한국의 러일전쟁연구와 역사교육의 과제 : 개전원인을 보는 시각

金元洙(Kim Won Soo) 역사교육연구회 2004 역사교육 Vol.90 No.-

The main purposes of this atic1e are twofold. First is to account for a tendency of the Russo-Japanese War Studies in Korea. Second is to refute a popular view of high school textbook of korean history that the Russo-Japanese rivalry over Manchuria is the main cause of the Russo-Japanese War. It is to prove that the Russo-Japanese rivalry over Korea triggered the Russo-Japanese War. For this, the Russo-Japanese rivalry over Korea revealed by the Kyungui railway concession, the Yongampo incident and the opening of Uiju was thoroughly re-examined. Since 1960, the Russo-Japanese war Studies in Korea have steadly obtained productive results : The Japanese seizure of Korea, volunteer movement, colonization and decolonization of korea. But there have been some problems in history textbooks and history education related to the War. These are related to the historical viewpoint and description that the Russo-Japanese rivalry over Manchuria is the main cause of the Russo-Japanese War. This is the primary problem to be solved. When the Russo-Japanese rivalry over Manchuria came to a standstill in 1903(owing to Russia"s refusal of military withdrawal and the foreign Powers" co-operative policy against Russia), Korea became the main arena of Russo-Japanese rivalry. This is the reason why the Russo-Japanese rivalry over Korea as well as over Manchuria must be regarded as one of the main causes of the Russo-Japanese War. Who, between Japan and Russia, is more responsible for the Russo-Japanese War? The answer has to be Japan. This is simply because Russia"s various actions were, as a matter of fact, counter-measures against the Japanese aggressive policy toward Korea. In other words, Russia"s attempt to lease Yongampo and advance into Uiju by utilizing the Yalu concession resulted from Japanese prior attempt to acquire the Kyungui railway concession. Hence a common opinion which regards Bezobrazov"s reckless aggressive policy toward Asia as the fuse of the Russo-Japanese War must be revised. The Yongampo incident, which was composed of Russia"s attempt to lease Yongampo and advance into Uiju was not just an episode in the Russo-Japanese rivalry. On the contrary, in the sense that it became the fuse of the Russo-Japanese War and that Japan accelerated her sinister plan(i.e. occupation of Korea by force) by making it as a turning point, the Yongampo incident was "the Moroccan Crisis in the East-North Asia". These new interpretation of the Russo-Japanese War will be a great help in changing the existing Russo-Japanese War Studies and History Education in Korea as well as Japan and Russia.

글로벌히스토리와 러일전쟁연구의 지평 확대 -압록강위기와의 재접속-

김원수 한국세계문화사학회 2009 세계 역사와 문화 연구 Vol.0 No.21

Korean problem were in reality as much the tinderboxes from which the Russo-Japanese War ignited as the rivalry over Manchuria. Korean problem has originated with the Seoul-Ŭiju(Kyŏngŭi) Railway and the Yalu timber concessions. And It eventually led to the Russo- Japanese rivalry happened in the Korean bank of the Yalu River between February, 1903 and February, 1904. It has been Known as the terms "Yalu crisis", " the Yalu Issue" and “The Yongampo Incident” in the Russo-Japanese War Studies, did not occur in isolation. It has various accidents involved; the Japanese acquisition of the Seoul-Ŭiju Railway concession right, the exploitation of the Yalu timber concession, Russia’s lease of Yongampo, The opening of Ŭiju and Yongampo etc. And It is a well- known fact that this has been widely regarded by scholars as the immediate cause of war. Nevertheless, a century later there continues to be few debates either domestically or internationally over which party should bear responsible for the war and the war’s origins, at least as far as it pertains to Korea. It would be wrong way to go history involved its interpretation of the origins and characteristics of the Russo-Japanese War. In this study, I try to reconsider the immediate cause of war based on the Global historical standpoint. I especially refocus on the Yalu Crisis in the Korean peninsula in 1903. These include the competition for the concession rights for the construction of the Seoul-Ŭiju Railway; the lease of Yongampo; and the opening of Ŭiju and Yongampo in the Yalu frontier. the rivalry which emerged over control of Yalu frontier of the Korean peninsula does not represent a simple episode which originated between the conflict between Russia and Japan. The Yalu Crisis led directly to the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War, and eventually resulted in providing Japan with the opportunity not only to annex Korea but also penetrate Manchuria, means that they should be perceived as important historical incidents on a scale similar to the Moroccan Crisis which eventually resulted in the advent of World War I. Moreover, Yalu Crisis can be perceived as the direct precursors of the eventual crisis which engulfed East Asia. This is the reason why the ‘Korean problem’was important enough to result in the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War, which has been referred to as a mini-World War, and why the Yalu Crisis which emerged on the Korean peninsula 100 years ago should be reanalyzed not only at the Korean history level but at the level of Global history. As mentioned above, I am of the mindset that the limitations of the arguments put forward by previous Japaneseand Russian researchers with regards to the cause of the war can be overcome when further emphasis is placed on the Korean problem, especially the Yalu Issues. The reason why is that the Yalu Crisis holds the Key to the solution of the question. In order to do so, Studies on the Russo-JapaneseWar should be carried out from diverse standpoints that include Manchuria and the Korean peninsula, but also incorporate the global policies which emerged during the early period of the 20th century. This kind of approach is needed to develop a comprehensive understanding of the characteristics of the Russo-Japanese War. To achieve this, first of all, more efforts should be put into uncovering the actual nature of the Yalu crisis which unfolded on the Korean peninsula during the period surrounding the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War.

