6ㆍ25전쟁의 승패인식 재조명
Spoils of War: Revisiting the Outcome of the Korean War
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
After the Korean War(1950∼1953), both the Republic of Korea (ROK) and North Korea (NK) have claimed they won the war. However, more recently the war has been evaluated as “the tragedy of fratricidal war without neither a winnernora loser". That is, it is widely accepted now that the war finished a tie. In contrast, according to The Defense White Paper 2010, in which the war was reinterpreted in commemoration of its 60th anniversary, the victory belonged to liberal democracy. This study attempts to add new light to the outcome of the Korean War. By sharing ideas used by the famous German military theorist, Carlvon Clausewitz, this study develops three factors as a means to analyze the war. Clausewitz believed in putting the enemy out of action, occupying enemy territory, and annihilating the will of resistance, while focus in gon the justification of war with respects to the effects of the war on the people and the nations involved. From these beliefs, the following three factors are created in order to re-analyzethe Korean War. Analysis of NK's accomplishments show that NK military forces dominated Seoul, destroying the main forces of the ROK troops. However, NK failed to accomplish any of three major objectives of war as mentioned earlier. NK could not break the resistant will of the ROK people and their leaders. Furthermore, the NK justification of war, “the liberation of ROK from the USA" was not convincing enough even to their own people. It was a justification insisted solely by a few NK leaders including Kim Il-sung. Lastly and most importantly, the investigation of the effects of the war on the people and nations involved show that ROK rapidly rose as one of the ten global economic powers by actively accepting democratic changes, whereas NK established a system of power succession by eliminating all political opposition. This military adventurism taken by Kim Il-sung and followed by Kim Jung-il resulted in the rogue state nation which is plagued by hunger and poverty. These results support the evaluation of the war suggested in The Defense White Paper 2010. Therefore, it is hoped that the ROK Government will share this knowledge with its people and encourage them to take part inactive discussions in order to raise a wareness of ROK's past and current national security issues.
Abstract
After the Korean War(1950∼1953), both the Republic of Korea (ROK) and North Korea (NK) have claimed they won the war. However, more recently the war has been evaluated as “the tragedy of fratricidal war without neither a winnernora loser". That is, it is widely accepted now that the war finished a tie. In contrast, according to The Defense White Paper 2010, in which the war was reinterpreted in commemoration of its 60th anniversary, the victory belonged to liberal democracy. This study attempts to add new light to the outcome of the Korean War. By sharing ideas used by the famous German military theorist, Carlvon Clausewitz, this study develops three factors as a means to analyze the war. Clausewitz believed in putting the enemy out of action, occupying enemy territory, and annihilating the will of resistance, while focus in gon the justification of war with respects to the effects of the war on the people and the nations involved. From these beliefs, the following three factors are created in order to re-analyzethe Korean War. Analysis of NK's accomplishments show that NK military forces dominated Seoul, destroying the main forces of the ROK troops. However, NK failed to accomplish any of three major objectives of war as mentioned earlier. NK could not break the resistant will of the ROK people and their leaders. Furthermore, the NK justification of war, “the liberation of ROK from the USA" was not convincing enough even to their own people. It was a justification insisted solely by a few NK leaders including Kim Il-sung. Lastly and most importantly, the investigation of the effects of the war on the people and nations involved show that ROK rapidly rose as one of the ten global economic powers by actively accepting democratic changes, whereas NK established a system of power succession by eliminating all political opposition. This military adventurism taken by Kim Il-sung and followed by Kim Jung-il resulted in the rogue state nation which is plagued by hunger and poverty. These results support the evaluation of the war suggested in The Defense White Paper 2010. Therefore, it is hoped that the ROK Government will share this knowledge with its people and encourage them to take part inactive discussions in order to raise a wareness of ROK's past and current national security issues.
참고문헌 (31)
- "「국방일보」보도,2010년 9월 2일자 9면", ~ (2010)
- "「전쟁기념관」6ㆍ25전쟁 60주년 전시자료", ~
- "「조선일보」보도자료", ~
- 구영록, "인간과 전쟁:국제정치 이론의 체계", pp.3~180 (1997), 법문사
- 라주바예프의 6·25전쟁 보고서(제1권), "국방부 군사편찬연구소", 133~137 (2001)
- 2010국방백서, "국방부", 대한민국 국방부, 249~ (2010)
- 국중태, "손자병법을 통한 전쟁의 승패 결과 분석:5사·7계 및 궤도를 중심으로", pp.171~210 (1995), 해군대학 학생장교 논문
- 기광서, "한국전 개입에 나타난 스탈린의 역할 실상, in 군사 제63호:6·25전쟁 기념 특집", pp.89~108 (2007), 국방부 군사편찬연구소
- 김창희, "북한 정치사회의 이해(제4판)", pp.55~61 (2006), 법문사
- 김학준, "한국전쟁", 군사, (20), pp.34~41 (1990), 국방부 전사편찬위원회
- 박명림, "한국 1950전쟁과 평화", pp.21~703 (2002), 나남출판
- 전쟁의 종결과 영향에 관한 이론적 고찰, "박영준", 한국정치학회, ~ (2007)
- 박용호, "전쟁의 승패에 미치는 영향분석:조직론적 연구를 중심으로", 석사, pp.1998
- Song, In-Young, "5사 7계'로 본 걸프전쟁의 평가 및 분석", 군사, (45), pp.203~232 (2002), 국방부군사편찬연구소
- 양영조, "알아봅시다!6ㆍ25전쟁사", pp.146~ (2008), 국방부 군사편찬연구소
- 예프게니 바자노프, "소련의 자료로 본 한국전쟁의 전말", pp.53~54 (1998), 도서출판 열림
- 온창일, "전쟁론", pp.21~42 (2008), 집문당
- 외교통상부 사료, "한국전쟁관련 소련 극비외교 문서(2)", pp.1~4 (1998), 암호전문,군사편찬연구소 사료실
- 외교통상부 사료, "한국전쟁관련 소련외교극비문서(3)", pp.29~ (1998), 암호전문
- 외교통상부 사료, "한국전쟁관련 소련외교극비문서(4)", pp.17~33 (1998), 암호전문
- 이종석, "현대북한의 이해", pp.77~79 (2000), 역사비평사
- 진범주, "워게임 운용과 전쟁의 승패:베트남전과 걸프전을 중심으로", 석사, pp.2003
- 최북진, "사례를 통해 본 전쟁종결에 관한 연구", 석사, pp.2009
- 최용호, "6ㆍ25전쟁의 실패사례와 교훈", pp.451~452 (2004), 육군본부
- 최용호, "물어보세요 베트남전쟁과 한국군", pp.33~35 (2004), 국방부 군사편찬연구소
- 최용호, "한권으로 읽는 베트남전쟁과 한국군", pp.94~109 (2004), 국방부 군사편찬연구소
- 퀸시 라이트, "전쟁연구 병서연구 제7집" (1979), 육군본부 군사연구실
- 한신대학교 학술원 신학연구소, "한국 개신교와 한국 근현대의 사회·문화적 변동", pp.20~39 (2003), 한울아카데미
- Bruce Cumings, "The Origins of the Korean War : the Roaring of the Cataract, 1947~1950" (1990), Princeton University Press
- Carl von Claisewitz, "전쟁론(제1권)", pp.84~ (2006), 갈무리
- "United States Security Agreements and Commitments Abroad, Symington Hearings vol.Ⅱ Parts 6", U.S. Government Printing Office, 1519~1524 (1971)
