小杉未醒「朝鮮日記」論

金仙奇 동북아시아문화학회 2020 동북아 문화연구 Vol.1 No.65

「Joseon Diary」 is an appendix of 『Jinchushihen』 written by Kosugi Misei who was a war correspondent and recorded his experience during the Japanese-Russian War. This work is a rare record of firsthand experience of the Japanese-Russian War of Kosugi Misei, a Japanese artist, and is an essential data needed for in-depth understanding of Kosugi Misei’s artistic activities and works in the Japanese-Russian War period. However, a systematic academic review and discussion on Misei’s 「Joseon Diary」 has been rarely performed. Therefore, this study aimed to explore and review three themes that could imply the characteristics and content of the Diary. These themes include: first, illustrations and poems of 「Joseon Diary」; second, image of Joseon during the Japanese-Russian War period and Misei’s perception of the Joseon in 「Joseon Diary」; and third, Misei’s war experience and view of war presented in 「Joseon Diary」. The study results are as follows : First, many illustrations included in 「Joseon Diary」 added the realism of a foreign country and created an impression of a pictorial record popular at the time. Furthermore, many poems in 「Joseon Diary」 diversify the modes of representation of Misei’s experience in the Joseon by creating a poetic mood in a prose-style diary. Images of the Joseon region full of Japanese military troops moving north immediately after the Japanese-Russian War broke out are well reflected in 「Joseon Diary」. Misei’s view mostly stayed at soldiers and the field of war, and he had no opportunity to profoundly comprehend Joseon’s political and social situations. His early perception of the Joseon in 「Joseon Diary」 has not yet been reached in penetrating hidden intention of Japan through the Japanese-Russian War. After the march up to Pyongyang, as Misei became more well aware of Joseon’s situations, he criticized the intention of Japan's colonization of Joseon through the Japanese-Russian War with a clear tone in 「Sing affection of remembrance in the former King's castle on behalf of Han’s old subject」 of 『Jinchushihen』. Finally, Misei’s aspects of war experience and internalization process of sense of anti-war are well expressed in 「Joseon Diary」. His war experience is presented by empathizing with hardship of the march, pain of sick or wounded soldiers, fear of death on the battlefield, homesickness and others. Afterwards, he fully recognized that the glory of war was achieved by blood and death of numerous soldiers. He internalized that war was a cold-hearted and brutal act that even did not allow basic human rights and emotions. The feelings of longing for a home and desire for returning home, repeatedly expressed in 「Joseon Diary」 are described with poetic language in 「Kaere ototo」 of 『Jinchushihen』.

청일전쟁과 고승호(高陞號)사건의 국제법(1894-1903)

