지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 저널정보
- 효원사학회 역사와 세계 역사와 세계 제46집
- 발행연도
- 2014.12
- 수록면
- 83 - 111 (29page)
- DOI
- 10.17857/hw.2014.12.46.83
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This article examines the validity of a recent new theory which defines the character of the Japanese Government`s East Asia policy from the Meiji Restoration to Sino-Japanese War as non-expansionism. In particular, this article analyzes the discussion held in Japanese Government regarding the issue of the outbreak of the war in the middle of July in 1894. the results are as follows.
The controversy within the Japanese Government was not about whether Japan should start the war or not, but rather, it was a problem of the active or the passive outbreak of the war. Ito Hirobumi, Mutsu Munemitsu and the military authorities insisted on the active outbreak of the war. They considered that the possibility of Russia`s interference in the Sino-Japanese War would be low and prompted the early outbreak of the war. On the other hand, the emperor Meiji and Cabinet members who insisted on the passive outbreak of the war considered the possibility of Russia`s interference would be high. Therefore, they carefully looked for an external and ostensible reason necessary for the outbreak of the war. However, they did not deny the policy on the outbreak of the war set in the middle of June. On the other hand, Ito, Mutsu, and the military authorities took the initiative in the outbreak of the war policy, but had never violated the dogmatism which was to ignore the decision of the Japanese Government`s policy. Based on this analysis, it can be concluded that this new theory is not persuasive enough to replace the conventional theory.
The controversy within the Japanese Government was not about whether Japan should start the war or not, but rather, it was a problem of the active or the passive outbreak of the war. Ito Hirobumi, Mutsu Munemitsu and the military authorities insisted on the active outbreak of the war. They considered that the possibility of Russia`s interference in the Sino-Japanese War would be low and prompted the early outbreak of the war. On the other hand, the emperor Meiji and Cabinet members who insisted on the passive outbreak of the war considered the possibility of Russia`s interference would be high. Therefore, they carefully looked for an external and ostensible reason necessary for the outbreak of the war. However, they did not deny the policy on the outbreak of the war set in the middle of June. On the other hand, Ito, Mutsu, and the military authorities took the initiative in the outbreak of the war policy, but had never violated the dogmatism which was to ignore the decision of the Japanese Government`s policy. Based on this analysis, it can be concluded that this new theory is not persuasive enough to replace the conventional theory.
목차
머리말
Ⅰ. 비팽창주의론의 통설화
Ⅱ. 팽창주의론 및 비팽창주의론의 내용
Ⅲ. 일본정부의 청일 개전 논의
맺음말
【Abstract】
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0