日本 防衛省 소장 陸軍 ‘日露戰役’ 문서군의 한국사적 의의

조건 한국민족운동사학회 2018 한국민족운동사연구 Vol.0 No.96

The Meaning of the Materials Related to Korea among the Documents Related to ‘The Russo-Japanese War’ Possessed by the Defense Ministry of Japan. Cho, Gun At The National Institute for Defense Studies(NIDS; 防衛硏究所) of the Ministry of Defense of Japan, many literatures related to the Russo-Japanese War have been possessed. Among these, in the Rikugunsho Dainikki(陸軍省大日記; the Document Files of the Army Ministry) and in the General Historical Records of the Army, the document group with the title 'The Russo-Japanese War(日露戰役)' exists. Regarding the Rikugunsho Dainikki, the things that had been directly produced or tied up by the Imperial Japanese Army before losing the war are the main ones. And, regarding the General Historical Records of the Army, the Jinchu Nisshi(陣中日誌) of the military unit of the site, the historical materials, the maps, the written reports written by the individuals, the official papers, etc. are the main ones. ‘The Russo-Japanese War’ Because, in the document group, the not-small number of the materials related to Korea have been contained, it catches the attention. These materials have been attesting well the facts that ‘the Russo-Japanese War’ had not been a war between only the two countries of Russia and Japan at all and, rather, that the independence and the right to survive of Korea are directly related. Especially, in 'The Detailed Work Report of the Military Section of the Military Affairs Bureau(軍務局 軍事課 業務詳報)', within the document group of the Imperial Japanese Army's Russo-Japanese War, the contents regarding the activities during the war, from the invasion of the Korean Peninsula by the Japanese military before and after the beginning of the war, have been recorded specifically. After the end of the Russo-Japanese War, Japan published 'The Official History of the War(公式戰史)'. Although The Official History of the War is a thing that had been officially produced by the Japanese government and military, there are the things that had been compiled secretly according to the contents. A point that should be paid attention to is the fact that there exist the cases in which the contents of 'The Official History of the War' are described differently from the actual war situation. In this way, the situation of the war which Japan had intended to exaggerate or hide can be confirmed through the document group of 'The Russo-Japanese War', which has been possessed by the NIDS. To sum up, in the document group of 'The Russo-Japanese War', the many materials with which the real situation of the Russo-Japanese War related to Korea can be even more specifically understood are included. These are the materials that make it clear that the Russo-Japanese War had been the process of the armed forces invasion and occupation for the colonial rule of the Korean Peninsula by the Japanese Imperialism. It is judged that, in the future, through these materials, the description of the history of the Russo-Japanese War in the Korean history will become possible. 일본 방위성 소장 육군 ‘일로전역’ 문서군의 한국사적 의의 조 건 일본 방위성 방위연구소에는 러일전쟁과 관련된 문헌들이 다수 소장되어 있다. 이중 육군성대일기와 육군일반사료에는 ‘일로전역’이라는 제목의 문서군이 존재한다. 육군성대일기는 패전 이전 일본 육군성이 직접 생산하거나 묶은 것이, 육군일반사료는 현지 부대의 진중일지나 역사자료 및 지도, 개인이 작성한 보고서나 문건 등이 주류를 이룬다. 육군성대일기 ‘일로전역’ 문서군 중에는 한국과 관련한 자료가 적지 않게 수록되어 있어 주목된다. 이들 자료는 러일전쟁이 결코 러시아와 일본 양국만의 전쟁이 아니라 한국의 자주권과 생존권이 직결된 것이었다는 사실을 잘 말해주고 있다. 특히 ‘육군성 일로전역’ 문서군 내 군무국 군사과의 『전역업무상보』에는 개전 전후 일본군의 한반도 침략부터 전쟁 중 활동에 관한 내용이 구체적으로 기록되었다. 『전역업무상보』는 1905년 12월 육군성이 예하 부서에 전시 활동 사항을 보고토록 지시한 결과물로서 개전 전야부터 종전 직후까지의 군사행정 사항이 상세히 기술되어 있다. 특히 군무국 군사과의 『전역업무상보』에는 러일전쟁 개전 당신 한반도를 무단으로 침입했던 선견징발대와 임시파견대의 군사 행동이 적나라하게 드러나 있어 눈길을 끈다. 일본은 러일전쟁 종료 이후 ‘공식전사’를 발간하였다. ‘공식전사’는 일본 정부와 군이 공식적으로 생산한 것이지만 내용에 따라 비밀리에 편찬한 것도 있다. 주목할 점은 이들 ‘공식전사’의 내용이 실제 전쟁 상황과 달리 기술되는 경우가 존재한다는 사실이다. 이렇듯 일본이 과장하거나 축소하고자 했던 전황은 방위연구소가 소장하고 있는 ‘일로전역’ 문서군을 통해 확인할 수 있다. 요컨대 ‘일로전역’ 문서군은 한국과 관련된 러일전쟁의 실상을 더욱 구체적으로 파악할 수 있는 자료가 다수 포함되어 있다. 이들은 러일전쟁이 일본 제국주의의 한반도 식민 지배를 위한 무력적인 침략과 점령의 과정이었음을 분명히 하는 자료들이다. 앞으로 이들 자료를 통해 ‘한국사적 러일전쟁사’ 서술이 가능할 것으로 판단된다.