최덕규 국방부군사편찬연구소 2019 군사 Vol.- No.113

From the perspective of international law, the Sino-Japanese War is characterized by the absence of international consensus on the timing of its outbreak. Leaving aside the version of official declaration date of war(1 Aug. 1894), another influential version of beginning of hostilities(July 25, 1894) was closely related to the sinking of the British steamship Kowshing. In the late 19th century, There were two schools of European scholars of international law, the one saw a declaration of war as the beginning of the war, and the another who regarded the actual outbreak of the war as the opening. It was made at the second Hague Peace Conference (1907), by calling for international consensus for the legislation of the process on the opening of hostilities. From the beginning of the war to the end of Kowshing case, where compensation was completed eight years after the Sino-Japanese war, the progress of the war was manipulated by British Government judging the interpretation of the law of war, This was the British Empire especially who had the hegemonic power of the world which influenced the outcome of the war by the way of interference and control the situation. So it was reasonable to followed Russian led Triple Intervention, soon after the conclusion of Shimonoseki Treaty from the view of the Anglo-Russian Rivalry. In the end, the Western powers, including the United States, Britain, Russia, Germany, and France, condoned or aided Japan's opening of the Sino-Japanese War, rather than focusing on preventing it from opening up. Still, the Powers were satisfied with Japan's bellicosity shown in the Sino-Japanese War, but at the same time they were also keenly aware of the need to regulate Japan's violations of international laws and inhumane acts. It was a natural consequence that the Peace conferences were convened in the Hague right after the Sino-Japanese War and the Russo-Japanese War. 국제법의 시각에서 볼 경우, 청일전쟁은 그 발발 시점에 대한 국제적 합의가 없었다는 특징이 있다. 청일 양국의 공식 선전포고일인 1894년 8월 1일을 제쳐두고 1894년 7월 25일을 유력한 개전일로 보게 된 것은 영국 상선 고승호(高陞號)의 침몰 사건과 관련이 깊다. 이는 19세기말 유럽의 국제법 학계에서 선전포고를 개전 시점으로 보았던 시각과 실제 교전이 발발했던 시점을 개전으로 간주하던 시각이 공존하고 있었기 때문이었다. 따라서 이 문제는 개전시점에 대한 국제적 합의 도출을 요구함으로써 제2차 헤이그평화회의(1907)에서 개전의 법제화가 이루어졌다. 개전에서 종전과정 나아가 심지어 종전일로부터 8년이 지나 배상이 마무리된 고승호 사건에 이르기까지 서구인들이 만들어 놓은 규범과 그들의 법해석에 따라 전쟁의 진행방향은 반전의 연속이었다. 서구인들 특히 당대 세계의 패권국가인 영국의 간섭과 개입 여하에 따라 전쟁의 승패가 판가름 나는 상황이 연출되었던 이유도 여기에 있었다. 따라서 영국의 적성국이었던 러시아 주도의 삼국간섭이 청일전쟁 종전 직후 곧바로 실행된 이유도 세계적 규모의 영러대결의 동아시아 판이 바로 청일전쟁이었기 때문이었다. 결국 미국을 비롯하여 영국, 러시아, 독일, 프랑스 등 서구열강은 청일전쟁의 개전방지에 전력하기 보다는 일본의 대청개전을 묵인 또는 방조했다. 그럼에도 열강은 청일전쟁에서 보여준 일본의 전투력에 만족해하면서도 동시에 일본의 국제법 위반과 비인도주의적 행위들을 규제할 필요성을 절감하고 있었다. 청일전쟁과 러일전쟁 직후 헤이그(Hague)에서 평화회의가 개최된 것은 결코 이와 무관하지 않았다.

전쟁과 변경- 러일전쟁과 함경도의 현실 -

조재곤 동북아역사재단 2013 東北亞歷史論叢 Vol.- No.41

This article examines the experiences and awareness of war by local residents of Hamgyeong Province, which was across the border from Russia, and from socio-economic and historical perspectives. As Russia and Japan were engaged in a prolonged war, Hamgyeong Province received serious damage and losses. During the summer and autumn of 1905, there were public outcries due to the impact of great floods and the attack of livestock by epidemic diseases. Local people suffered even greater damage from the Russian troops than the Japanese. Thus many local residents in the province fled to Primorsky,Manchuria, and even government offices in China. Previous research has reported that compared with Japan, Russia intruded less into northern areas of the Korean Peninsula. But unlike most research data reported, all of the local residents in Hamgyeong Province did not always blindly trust Russian troops. There are not a few documents on cases and examples in which Korean troops engaged in battle against Russian troops, and Koreans resisted against Russia. Koreans in the province had good feelings toward Russia, but the nation did not accept this. With war continuing, the Russian troops changed their antagonistic stance toward Japan, and showed a friendly attitude. There also was massive military mobilization not only by Russia and Japan, but also by non-government institutions. As the fierce commercial war waged, international and regional commercial trade declined greatly. These added to the suffering that local citizens experienced. After the naval battle in the East Sea in which Russia’s Baltic Fleet was defeated by the Japanese fleet, Japanese troops gained an edge in land warfare. As a result, the Japanese troop expanded their areas of infiltration. One of the most important reasons why the military administration was established only in Hamgyeong Province was because it was needed to connect the linkage with Russia; to block anti-Japanese Korean independence activities; to prohibit such activities from extending beyond the Korean border; and to keep tight control of the spheres such as public life. In the process, local troops in the Daehan Empire (K. Jinwidae ) in Bukcheong and Jongseong were dismantled. In some regions, a “Russia-style military administration”was founded, too. It is true that Russia received a relatively friendly response from local residents in Hamgyeong Province. Yet, the majority of those people suffered serious damage and losses in labor, in both physical and mental terms, by the Russo-Japanese War being waged, regardless of their will to fight. Most Korean local residents in the province thus had a strong awareness that they were people mobilized in the “war between third nations.” Finally, they perceived that the Russo-Japanese War merely cost lives in the less-developed imperial nations and brutally deprived them of property.

