본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

1940년대 전반 일본의 동북아지역 정치경제 인식 -동아광역경제론을 중심으로-

Japanese Political-Economical Recognition for the Northeast Asian Region in the early 1940s

0

조회

0

다운로드

5

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

The process of Japan’s imperial expansion itself was that of the invasion of Northeast Asian region. After making Korea as her colony in 1910, Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931(Manchurian Incident) and made it Manchukuo too. As a result, Japan has been secured Manchuria as an economic hinterland for herself. With Provocation of Sino-Japanese War on 1937, the Japanese army expanded its front to mainland China. The range of discourse about the Japanese imperial Economy was also in charge of the enlarged gradually. Japan has raised new economic theory that integrated the Northasia region with “Nichi-Man-Shi Keizai Burokku Ron(日滿支經濟ブロック論).”On the other hand, the conflict problems with Manchuria and Korea in the regional economic bloc has occurred too. But it can be said that this problem was the process of the integration between Korea and Manchuria for Japan in the terms of the Japanese economic hinterland. In the wake of Pacific War(1941) broke out, it was necessary to reconfigure the economic regional concept incorporating also Southeast Asia to Japan. Japan came up with the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere as a new economic regional theory incorporating also the resources and markets in Southeast Asia which had colonized by Western powers once. Although the concept of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere(大東亞共榮圈) had positioned the Southeast Asian region as a resource center for Japan in the end, it was not possible to derive the development effect immediate in the midst of war. Therefore, the importance of the resources on the Northeast Asia region should have been maintained for the time being. There was a possibility that Northeast Asia region was re-recognized as the processing area of Southeast Asia resources, if the region was secured well for Japan. The discourses such as East Asian Community(東亞協同體論) and East Asia Economic Block(東亞經濟ブロック論) was criticized their theoretical limits by the discourse of East Asia Great Sphere Economy(東亞廣域經濟論) which was the main economic theory of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. According to the discourse of East Asia Great Sphere Economy, the vertical economic division of labor was formed to some extent in the East Asia region. Japan tried to transfer to the Northeast Asia region some parts of economic role as the continental logistic bases that Japan was in charge. Korea and Manchuria were in the industrial center for carrying out the war and were set as the logistics base that was advanced in the continental Asia by Japanese Empire. In consideration of such aspects as described above, the emphasis on the role of the logistics base that was advanced in the continental Asia for Korea, has been discussed in the context of the advocacy that Northeaster Asia region was need to share some parts of Japanese Imperialism’s roles. At the discussion in Keijo Keizai Konwakai(京城經濟懇話會), Japanese Business circles in Colonial Korea had sympathized with the discourse of Northeaster Asia region’s sharing of roles for Japanese Imperialism in wartime.

Abstract

The process of Japan’s imperial expansion itself was that of the invasion of Northeast Asian region. After making Korea as her colony in 1910, Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931(Manchurian Incident) and made it Manchukuo too. As a result, Japan has been secured Manchuria as an economic hinterland for herself. With Provocation of Sino-Japanese War on 1937, the Japanese army expanded its front to mainland China. The range of discourse about the Japanese imperial Economy was also in charge of the enlarged gradually. Japan has raised new economic theory that integrated the Northasia region with “Nichi-Man-Shi Keizai Burokku Ron(日滿支經濟ブロック論).”On the other hand, the conflict problems with Manchuria and Korea in the regional economic bloc has occurred too. But it can be said that this problem was the process of the integration between Korea and Manchuria for Japan in the terms of the Japanese economic hinterland. In the wake of Pacific War(1941) broke out, it was necessary to reconfigure the economic regional concept incorporating also Southeast Asia to Japan. Japan came up with the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere as a new economic regional theory incorporating also the resources and markets in Southeast Asia which had colonized by Western powers once. Although the concept of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere(大東亞共榮圈) had positioned the Southeast Asian region as a resource center for Japan in the end, it was not possible to derive the development effect immediate in the midst of war. Therefore, the importance of the resources on the Northeast Asia region should have been maintained for the time being. There was a possibility that Northeast Asia region was re-recognized as the processing area of Southeast Asia resources, if the region was secured well for Japan. The discourses such as East Asian Community(東亞協同體論) and East Asia Economic Block(東亞經濟ブロック論) was criticized their theoretical limits by the discourse of East Asia Great Sphere Economy(東亞廣域經濟論) which was the main economic theory of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. According to the discourse of East Asia Great Sphere Economy, the vertical economic division of labor was formed to some extent in the East Asia region. Japan tried to transfer to the Northeast Asia region some parts of economic role as the continental logistic bases that Japan was in charge. Korea and Manchuria were in the industrial center for carrying out the war and were set as the logistics base that was advanced in the continental Asia by Japanese Empire. In consideration of such aspects as described above, the emphasis on the role of the logistics base that was advanced in the continental Asia for Korea, has been discussed in the context of the advocacy that Northeaster Asia region was need to share some parts of Japanese Imperialism’s roles. At the discussion in Keijo Keizai Konwakai(京城經濟懇話會), Japanese Business circles in Colonial Korea had sympathized with the discourse of Northeaster Asia region’s sharing of roles for Japanese Imperialism in wartime.

