb. International Security, 29:4, 1-45.
45. Tannenbaum, M. B., J.Hepler , R. S. Zimmerman , L. Saul and S. Jacobs , Kristina Wilson and D. Albarracín (2015). Appealing to Fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories , Psychological Bulletin, 141 (6), 1178 –1204.
46. Tekinalp, Ş. ve Uzun, R.(2004). İletişim Araştırmaları ve Kuramları. İstanbul: Derin Yayınları
47. Tomonage, M. (2019). The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: A Summary of the Human Consequences, 1945-2018, and Lessons for Homo sapiens to End the Nuclear Weapon Age, Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, 2(2), 490-518.
48. Topuz H. (2003). Türk Basın Tarihi. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.
49. Ünalp, F . (2020). İkinci Dünya Savaşında Türkiye’nin Savaş Dışı Kalma Politikaları ve Sonuçları. Karadeniz Uluslararası Bilimsel Dergi 1 (45) , 201-221.
50. Verba, S. (1965). “Comparative Political Culture”. Political Culture and Political Development, (Ed.) Pye, Lucian W. ve Sidney Verba içinde, New Jersey: Ğrinston University Press, 512-560.
51. Wells, A. S. (2014). Historical Dictionary of World War II: The War against Germany and Italy. Rowman & Littlefield Publishing.
52. Wittner, L. S. (1997). Resisting the Bomb: A History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement, 1954–1970. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
53. Valentino, N, Brader, T., Groenendyk, E., Gregorowicz, K. and Hutchings, V. (2011). Election Night’s Alright for Fighting: The Role of Emotions in Political Participation. The Journal of Politics , 73 (1), 156-170.
54. Yavuz, U . (2016). II. Dünya Savaşı’nın Cumhuriyet ve Tan Gazetelerinde Temsili . Karadeniz Teknik