동해 해전과 독도의 전략적 가치 -러일전쟁과 일본의 독도 강탈을 중심으로 한 고찰-
The Battle of East Sea and Dokdo’s Strategic Value -Focused on the Russo-Japanese War and the Forced Seizure of Dokdo by Japan-
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study is to prove out that Japan seized Dokdo forcedly by its strategic value at the Battle of East Sea during the Russo-Japanese War. Additionally, this study aims at asking some researchers to reconsider who take no account of the fact that Japan’s forced seizure of Dokdo was committed as a step toward complete colonization of Korea. That is to say, Japan’s forced seizure of Dokdo was just not an incident to capture an island but Japan’s intentional forced seizure for the victory at the Battle of East Sea and further at the Russo-Japanese War. Actually, Japan won the Russo-Japanese War, and then Japan was able to colonize Korea completely and successfully. Above all, it is pointed out that Japan’s justification for the forced seizure of Dokdo, that is, Japan’s insistence on the acceptance of Nakai Yosaburo’s petition to incorporate Dokdo into Japan’s territory is just a fiction. He already knew that Dokdo was an annexed island to Ullengdo of Korea. For his fishing business, he planned to ask for a lease from the Korean government via the Ministry of Trade and Commerce of Japan. However, it is found out that he submitted the petition abetted by officers, who fronted for Japanese overseas invasion, like Maki Naomasa(Director of the Fisheries Bureau of the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce), Kimotsuki Kaneyuki(Hydrographic Director of Japanese Navy), Yamaza Enzaburo(Director of Governmental Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs). The submission of the petition abetted by these officers tells us that Japanese government power intervened in the forced seizure of Dokdo. To inquire into why the national power as mentioned above intervened into that matter, the battle situations of the Vladivostok Fleet in the East Sea are examined out. The Fleet was defeated in the battle in the coastal waters of Ulsan. But previously, it damaged much the Japanese combined fleets. And hearing about the organization of the Baltic Fleet(the Second Pacific Squadron), Japan had to give the Battle of East Sea first thought. As a result, Japan government made Nakai Yosaburo submit the petition on the incorporation of Dokdo. The procedure of incorporating Dokdo led to the forced seizure of Dokdo by Japan. This study tries to clear out that the forced seizure of Dokdo is an indispensable step or measure of Japan for the victory of the Battle of East Sea. However, this writer admits frankly that the related evidences for that matter end up in circumstantial ones. However, under the circumstances that Japan refuses to go public with the related materials on the ground of the judgement of Japan’s Supreme Court that it is righteous not to go public with the disadvantageous materials to Japan government, it should be added that it is not easy to prove a logical inconsistency of the Japanese unilateral declaration for Dokdo. (Yeungnam University/wkkim@ynu.ac.kr)
Abstract
This study is to prove out that Japan seized Dokdo forcedly by its strategic value at the Battle of East Sea during the Russo-Japanese War. Additionally, this study aims at asking some researchers to reconsider who take no account of the fact that Japan’s forced seizure of Dokdo was committed as a step toward complete colonization of Korea. That is to say, Japan’s forced seizure of Dokdo was just not an incident to capture an island but Japan’s intentional forced seizure for the victory at the Battle of East Sea and further at the Russo-Japanese War. Actually, Japan won the Russo-Japanese War, and then Japan was able to colonize Korea completely and successfully. Above all, it is pointed out that Japan’s justification for the forced seizure of Dokdo, that is, Japan’s insistence on the acceptance of Nakai Yosaburo’s petition to incorporate Dokdo into Japan’s territory is just a fiction. He already knew that Dokdo was an annexed island to Ullengdo of Korea. For his fishing business, he planned to ask for a lease from the Korean government via the Ministry of Trade and Commerce of Japan. However, it is found out that he submitted the petition abetted by officers, who fronted for Japanese overseas invasion, like Maki Naomasa(Director of the Fisheries Bureau of the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce), Kimotsuki Kaneyuki(Hydrographic Director of Japanese Navy), Yamaza Enzaburo(Director of Governmental Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs). The submission of the petition abetted by these officers tells us that Japanese government power intervened in the forced seizure of Dokdo. To inquire into why the national power as mentioned above intervened into that matter, the battle situations of the Vladivostok Fleet in the East Sea are examined out. The Fleet was defeated in the battle in the coastal waters of Ulsan. But previously, it damaged much the Japanese combined fleets. And hearing about the organization of the Baltic Fleet(the Second Pacific Squadron), Japan had to give the Battle of East Sea first thought. As a result, Japan government made Nakai Yosaburo submit the petition on the incorporation of Dokdo. The procedure of incorporating Dokdo led to the forced seizure of Dokdo by Japan. This study tries to clear out that the forced seizure of Dokdo is an indispensable step or measure of Japan for the victory of the Battle of East Sea. However, this writer admits frankly that the related evidences for that matter end up in circumstantial ones. However, under the circumstances that Japan refuses to go public with the related materials on the ground of the judgement of Japan’s Supreme Court that it is righteous not to go public with the disadvantageous materials to Japan government, it should be added that it is not easy to prove a logical inconsistency of the Japanese unilateral declaration for Dokdo. (Yeungnam University/wkkim@ynu.ac.kr)
참고문헌 (18)
- 堀和生, "1905年日本の竹島領土編入", 朝鮮史硏究會, 24, pp.115~ (1987)
- 金膺龍, "外交文書で語る日韓合倂", pp.198~199 (1996), 合同出版
- 김병렬, "한일 전문가가 본 독도", pp.65~66 (2006), 다다미디어
- 김화경, "일본의 독도 강탈 정당화론에 대한 비판 - 쯔카모도 다카시의 오쿠하라 헤키운 자료 해석을 중심으로 -", 인문연구, (57), pp.317~360 (2009), 인문과학연구소
- 稻葉千晴, "日本海海戰, 悲劇への航海", pp.57~123 (2010), 日本放送出版協會
- 妹尾作太郞, "日露戰爭史", pp.320~321 (1978), 時事通信社
- 송병기, "독도영유권자료선", pp.155~196 (2004), 한림대출판부
- 松田十刻, "日本海海戰", pp.75~ (2005), 光人社
- 신용하, "독도영유권자료의 탐구 2", pp.262~263 (1999), 독도연구보전협회
- 신용하, "독도의 민족영토사 연구", pp.186~215 (1996), 지식산업사
- 野村實, "日本海海戰の眞實", pp.48~63 (1999), 講談社
- 奧原碧雲, "竹島經營者中井養三郞立志傳, In 竹島問題に關する調査硏究-最終報告書", pp.72~ (2007), 竹島問題硏究會
- 伊藤正德, "大海軍を想う", pp.196~ (1956), 文藝春秋社
- 佐世保海軍勳功表彰會, "日露海戰記", pp.55~215 (1906), 佐世保海軍勳功表彰會
- 佐々木茂, "領土編入に關わる諸問題と資ㆍ史料, In 竹島問題に關わる調査硏究-最終報告書", pp.60~61 (2007), 竹島問題硏究會
- 최문형, "露日戰爭과 日本의 獨島占取", 역사학보, (188), pp.249~267 (2005), 역사학회
- 海軍軍令部, "明治三十七八海戰史 2", pp.238~319 (1909), 春陽堂
- 海軍軍令部, "極秘明治37ㆍ8年海戰史", ~
