민군관계와 군사전략의 공세성- 1907년 「일본제국국방방침」의 제정을 중심으로 -
Civil-Military Relations and the Offensiveness of Military Strategy: focusing on the Adoption of 「Imperial Japanese National Defense Policy」 in 1907
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In 1907, Imperial Japan adopted an offensive military strategy named ‘Imperial Japanese National Defense Policy(IJNDP).’IJNDP designated Russia, United States, Germany, France as hypothetical enemies. Its aim was to execute preemptive attack on the enemy and gain a decisive and rapid victory. In order to support the operational concept, plans for heavy military buildups of the Imperial Japanese Army and the Navy were included in the IJNDP. Why was IJNDP adopted in Japan? This article argues that civil-military relations affect the offensiveness of military strategy. The Japanese military was not controlled by the civilian leadership due to the Constitution and the law of Imperial Japan that ensured the autonomy of the military. Futhermore, there is evidence which shows that the military put pressure on the civilian leaders to adopt policies in favor of the organizational interests of the military. IJNDP was adopted under the civil-military relations in which the political power of the military was superior to that of civilian leadership. As a result, Japan's war planning showed a strong bias in favor of the offensive use of force. IJNDP, uncontrolled by the civilian leadership, led Imperial Japan to believe that a decisive battle and a quick victory were possible, which resulted in the Pacific War.
Abstract
In 1907, Imperial Japan adopted an offensive military strategy named ‘Imperial Japanese National Defense Policy(IJNDP).’IJNDP designated Russia, United States, Germany, France as hypothetical enemies. Its aim was to execute preemptive attack on the enemy and gain a decisive and rapid victory. In order to support the operational concept, plans for heavy military buildups of the Imperial Japanese Army and the Navy were included in the IJNDP. Why was IJNDP adopted in Japan? This article argues that civil-military relations affect the offensiveness of military strategy. The Japanese military was not controlled by the civilian leadership due to the Constitution and the law of Imperial Japan that ensured the autonomy of the military. Futhermore, there is evidence which shows that the military put pressure on the civilian leaders to adopt policies in favor of the organizational interests of the military. IJNDP was adopted under the civil-military relations in which the political power of the military was superior to that of civilian leadership. As a result, Japan's war planning showed a strong bias in favor of the offensive use of force. IJNDP, uncontrolled by the civilian leadership, led Imperial Japan to believe that a decisive battle and a quick victory were possible, which resulted in the Pacific War.
참고문헌 (56)
- 가토 요코, "근대 일본의 전쟁논리: 정한론에서 태평양 전쟁까지" (2007), 태학사
- 한국 군벌정치, "일본", pp.1991, 강창성
- 김열수, "국가안보론 : 위협과 취약성의 딜레마" (2013), 법문사
- 김웅진, "비교정치연구의 논리" (1993), 전예원
- 김정익, "군사전략 3대 요소의 이론과 적용", 주간국방논단, (1482) (2013)
- 나카오 유지, "帝國國防方針, 國防二要スル兵力及帝國軍用兵綱領策定顚末", 戦史研究年報, (3) (2000)
- 문병철, "일본군국주의가 태평양전쟁에 미친 영향", 석사, 군사전략, pp.2002
- 김현철, "동아시아의 전쟁과 평화" (2006), 연세대학교 출판부
- 박영준, "명치시대 일본군대의 형성과 팽창" (1997), 국방군사연구소
- 박영준, "러일전쟁 직후 일본 해군의 국가구상과 군사전략론 :사토 테츠타로(佐藤鐵太郞)『帝國國防史論』(1908)을 중심으로", 한국정치외교사논총, 26(1), pp.285~312 (2004), 한국정치외교사학회
- 박영준, "근대 일본의 국제질서인식과 대외정책론", 일본연구논총, (25), pp.161~199 (2007), 현대일본학회
- 박창희, "전략의 패러독스 : 비대칭전쟁에서의‘결전’과‘약자의 승리’", 한국정치학회보, 43(1), pp.323~343 (2009), 한국정치학회[DOI]
- 박창희, "한국의 ‘신 군사전략’ 개념 : 전쟁수행 중심의 ‘실전기반 억제’", 국가전략, 17(3), pp.41~72 (2011), 세종연구소
- 박창희, "군사전략론: 국가대전략과 작전술의 원천" (2013), 플래닛미디어
- 야마다 아키라, "일본，군비확장의 역사: 일본군의 팽창과 붕괴" (2014), 어문학사
- 야스다 히로시, "세 천황 이야기: 메이지, 다이쇼, 쇼와의 정치사" (2009), 역사비평사
- 장형익, "일본의 총력전 체제 도입과 전개에 관한 연구 : 1920·30년대 「제국국방방침」을 중심으로", 석사, 군사전략, pp.2009