러일전쟁 전기(戰記), 시뮬레이션으로서의 전쟁문학 -『북해이담』에서「러일전쟁 미래기」까지-

김시덕 ( Kim Shiduck ) 동방비교연구회 (구 한국동방문학비교연구회) 2018 동방문학비교연구 Vol.8 No.-

각각의 시대는 각각 고유한 “대외전쟁 전기”를 탄생시킨다. “대외전쟁 전기”란 자국과 외국 간의 전쟁을 주제로 한 전쟁문학을 뜻한다. 전세계의 여러 나라 가운데 일본은 대외전쟁을 경험한 횟수가 비교적 적다. 그렇다보니 가끔씩 겪게 되는 대외전쟁의 경험은 강렬히 인상지워져서 수많은 대외전쟁 전기가 탄생하는 바탕이 된다. 그 가운데, 에도 시대와 메이지 시대에 걸쳐 있는 19세기라는 시기를 상징하는 대외전쟁 전기가, 일본과 러시아의 충돌을 테마로 하는 러일전쟁 전기다. 여기서 말하는 일본과 러시아의 충돌이란 1904-05년의 러일전쟁은 물론, 1806-07년에 러시아 해군이 사할린과 남부 쿠릴열도의 아이누인·일본인을 습격한 흐보스토프 사건, 그리고 1861년에 러시아 군함이 쓰시마를 점령한 사건 등도 포함한다. 러일전쟁 전기에는 그 이전에 형성된 대외전쟁 전기에는 보이지 않는 특징이 있다. 언젠가 발발할 러일전쟁의 전개를 예측하고, 그 미래전쟁의 구체적인 양상을 시뮬레이션하는 전기가 탄생했다는 것이다. 1771년 모리츠 베뇨브스키의 일본 방문과 네덜란드를 경유하여 전달된 세계정세 및 군사정보를 바탕으로 탄생한『해국병담』은 1806-07년의 흐보스토프 사건을 예견했고, 흐보스토프 사건에 촉발되어 1808년에 탄생한『북해이담』은 멀리 1904-05년 러일전쟁과 1918-25년의 간섭전쟁을 예견했다. 그리고 멀리『북해이담』과 맞닿아 있으며 러일전쟁을 전후하여 탄생한 “러일전쟁 미래기”와 “미일전쟁 미래기”는 러일전쟁과 간섭전쟁, 그리고 태평양전쟁을 예견했다. 그리고, 이러한 러일전쟁 전기의 전통은 현대에도 살아있다. Every age has its characteristic military literature on international wars. Japan has experienced international wars less than any other countries in the world. The rare experience on international war in Japan has attracted many Japanese. It is the reason why so many military literature Japanese have written and printed when a war have once broken out. Among these military literature, works on Russo-Japanese Wars written and printed between Edo period and Meiji period represent 19th century. Russo-Japanese Wars mean Russo-Japanese War in 1904-05, Khvostov incident in 1806-07 that russian navy attacked Ainu people and Japanese in Sakhalin island and Kuril islands, and Tsushima incident that Russian army occupied Tushima island in 1861. The originality of literature on Russo-Japanese Wars is that these works have predicted future Russo-Japanese wars and simulated how it would develop. Kaikoku Heidan written and printed by Hayashi Shihei in 1786-1791, triggered by Móric Benyovszky's visit to Japan in 1771 and informations on the world offered from Dutchmen in Dejima, predicted Khvostov incident in 1806-07. Hokkai Idan written in 1808 stirred by Kaikoku Heidan and Khvostov incident predicted remote Russo-Japanese War in 1904-05 and Siberian intervention in the Russian Civil War by Japanese army in 1918-25. And Nichiro Senso Miraiki and Nichibei Senso Miraiki printed before Russo-Japanese War in 1904-05 are linked to Hokkai Idan and predicted Siberian Intervention and The Pacific War. And the tradition of works on Russo-Japanese Wars is still alive in the modern period Japan.