러일전쟁을 시각화하기: 압록강 전투와 제물포 해전을 중심으로

안세정 ( Ahn Se Jung ) 한양대학교 현대영화연구소 2022 현대영화연구 Vol.18 No.2

본 논문은 러일전쟁을 중심으로 영화기술의 발전 및 산업화 과정에 전쟁이라는 역사적 사건이 끼친 영향을 고찰한다. 초기영화사가 찰스 무서(Charles Musser)가 지적한 것처럼, 전쟁은 진귀한 볼거리에 불과하던 새로운 시각기술이 계몽의 매체로 활용될 수 있다는 가능성을 확인시켰을 뿐만 아니라, 영화기술이 본격적인 흥행업으로 정착하게 되는 결정적인 촉매제가 되었다. 발명된 지 채 십 년도 되지 않았던 시각기술은 전쟁을 어떻게 재현했으며, 관객들이 재현된 전쟁의 광경을 보고 즐거움을 느꼈다면 그 이유는 무엇인가? 전쟁영화 보기의 여흥적 측면에 주목하며, 본 논문은 러일전쟁의 시각화를 통해 초기 영화기법의 발달 과정을 추적하고자 한다. 이를 위해 러일전쟁을 시각화한 초기영화 가운데, 미국의 에디슨 스튜디오가 제작한 재연 영화(re-enactment) 두 편을 분석한다. 미국-스페인 전쟁을 비롯하여 전쟁 관련 실사를 제작해 성공적인 흥행을 경험한 에디슨이 현대 영화의 아버지라 불리우는 에드윈 포터(Edwin S. Porter)를 기용하여 1904년 제작한 < 일본과 러시아 전방부대 사이의 교전 Skirmish Between Japanese and Russian Advanced Guard >과 < 제물포 해전 Battle of Chemulpo Bay >이 본 논문의 분석대상이다. 본 논문이 에디슨이 제작한 재연 장르에 주목하는 이유는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 재연물은 전쟁과 같은 사건을 사후에 극적으로 재구성한 텍스트라는 점에서 전쟁을 시각화한 초기영화 장르의 오락적 성격을 이해하는데 중요한 시사점을 제공하기 때문이다. 둘째, 현대적 의미의 재현의 사실성과 구별되는 초기영화의 리얼리티 효과를 살펴볼 수 있기 때문이다. 마지막으로, 전쟁과 영화기술의 친연성과 초기영화의 관객성을 ‘기술의 미학화(aestheticization of technology)’라는 측면에서 살펴본다. This article examines how the historical events of war influenced on the development and industrialization of film technology with a focus on the Russo-Japanese War. As Charles Musser pointed out, modern warfare served as a catalyst not only to confirm the possibility of a new visual technology as a medium for the enlightenment, but also to help film technology’s industrialization. How did the newly invented visual technology represent the wars? How can we explain the audiences’ pleasure implied in their act of viewing war representations? Paying attention to the entertaining aspect in watching war films, this article attempts to trace the development of early film techniques through the visualizing practices on the Russo-Japanese War. To this end, two war re-enactment films produced by Edison Studios in the United States are analyzed. After making a box-office success from producing war films when the American-Spanish war broke out, Thomas Edison hired Edwin S. Porter, who is called the father of modern cinema, to produce two short films whose theme was the Russo-Japanese War; Skirmish Between Japanese and Russian Advanced Guard (1904) and The Battle of Chemulpo Bay (1904). These two films will be analyzed paying attention to the following aspects. First, in that a reenactment is a film genre that is dramatically reconstructed, these two war films provide important implications for understanding the pleasure of watching wars. Second, I will examine the so-called reality effect of early films, which is distinct from the authenticity of representation in its literal sense. Lastly, I would like to examine the affinity between war and film technology and emergence of early cinema’s spectatorship under the rubric of ‘aestheticization of technology’.