참고문헌 (37)

  1. 時局硏究會, "第二十輯南方共榮圈と朝鮮經濟(座談會速記), In 南方 共榮圈と朝鮮經濟", pp.44~ (1942)
  2. 송병권, "1940년대 스즈키 다케오의 식민지조선 정치경제 인식", 민족문화연구, 37, pp.403~436 (2002), 민족문화연구원
  3. 柳澤治, "戦前・戦時日本の経済思想とナチズム" (2008), 岩波書店
  4. 임성모, "중일전쟁 전야 만주국·조선 관계사의 소묘 ― ‘日滿一體’와 ‘鮮滿一如’의 갈등 ―", 역사학보, (201), pp.165~202 (2009), 역사학회
  5. 송규진, "일제하 ‘선만 관계’와 ‘선만일여론’, In 동북아지역질서의 형성과 전개:역사적 성찰과 정치・경제적 쟁점" (2011), 아연출판부
  6. "東亞交通論", 千倉書房, ~ (1939)
  7. "航空政策論", 千倉書房, ~ (1940)
  8. "廣域經濟と南方經濟", ダイヤモンド社, ~ (1943)
  9. "新體制の理論" (1940), 千倉書房
  10. "東亞綜合體の原理" (1940), 日本評論社
  11. "大東亞經濟の論理" (1942), 千倉書房
  12. 임성모, "대공아공영권에서의 ‘지역’과 ‘세계’, In 동북아지역질서의 형성과 전개:역사적 성찰과 정치・경제적 쟁점", pp.58~59 (2011), 아연출판부
  13. 楢崎敏雄, "東亞廣域經濟論", 130~131
  14. 谷口吉彦, "東亜綜合體の原理", pp.128~133 (1940), 日本評論社
  15. 高橋亀吉, "東亜経済ブロック論", pp.22~ (1939), 千倉書房
  16. 谷口吉彦, "大東亞經濟の理論", pp.45~58 (1942), 千倉書房
  17. 칼 슈미트, "대지의 노모스-유럽 공법의 국제법", pp.280~ (1995), 민음사
  18. 谷口吉彦, "大東亞戰爭と北方問題, In 大東亞經濟の理論", pp.472~473
  19. 總力戰硏究所, "機密 大東亞共榮圈建設原案(草稿)", pp.71~ (1942)
  20. 石井知章, "加田哲二の<東亜共同体>, In 一九三〇年代のアジア社会論", pp.148~149 (2010), 社會評論社
  21. 高橋久志, "東亜共同体論ー蝋山政道,尾崎秀実,加田哲二の場合, In 日本の一九三〇年代ー国の内と外から", pp.76~ (1981), 彩流社
  22. 宮田喜代藏, "山田雄三著 計畫の經濟理論", 一橋論叢, 11(2), pp.185~ (1943)
  23. 山田雄三, "計畫の經濟理論〔序說〕", pp.2~4 (1942), 岩波書店
  24. 相川尚武, "南方共榮圈と朝鮮經濟", 4~5
  25. 加田哲二, "太平洋經濟戰爭論", pp.64~65 (1941), 慶應書房
  26. 岩田龍雄, "南方共榮圈と朝鮮經濟", 9~12
  27. 中谷忠治, "南方共榮圈と朝鮮經濟", 9~
  28. 藤田文治, "南方共榮圈と朝鮮經", 13~
  29. 中根忠雄, "南方共榮圈と朝鮮經濟", 19~
  30. 西垣菊三, "南方共榮圈と朝鮮經濟", 21~24
  31. 岸謙, "南方共榮圈と朝鮮經濟", 25~26
  32. 岡林直枝, "南方共榮圈と朝鮮經濟", 27~
  33. 末永力二郞, "南方共榮圈と朝鮮經濟", 29~30
  34. 緒方朝二, "南方共榮圈と朝鮮經濟", 31~33
  35. 波形昭一, "日本植民地金融政策史の硏究", pp.1985~, 早稲田大学出版部
  36. 高田治一郞, "南方共榮圈と朝鮮經濟", 34~35
  37. 鈴木武雄, "南方共榮圈と朝鮮經濟", 38~42

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (13건)