러일전쟁의 역사들 다시읽기: 변경/경계와의 접속

김원수 한국역사교육학회 2014 역사교육연구 Vol.- No.19

In this study, I was to reconsider historical discourses of the Russo-Japanese war in the context of global/transnational history. For this purpose, I tried at first to investigate possible link between the Russo-Japanese war and the Boundary problem. Its connection is very important to redefine the Russo-Japanese War in the global age. Therefore I especially refocused on the international affairs in the Northeastern Asia led to the war. In order to do so, first of all, more efforts should be put into uncovering the actual nature of the illegal and unjustified military activities which unfolded on the territory of the Northeast Asia include Korea, Manchuria, Sakhalin, Dokdo and Gando during the period of the Russo-Japanese War. Reinterpreting the Russo-Japanese war from new perspective is based on the concept of delocalization, and focused on the revelation of violence and illegality taken by Japanese invasion, It was responsible for historians to expose that illegal violence and military invasion of japan and it has been committed with the connivance of the powers. There are cases in the japanese military preoccupation of korea peninsular before war, The planned occupation of Japan on the Dokdo during the war, and on Sakhalin in the Portsmouth peace conference, and Gando after the War. Such works can be interpreted from the extended time concept from the Sino-Japanese War to the World War I or further to the Korean War. By doing so, we can view an individual event in the context of long-term history. Any researcher interested in making the Russo-Japanese war history globalized and transnationalized should first know that our historical experiences of the war are closer to the time of the past as well as the present. In addition, he/she also needs to more focus on how to reinterpret the illegality of Japanese military activities controlled Northeastern Asia in the age of Imperialism. With these historical discourses already given, it would be important for a researcher to infer,compare, seek relationships, find patterns, and go beyond national history. That is the way that we can be free from our ethnocentric historical ideas and seek creative and reflexive alternative solutions to prospect a better future. 러일전쟁의 역사읽기에 있어서 한반도와 만주뿐만 아니라 전쟁을 계기로 교섭 주체가 바뀐 간도, 일본에 강제 편입된 독도, 그리고 국제적 관례에 불명예로운 할양의 전례를 만든 사할린 등과 역사적 연결고리를 만드는 작업은 중요하다. 그것은 1세기 전에 제국주의 시대의 러일전쟁과 오늘날의 역사분쟁 및 영토/변경문제를 상호 작동케하는 것으로서 러일전쟁의 현재적 유용성을 모색하는 하나의 방법일 수 있다. 또한 그것은 제국주의 시대의 러일전쟁을 글로벌 시대의 러일전쟁으로 역사화하는 것으로서 전쟁의 폭력성과 불법성을 밝히고 기억의 상흔을 진단하고 치유하는 일이기도 하다. 특히 제국주의 열강의 방조와 묵인 하에 한반도에서부터 침략국의 폭력이 시작되었음을 밝혀준다는 점에서 유용하다. 본고는 새로운 세계사의 차원에서 러일전쟁의 역사들에 대한다시읽기를 시도해 본 것이다. 우선 러일전쟁에 관한 기존의 역사화 방법과 과제를 재검토하고, 러일전쟁의 공간적 범주를 만주, 한반도, 간도, 독도 및 사할린에 까지 확산하여, 그 역사적 맥락을 찾아보았다. 이를 통해 오늘날 동북아시아에서 발발하고 있는 역사왜곡과 영토문제로 인한 위기와 긴장이 러일전쟁의 단초가 된 제국주의적 침략성과 불법성에서 발단하고 있으며, 그것이 한반도를 중심한 만주, 간도, 독도, 사할린 등의 변경/경계 변화와 역사적 연결고리가 있음을 확인해 보았다.