小杉未醒の日露戦争体験と「帰れ弟」論

金仙奇(Kim, Sun-Gi) 동북아시아문화학회 2018 동북아 문화연구 Vol.1 No.57

「Kaere ototo」 is the work of Kosugi Misei where the sense of anti-war internalized in himself while experiencing Russian-Japanese war burst out in a clear and fierce tone for the first time to be a representative work of 「Jinchushihen」. The work has also been known as one of the major anti-war poems during the Russina-Japanese war period along with 「Kimi sini tamau koto nakare」 by Yosano Akiko. However, still it is rare to find academic research on the work from detailed and general perspective. In this sense, the present study explored the background of 「Kaere ototo」 based on the analysis of journals, illustrations and psalters exhibiting Kosugi Misei’s Russina-Japanese war experience. Next, 「Kaere ototo」 was examined for its characteristics and implications as an anti-war poem with the focus on the sense of anti-war, artistic figuration, attitude of a poetic narrator, etc. appearing in the poem. Subsequently, the work was analyzed from the comparison analysis perspective with Yosano Akiko’s 「Kimi sini tamau koto nakare」 and Nakazato Kaizan’s 「Rantyogekiin」 to highlight the stance of 「Kaere ototo」 as an anti-war poem. Major study findings are as follows; First, Misei, during the initial Russian-Japanese war period, internalized critical reflection on war by witnessing the reality of war while following the army up to Pyeongyang. In addition, in the process of gaining a deep understanding of how the soldiers in the battle fields felt and identifying his own fate with those of young soldiers in similar ages to him, Misei accumulated opposition and criticism against the violence and brutality of war and these were burst into poetic dictions in 「Kaere ototo」. Second, the sense of anti-war in 「Kaere ototo」 is expressed in clear and firm patterns as shown in strong commands such as ‘Throw away the sword at your side quick.’, and ‘come back’ to your hometown. Third, 「Kaere ototo」, while displaying a strong sense of anti-war, also shows the outstanding image of ‘evening bird’ symbolizing peace and compares young soldiers to jade bowls to be deemed successful in artistic figuration rarely as an anti-war poem. Forth, 「Kaere ototo」 is viewed as one of the major anti-war poems during the Russian-Japanese war period in consideration of the following aspects; the work was created from Kosugi Misei’s firsthand experience of Russian-Japanese war, has the remarkable depth of critical reflection and internalization on war based on the poetic narrator’s firm sense of anti-war, and is successful in artistic figuration of the strong anti-war sense implied in itself.