- 정토웅, "군사사상사" (2003), 황금알
- 조명철, "일본의 軍事戰略과 ‘國防方針’의 성립", 日本歴史硏究, 5 (1997)
- 조명철, "上原 육군대신의 사퇴와 사단증설문제", 史叢(사총), (71), pp.343~368 (2010), 역사연구소[DOI]
- 하라다 게이이치, "청일·러일전쟁" (2012), 어문학사
- 임성호, "정치학 이해의 길잡이: 정치이론과 방법론" (2008), 법문사
- 황병선, "한국의 적극적 억제전략 분석: 군사전략 구성요소를 중심으로.", 군사논단, 통권 : 74 (2013)
- 후지와라 아키라, "일본군사사" (2013), 제이엔씨
- Allison, Graham T., "결정의 엣센스: 쿠바미사일 사태와 세계핵전쟁의 위기" (2005), 모음북스
- Clausewitz, Carl Von, "전쟁론" (1998), 책세상
- Handel, Michael I., "클라우제비츠, 손자 & 조미니" (2000), 평단문화사
- Huntington, Samuel P., "군인과 국가: 민군관계의 이론과 정치" (2011), 한국해양전략연구소
- Sapolsky, Harvey M.，, "미국의 국방정치" (2013), 국방대학교 안보문제연구소
- Bennett, D. Scott, "The Duration of Interstate Wars, 1816-1985", The American Political Science Review, 90(2) (1996)
- Biddle, Stephen, "Military Power： Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modem Battle" (2004), Princeton University Press
- Brooks, Risa A., "Making Military Might： Why Do States Fail and Succeed", International Security, 28(2) (2003)
- Brooks, Risa A., "Creating Military Power： The Sources of Military Effectivenes" (2007), Stanford University Press
- Brooks, Risa A., "Shaping Strategy： The Civil-Military Politics of Strategic Assessment" (2008), Princeton University Press
- Evera, Stephen Van, "The Cult of Offensive and the Origins of the First World War", International Security, 9(1) (1984)
- Evera, Stephen Van, "Offense, Defense, an the Causes of War", International Security, 22(4) (1998)
- George, Alexander L., "Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Science" (2005), MIT Press
- Hilsman, Roger, "The Politics of Policy Making in Defense and Foreign Affairs： Conceptual Models and Bureaucratic Politics" (1990), Prentice-Hall
- Kier, Elizabeth, "Imagining War： French and British Military Doctrine between the Wars" (1999), Princeton University Press
- Levy, Jack S., "Case Studies： Types, Designs, and Logic of Inference", Conflict Management and Peace Science, 25(1) (2008)
- Mearsheimer, John J., "Conventional Deterrence" (1983), Cornell University Press
- Neuchterlein, Donald E., "The Concept of National Interest： A Time for New Approach", Orbis, 23(1) (1979)
- Pollack, Kenneth M., "Arabs at War： Military Effectiveness，1948-1991" (2002), University of Nebraska Press
- Posen, Barry R., "The Sources of Military Doctrine： France, Britain, and Germany Between the World Wars" (1984), Cornell University Press
- Quester, George H., "Offense and Defense in the International System" (1977), John Wiley
- Reiter, Dan, "Military Strategy and the Outbreak of International Conflict： Quantitative Empirical Tests, 1903-1992", The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 43(2) (1999)
- Reiter, Dan, "Democracy and Battlefield Military Effectiveness", The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42(3) (1998)
- Reiter, Dan, "Democracy, War Initiation, and Victory", American Political Science Review, 92(2) (1998)
- Reiter, Dan, "Democracies at War" (2002), Princeton University Press
- Reiter, Dan, "Understanding Victory： Why Political Institutions Matter", International Security, 28(1) (2003)
- Reiter, Dan, "Determinants of Military Strategy, 1903-1994: A Quantitative Empirical Test", International Studies Quarterly, 43(2) (1999)
- Sample, Susan G, "Military Buildups, War, and Realpolitik： A Multivariate Model", Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42(2) (1998)
- Sample, Susan G., "Conflict, War and Peace： An Introduction to Scientific Research" (2013), CQ Press
- Senese, Paul D., "The Steps to War： An Empirical Study" (2008), Princeton University Press
- Snyder, Jack, "The Ideology of the Offensive： Military Decision Making and the Disaster of 1914" (1914), Cornell University Press
- Snyder, Jack, "Civil-Military Relations and the Cult of the Offensive, 1914 and 1984", International Security, 9(1) (1984)