淸日戰爭(1894-1895) · 露日戰爭(1904-1905)과 朝鮮海洋에 대한 制海權

金容旭(Kim Yong-Wook) 부산대학교 법학연구소 2008 법학연구 Vol.49 No.1

본 "청일전쟁(1894-1895) · 노일전쟁(1904-1095)과 조선해양에 대한 제해권”는 양 전쟁 이후 조선해양을 둘러싼 제해권에 관하여 고찰한 논문이다. 제해권이란 전시 또는 비상사태 하 에서 자국이 필요로 하는 해역을 자유롭게 사용할 수 있을 뿐만 아니라, 적국이 자국을 공격하기 위한 목적으로 일정한 해역을 자유롭게 사용할 수 없도록 하는 능력, 또는 그 상태를 말한다. 개항 후 우리나라는 세계 각국과 항해 · 통상조약을 맺음으로서 영해라는 인식을 갖게 되었지만, 공해라는 개념과는 거리가 먼 것이어서 무지에 가까운 상태였다. 반면 구미열강들은 아시아와 한국에 관한 진출 · 진입 · 침략상황을 통해 제해권을 확보하였다. 특히 조선 해양의 열강들의 제해권 구역을 보면 주로 청일전쟁 전까지는 서해는 주로 영국 · 프랑스 · 미국 · 일본 · 청의 지배구역이라고 할 수 있겠고, 남해는 주로 일본 · 영국, 동해는 노국 · 일본이 그 주도적인 세력범위를 차지하였다. 한편 노일전쟁 당시의 한국 · 중국의 바다에 노일의 군함만 264척 총톤수 약74만 톤이 장악하고 있었다. 이렇듯 한국 · 중국의 바다에 대한 제해권은 역사의 전환점에서 중요한 역할을 하였다는 것을 알 수 있다. 청일전쟁과 노일전쟁을 이후 일제는 1945년 패전될 때까지 청일 · 노일전쟁에 관한 역사의 진실을 음폐해 왔다는 것을 지적하지 않을 수 없다. 특히 일본해군이 노일해전의 승리로 말미암아 일본의 제해권은 조선의 진해만을 교묘히 이용하여 러시아의 발틱 함대를 격파함으로서 동해 · 남해 · 황해 · 남중국해를 포함한 서태평양 해역의 제해권을 장악하게 되어 소위 조선 · 만주 · 중국 · 동남아 침략을 가능케 되었다. This thesis, "First Sino-Japanese War · Russo-Japanese War and Control of the Sea as to Joseon ocean" is thought on the control of the Sea about the Joseon ocean after the war. The control of the Sea refers to the authorization or its state not only to use freely the sea area where is required by the nation during the war or under the emergency statue but also to use freely some determined sea area for the purpose that the enemy country could attack the nation. After opening a port Korea had a recognition of being a closed sea as being commercially contracted with the worldwide, but the concept of empty sea was such that it was almost neglected. While the Euramerican World Powers have assured the control of the Sea through the advance, entrance, invasive statue into Asia and Korea. Specially, seen as in the controlling zone of the sea of the Euramerican World Powers of Joseon Sea was such that West Sea was controlled mainly by England, France, USA, Japan, Sino in mainly before the First Sino-Japanese War, while the South Sea was controlled by Japan, England; the East Sea was controlled by Japan, leading in their exclusive power. On the other hand, during the Russo-Japanese War the Chinese Sea was held sway over 2 million 6hundred and forty thousand warships approximately with 7 hundred and forty thousand tones in total of Russo-Japanese. In this point, the control of the Sea of the Korea and China's Sea was such that had the essential role in the turning point of history. After First Sino-Japanese War · Russo-Japanese War the fact of history of First Sino-Japanese War · Russo-Japanese War was not till that it was discovered in 1945 when Japan lost battle. Specially, due to the victory of Japan in the Russo-Japanese War it controlled only the Jin-Hae of Joseon to defeat the Baltisky Flot of Russia, leading Japan in the control of the Sea of West Atlantic Sea Areas, including South Chinese Sea, such as Joseon, Manju, Southeast Asia.

러일전쟁의 한 단면 : 그것은 어떻게 대한제국의 망국과 연관되었나?