근대 일본의 시베리아 출병에 대한 일고찰-중일전쟁과의 비교를 중심으로-

윤현명 ( Yun Hyen-myeng ) 인하대학교 한국학연구소 2019 한국학연구 Vol.0 No.53

1918년 8월, 일본은 영국, 프랑스, 미국 등의 열강과 함께 시베리아 출병을 단행했다. 그중 일본의 출병은 1925년 5월까지 계속되었는데, 이를 일본의 시베리아 출병이라고 한다. 선전포고는 없었지만, 이는 사실상의 전쟁이었다. 당시 러시아는 제1차 세계대전 그리고 1917년의 10월 혁명과 그 이후에 전개된 내전 때문에 혼란에 빠져 있었다. 이를 틈타 영국, 프랑스, 미국, 일본 등의 열강은 볼셰비키 정권의 붕괴와 동부전선의 재건을 노리고 러시아 문제에 개입했다. 그리고 체코 군단의 구출을 명목으로 시베리아 출병을 단행했는데, 이때 일본의 진짜 목적은 시베리아 동부를 자신의 세력권으로 만드는 것이었다. 그래서 적극적으로 군사작전을 수행하고, 괴뢰 정권을 세우는 등 독자적인 세력권 구축에 힘썼다. 그러한 일본의 행동은 미국의 반발을 샀다. 그럼에도 일본은 시베리아 동부에서 독자적인 세력권 구축을 추진했다. 그래서 영국, 프랑스, 미국 등의 열강이 군대를 철수시킨 뒤에도, 병력을 철수시키지 않았다. 그러나 볼셰비키 정권이 공고해지고, 미국의 반발이 거세지자 일본도 시베리아에서 군대를 철수시키지 않을 수 없게 되었다. 결국, 일본은 1925년 5월에 마지막 점령지였던 사할린 북부에서 군대를 철수시킴으로써 시베리아 출병을 완전히 끝냈다. 일본의 시베리아 출병은 공식적으로 전쟁을 선포하지 않았다는 점, 전시에 성립하는 임시군사비특별회계에서 경비가 지출되었다는 점, 광대한 영토를 무대로 장기전·게릴라전이 벌어졌다는 점, 해당 지역을 식민지화하기 위해 괴뢰 정권을 수립했다는 점, 미국의 강력한 견제를 받았다는 점에서 1937년에 발발한 중일전쟁과 유사한 패턴을 보인다. 일본의 시베리아 출병은 1925년에 끝났지만, 일본은 12년 후 중일전쟁을 일으켰다. 그리고 시베리아에서의 실수를 더 큰 규모로 반복하며 최악의 결과를 만들어냈다. 이렇게 볼 때 일본의 시베리아 출병은 중일전쟁의 ‘원형’이라고 할 수 있다. 반복하는 패턴을 만들어내는 원형 말이다. In August 1918, Japan carried out the dispatch of troops to Siberia with the powers of Britain, France and the United States. The Japanese military expedition continued until May 1925, which was called Japan’s Siberian Intervention. There was no declaration of war, but it was a de facto war. At that time, Russia fell into utter confusion after the First World War, the October Revolution of 1917 and the civil war that followed. In the meantime, the powers of Britain, France, the United States, and Japan intervened in the Russian issue in order to collapse the Bolshevik regime and rebuild the eastern front. And the dispatch of troops to Siberia was carried out in the name of rescuing Czech army, and the real purpose of Japan was to make eastern Siberia his territory. So Japan actively engaged in military operations and established a puppet regime trying to build its own scope of influence power. Such Japanese actions caused opposition from the United States. Nevertheless, Japan pushed forward its own scope of influence power in eastern Siberia. So Japan did not withdraw its troops, even after the British, French, and American powers withdrew their troops. However, as the Bolsheviks regime became stronger and the US opposition became stronger, Japan was forced to withdraw its troops from Siberia. Eventually, Japan completely ended its dispatch of troops to Siberia by withdrawing its troops from northern Sakhalin which was the last occupied territory in May 1925. Japan’s Siberian Intervention has a similar pattern with the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937 in that Japan did not officially declared war, the expense of military expedition was spent from Special Account of Extraordinary War Expenditure which could be valid in wartime, the long-term war and guerrilla warfare went on constantly in vast territory, the establishment of a puppet regime to colonize the region, and it as contained strongly by America. Japan’s departure from Siberia ended in 1925, but Japan start the Second Sino-Japanese War 12 years later. It caused the worst result repeating its mistakes in Siberia on a larger scale. In this way, Japan’s dispatch of troops to Siberia can be said to be an ‘original form’ of the Second Sino-Japanese War. It means a prototype that creates a pattern of repetition.