신복룡(Shin, Bok-ryong) 한국정치외교사학회 2020 한국정치외교사논총 Vol.42 No.1

[1] The Russo-Japanese War was crash between two countries, Russia, who wanted to launch to Pacific Ocean, and Japan, who wanted to construct bridgehead on the land to swallow the Korean peninsula. Contrary to the Sino-Japanese War, that was a war of Japan, who wanted to escape from the hard time of early capitalism, Russo-Japanese War was a struggle between two countries to obtain the territorial ground on the Korean peninsula. So as to say, Russo-Japanese War was a reluctant and unprepared war for Russia against Japanese sunrising attack on the third land on Korea. [2] A half of the Russo-Japanese War was diplomatic struggle rather than of bayonets. That War was victory of Japanese diplomacy. While the Russia was timid under the feudalism, Japanese under the leadership of count Ito Hirobumi, leading Mutsu Munemitsu, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Kurino Shinichiro, Cosul General in Washington, Komura Jutaro, Viceminister of Foreign Afaires, and Minister of Justice concurrently Plenipotentiary Extraordinary Ambassador, Kaneko Kentaro, were superior to those of Russia in capacity and loyalty, Some of them were Member of “The Japan Club of Harvard University” under the auspices of Theodore Roosevelt. They were core group in Japanese diplomatic circle. [3] The reason of defeat of Russia army derived form the corruption in the Tsar Palace. The War was fighting between the corrupted Romanov Dynasty and Japanese patriotic militia. In spite of many pleads of “better life of the people,” corruption of royal family obstinately oppressed the mass as heritage, under which they lost their willingness morale to fight against Japan. [4] Russo-Japanese War was broken out in the innocent Korea for which was irresponsible. What is worse was that it influenced upon the ruin of Chosun Dynasty(Korea). Korea was really irresponsible for the War. No. At that time Korea was in charge of its own country. Whether was it neutrality or participation in the war on a certain side, Russia or Japan, but King Gojong hesitated and high officials counted their own interests. For them, the destiny of his country was not important. In this respect, the ruin of Korea on account of war between Japan and Russia was Korea’s diplomatic fault. Whether of participation on a side or neutrality was not important. What was really necessary was royal resolve and unified decision of Royal Court. But They were not capable neither wise nor patriotic. The first mistake was King’s escape to Russian Consulate after the Murder of Queen(1895). [5] Why do we have to reflect the past tragic war? That is because the historical stage of the Russo-Japanese war in 1890-1900s was nothing changed in spite of a century’s lag-time. In the long history, a century is not enough to change or improve history fundamentally, so we have to reconsider the historical lesson form the war, reflecting upon this age. After 120 years, Russo-Japanese war has not ended, but suspended. The War is present progressive up to now. [1] 러일전쟁은 태평양의 진출을 노리는 러시아와 대륙에 교두보를 마련하고자 한국을 필요로 하는 일본의 이해가 충돌함으로써 벌어진 전쟁이었다. 청일전쟁이 초기 자본주의의 모순을 해결하는 방법으로 영토의 점유를 중요하게 여겼던 일본의 전쟁인 것과는 달리, 러일전쟁은 영토를 목표로 삼는 제국주의의 충돌이 아니라 영향권을 확장하려는 전쟁이었다는 점에서 성격이 달랐다. 따라서 러일전쟁은 만주에서의 영향력을 행사하는 교두보로서의 한국을 침탈하려는 일본의 기습 공격에 대한 러시아의 준비되지 않은 전쟁이었다. [2] 러일전쟁에서 전쟁의 절반은 외교였다. 이 전쟁은 일본 외교의 승리였다. 러시아가 아직 탈봉건사회를 거치지 못하고 있는 동안에 일본의 총리대신 이토 히로부미를 정점으로 하여 외무대신 무츠 무네미츠, 주미공사 구리노 신이치로, 외무성 부대신 고무라 주타로, 그리고 러일전쟁 당시의 법부대신이자 견미(遣美) 특사였던 카네코 겐타로와 같은 미국 유학 출신 외교관들, 특히 하버드대학교일본유학생회(The Japan Club of Harvard University)의 역량이 크게 작용했다. [3] 러시아의 패인은 부패한 왕조의 자연스러운 현상이었다. 러일전쟁은 부패한 차르 왕조와 애국주의로 무장한 신흥 일본의 결전이었다. 많은 혁명과 개혁 세력이 등장하여 공익(公益)을 내세우면서 “더 좋은 삶”을 약속했지만, 부패는 늘 유산처럼 민중을 짓눌렀다. 이런 상황에서 민중에게 애국심을 요구하는 것은 그 자체로서 염치없는 일이다. 부패에 대한 반응은 분노가 아니라 체념이다. 부패한 관리에 지친 민중들은 조국을 위해 싸울 전의나 사기를 잃게했다. [4] 내 나라에서 벌어진 제3국의 전쟁으로 말미암아 한국이 멸망한 것은 한국 외교의 책임이었다. 중립이든 참전이든 멈칫거림이 없는 결단이 필요했으나 조선의 왕실은 그렇지 못했다. 문제는 아관파천부터 잘못된 선택이었다. 러일전쟁에서 어느 쪽이 승리하느냐의 문제는 한국의 멸망과 직접적인 관련이 없다. 왜냐하면 이미 그 무렵이 되어서는 어느 쪽이 이기든 한국은 승자의 먹이가 될 수밖에 없었기 때문이다. 문제는 한국의 운명이 그 지경에 이르도록 지배계급은 왜 지혜롭게 망국에 대처하지 못했는가 하는 점이다. [5] 청일전쟁과 러일전쟁의 무대가 되는 1890-1900년대의 시대적 상황을 되돌아봐야 하는 이유는 비록 1세기가 넘은 시차에도 불구하고 크게 바뀐 것이 없다는 사실 때문이다. 그 시대의 4국 관계를 보면 러시아·중국·일본에게 주는 한국의 의미가 한국에 주는 그들의 의미를 능가하는 것이었고, 그 결과로 국제 관계의 비극성도 한국에게만 일방적으로 부과되었다. 우리는 이제 다시 그 시대를 반추함으로써 지금 우리의 위상에 대한 교훈을 찾아야 한다. 러일전쟁의 유산과 교훈은 120년이 지난 지금도 살아 있다. 그런 점에서 러일전쟁은 지금도 진행 중이다.

러일전쟁의 역사화를 위한 제언: 러일전쟁 110주년을 상기하며

김원수 ( Won Soo Kim ) 한국서양사학회 2014 西洋史論 Vol.0 No.122

In this study, I reconsidered historical discourses of the Russo-Japanese war in the context of global/transnational history. For this purpose, I investigated a possible link between the Russo-Japanese war and the Boundary problem. Its convergence and diffusion is very important to redefining the Russo-Japanese War in the global age. Therefore, I focused on the international affairs happening at Yalu Riverside before the war. These events were called the Yongampo incident, the Yalu Issue or the Yalu crisis. They led directly to the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War, and eventually resulted in providing Japan with the opportunity not only to annex Korea but also to penetrate Manchuria. These would be perceived as important historical incidents on a scale similar to the Moroccan Crisis which eventually resulted in the advent of World War I. The Yalu Crisis can be perceived as the direct precursor of the crisis which eventually engulfed East Asia. This is the reason why the ‘Korean problem’ was important enough to result in the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War - referred to as World War Zero. This is why the Yalu Crisis, which emerged on the Korean peninsula 110 years ago, should be re-historicized not only at the Korean history level but at the level of global history. To accomplish this re-historicization I focused on the background of the Yongampo Lease Treaty and the Yalu Crisis. These were linked to the Russo-Japanese negotiations (September 1903 to February 1904.)Next, they dealt with the multilateral diplomatic measures of the Korean Empire in the face of the crisis. Finally, in this regard, they tried to recast the diplomatic activities of the Korean Empire. In the face of the Yalu Crisis, the Korean Empire was ready to respond and take multilateral measures for preventing war and preserving peace. From August to October, the Korean Empire intensively took measures. These can be classified broadly into four actions: attempts to neutralize the Korean peninsula in wartime, attempts related to the Kyungui Railway concession, the initiative for opening the ports of the Yalu riverside, and attempts to renegotiate the Yongampo lease treaty and require a separate negotiation between Russia and Japan about the Yongampo affairs. These crises, once again, entered the New Phase. On October 8, 1903, the Treaty of Trade and Commerce was signed by the Unites States, Japan and China. It was revealed that the treaty was working in conjunction with an Anglo-Japanese alliance and the open door policy of United States. The opening of Andong and Mukden located in the Yalu area was a diplomatic shock and enough to irritate Russia. The opening of Manchuria was realized by the Treaty of Trade and Commerce. Then the remaining problem was that the Yalu Issue needed a resolution. Therefore, the Yalu problem was focused on the interests of Western powers and the Yalu River issues became international issues. Now tensions between the interested parties came to a peak. To cope with this situation, Korea as well as Japan and Russia immediately responded. On the other hand, reinterpreting the Russo-Japanese war from a new perspective is based on the concept of delocalization, and focused on the revelation of violence and illegality brought on by the Japanese invasion. It was responsible for historians to expose that the illegal violence and the military invasion of Japan had been committed with the connivance of the powers. There are cases in the Portsmouth Conference that show: Japanese military occupation of the Korean peninsula before the war, the planned occupation of Dokdo by Japan during the war, Gando after the War, and Japanese occupation on Sakhalin. These works can be interpreted from the extended time concept from the Sino-Japanese War to World War I or further to the Korean War. By doing so, we can view individual events in the context of long-term history. Any researcher interested in making the Russo-Japanese war history globalized and transnationalized should first know that our historical experiences of the war hold more impact on the past than they do in the present. In addition, he/she also needs to focus on how to reinterpret the illegality of Japanese military activities that controlled Northeast Asia in the age of Imperialism. With these historical discourses in mind it is important for a researcher to infer, compare, seek relationships, find patterns, and go beyond national history. This is how we can be free from our ethnocentric historical ideas and seek creative and reflexive alternative solutions as we move forward to a better future.

논문(論文) : 러일전쟁과 종군일기: 군의의 기록을 중심으로

박영선 ( Young Sun Park ) 이화사학연구소 2015 梨花史學硏究 Vol.0 No.51

Japan began their full-fledged colonial invasion taking opportunity of the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War in 1904. During the 1 year and 8 month duration, the war was supported by large-scale human and material resources, with one million and eighty-thousand soldiers, consuming a total cost of around two billion yen. To the soldiers, the Russo-Japanese war was the first opportunity to encounter the culture of another country. Thus soldiers began to record their new experiences which they were not able to see or experience in Japan, in written form in the form of letters and journals. From these records, wartime journals included records about the situation of the war, everyday life on the battlefield as well as personal feelings about the war. Together with the combatting soldiers`` perception of the war, it is possible to see the reality(detailed illustration) of the war and therefore it is natural to pay attention to soldiers`` journals for this purpose. Although various studies on the Russo-Japanese War, dealing with its political, diplomatic and military aspects have been accrued, since Ooe Shinobu``s research on social history in the 1980s, the subject of research has been expanding to cover studies on slavery to military support. There are particularly many studies being conducted on the wartime journals of individual soldiers. Although there are many such studies regarding soldiers`` perception of a disparate culture during the special circumstances of the Russo-Japanese war, recently, as new materials are discovered one after another, studies stray from the common perception, and approach war from a new perspective, as a break away journey from everyday life, or focus on written records such as journals. In such manners, new and diverse approaches are being experimented. However, until the present, studies focusing mainly on the perceptions of common peasants and soldiers have been carried out, and those regarding other strata have not been conducted. Therefore, this research, unlike previous studies centered on soldiers, will focus on the class of medical officers in examining the Russo-Japanese War. In comparison to common soldiers who were enlisted by order for conscription, medical officers joined the military voluntarily to take part in the war, and because their rank was of officer level, they were given more varied roles than common soldiers, and therefore believed to be able have broader experience of the war. The ranks of the three medical soldiers to be examined in this research are second and third medical officers. These officers did not take part in the war directly, but were able to observe the war closely by treating injured soldiers, taking charge of sanitation and education of hygiene workers. Thus they were of distinctive a rank which could carry out the role of doctors during the war. Therefore, this research has analyzed the journals of three medical officers, and examined the detailed illustrations of what roles medical officers took charge of during the war. For a year and eight months, in the Russo-Japanese war, medical officers not only recorded the status of treatment for injured soldiers, but also left detailed records of the structure of medical institutions, providing information of the Japanese military``s medical system at the time of the war. In addition, in the war journals of medical officers information on army life which was an important part of the war, can also be found. In particular, from clothing, food and housing to military events, general life in the barracks is viewed from the unique perspective from the rank of medical officers, which sheds new light on the reality of everyday lives of soldiers during the war and proceeds to aid the comprehensive understanding of the Japanese military and military officers during the Russo-Japanese War.

한국병합 전후 일본 지식인의 만한경영에 대한 인식 : 관련 잡지의 논설을 중심으로

최혜주 한국근현대사학회 2017 한국 근현대사 연구 Vol.82 No.-

There existed various discourses about Japanese intellects’ recognition on Manchuria-Korea management from around the Russo-Japanese War up to the outbreak of the 1st World War in the 1910’s. Through research on those discourses, this author examines not only the Japanese government but the private sector’s aspiration over the advancement into Chosun and also the continent. Since they had experience as a consulate or student overseas, they had keen interest in ‘Manchuria-Korea’, and they were political, too, as they were previously a member of the House of Representatives as well. First of all, before the analysis, focusing on Manchuria-Korea management emerging after the victory of the Russo-Japanese War, this researcher has studied how the Exchange between Manchuria and Korea appeared before the Russo-Japanese War as history prior to it. Before the Russo-Japanese War, in Japan, there were discourses actively expressed around the Exchange between Manchuria and Korea while they were alert about Russia. Within the atmosphere that the Exchange between Manchuria and Korea was regarded as ‘the enemy of the state’, discourse about the possible outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War was popularly presented, and instead of the Exchange between Manchuria and Korea, discourse about England-Japan alliance was being established while the Japanese government carried out the Russo-Japanese Wars decisively. Controversies around the Exchange between Manchuria and Korea did imply “the intention to withdraw Russian troops from Manchuria and conquer Chosun” after all. Next, after the Russo-Japanese War, discourse about Manchuria-Korea management developed into one that insisted on the necessity of immigration into Chosun and management over Manchuria as part of colonizing Chosun. After the Annexation of Chosun, in Japan, they stressed the necessity of management over management along with immigration into Chosun in order to advance into the continent and resolve shortage of food attributed to the increase of population in Japan. Immigration into Chosun was sought as a means to develop and manage Chosun, and to realize that, they deemed it would be crucial to promote research on the state of Chosun, implantation of native farmers into Chosun, and exploitation over colonization projects by the private sector. Concerning the attraction of immigrants, there were a lot of discussions and criticisms over governor Derauchi’s immigration policy. Regarding Japan’s management over Manchuria, they pointed out such problems as failure in the Dongcheock project, lost fever on immigration into Manchuria, and pessimism about immigration into Manchuria; however, mostly, they thought it was important to expand the Japanese Empire. They did support Manchuria-Korea immigration and management like that because they intended to justify their invasive policy to secure the grounds for the fact that the Japanese Empire was trying to build up practical control over Chosun and Manchuria. 러일전쟁 전후부터 1910년대의 제1차 세계대전 발발 이전까지 일본 지식인의 만한경영 인식에 대해 다양한 담론이 등장하였다. 이 담론 연구를 통해 일본정부만이 아니라 민간에서의 조선 진출 및 대륙 진출에 대한 열망을 살펴보았다. 이들은 해외 유학 혹은 해외 영사관 부임 경험이 있으므로 ‘만한’에 대한 관심이 높았으며 중의원의원 경험이 있는 등 정치성을 띠고 있었다. 먼저 러일전쟁 승리 후에 등장하는 만한경영론에 초점을 맞추어 분석하기 전에 그 前史로서 러일전쟁 이전 만한교환론이 등장하는 과정부터 살펴보았다. 일본에서는 러일전쟁 이전에는 러시아를 경계하면서 만한교환론을 중심으로 활발한 담론이 개진되었다. 만한교환론이 ‘國賊’으로 간주되는 분위기에서 러일개전론이 유행하고 만한교환론 대신에 영일동맹론이 성립되면서 일본정부는 러일전쟁을 단행했다. 만한교환에 대한 논란은 결국 “러시아를 만주에서 철병시키고 조선 점령을 준비하자”는 의도를 내포한 것이다. 다음 러일전쟁 이후에는 만한경영론이 조선을 식민지로 만들기 위한 일환의 하나로 조선이주와 만주경영의 필요성을 주장하는 담론으로 발전했다. 일본에서는 조선을 강점한 이후에 일본의 인구증가에 따른 식량부족과 대륙진출을 위해 조선이주와 함께 만주경영의 필요성이 강조되었다. 조선이주는 조선을 개발 경영하기 위한 방편에서 모색되었으며 이를 위해 조선사정 연구, 모국농민의 조선이식, 민간에 의한 식민사업 개척을 추진하는 것이 중요하다고 보았다. 아울러 이주민을 유인하는 방법에 대한 다양한 논의와 데라우치 총독의 이주정책에 대한 비판이 제기되었다. 일본의 만주경영에 대해서는 동척 사업이 실패한 점, 만주이주 열기가 식은 점, 만주이주를 비관적으로 보는 점 등을 지적하고 있으나 대체로 일본제국의 팽창을 위해 중요하다는 인식이다. 이렇게 만한이주 및 경영을 내세운 것은 일제가 조선과 만주에 실질적 지배를 구축할 수 있는 기반을 확보하기 위한 침략정책의 방편이었다.