청일전쟁 및 삼국간섭과 러시아의 조선정책

김원 수 한국정치외교사학회 2015 한국정치외교사논총 Vol.36 No.2

본고는 그레이트 게임과 청일전쟁의 상호작동성을 모색해보고, 이를 전제로 청일전쟁기의 러시아의 조선정책을 조러관계 및 한반도를 둘러싼 다계적인 국계관계의 변화와 관련하여 재고찰해 본 것이다. 이를 위해 시간적 범주를 앞으로는 1884년의 조러통상조약과 거문도사건까지 소급하고, 뒤로는 삼국간섭이후 한반도를 중심한 러일교섭(1896-1898)에 까지 확대 하였다. 그리고 이 시기를 청일전쟁이전시기(1884년-1894년 6월초), 개전 외교시기(1894년 6월초-1894년 7월), 전쟁강화 및 삼국간섭시기(1894년 7월-1895년 4월말), 그리고 전쟁이후시기(1895년 10월-1898년 4월)로 구분하여, 각 시기에의 러시아의 조선정책을 살펴보았다. 청일전쟁기의 러시아의 조선정책은 삼국간섭을 계기로 소극적에서 적극적으로, 또는 기다리며 관망하는 자세에서 주도적 자세로 전환되고 있다. 하지만 큰 틀에 있어서는 지속적이고 일관된 노선을 견지하고 있는 바, 그것은 조선의 자주와 독립을 전제로 한 현상유지책을 기조로 하고 있었다. 이같은 러시아의 정책적 연속성은 거문도사건이후 결정된 러시아의 조선정책, 그리고 청일전쟁 뿐 만 아니라 러일전쟁의 그것에도 일관되게 지속되고 있었다. 이같은 역사적 사실은 청일 개전 원인의 시발점을 1880년대에까지 소급해보면 더욱 분명해 지며, 일본의 주권선, 이익선 구상 뿐 만 아니라, 1880년대 거문도사건을 계기로 한반도문제가 국제화된 과정과도 깊 게 연루되어 있다는 공통점을 가지고 있다. 따라서 그것은 청일전쟁이 한반도 문제의 국제화의 산물이라는 역사담론까지도 가능케 한다. 이와 같은 역사담론은 기존 연구에서 통설화된 러시아의 극동정책에 있어서 한반도는 만주의 방어를 위한 방파제 또는 전초기지적 성격 밖에 띄지 못하고 있었다고 하는 논거를 재고케 해 준다. 왜냐하면 영러의 그레이트 게임이 라는 차원에서 보면, 한반도는 1884년의 거문도사건, 1894년의 청일전쟁에서 뿐 만 아니라 1904년 러일전쟁에서도 간과할 수 없이 확보해야하는 중요한 러시아의 동아시아 전략거점이었음이 확인되고 있기 때문이다. In this article, I have tried to interconnect International Relations of the Great Game with the Sino-Japanese War. Especially focused on reexamining Russia’s Far Eastern policy and the Russo-Korean relationship in Northeast Asia during the Sino-Japanese war period. To this end, I was to expanded the research scope from Korean-Russian Commercial Treaty and the Port Hamilton Incident(1884-1885) to the Russo-Japanese negotiations(1896-1898) after the Triple Intervention(1895). And then, It was to be divided 4 stages. First stage was the prewar period(1884-1894. 6), 2nd was prewar diplomacy period(early June1894–July1894), 3rd was peace conference and intervention period(July1894- late April 1895), 4th was after war period(October 1895-april 1898). And reconsider the Russian Policy toward Korea each time. During The Sino-Japanese War in 1894-95, Russia had special attention to maintain a balance of power in Korean peninsular. Aftermath of Korf-Zinoviev talks and Special Committee in St. Petersburg in 1888 and 1889, Russia has begun to take a geo-strategic measures in Korea and East Asia. But until then, her finance was week and military preparation was lack in the Far East. so Russia want to maintain the ante-bellum status quo in Korea at least until the completion of the Trans–Siberian Railway. But on the other hand, Russia was to be prevent from being infringed the independence of Korea by any power. Before the outbreak of war, Chinese Government asked for Russia’s arbitration to avoid war. The Russian arbitration was failed by the Japan’s unshakable will to war, but it made Japan delay outbreak of war approximately 40 days. In the long run, Russia adopted a wait-and-see policy and did not hinder Japanese aggression in the fall of 1894. The Japanese troops had success in the war and occupied Port Arthur and Weihaiwei and the Chinese plenipotentiaries had arrived in Japan for the Peace treaty negotiations. On February 1. 1895, a Special Committe in St. Petersburg was held to decided whether Russia should act independently or with other powers in the Sino-Japanese war after the committee, Russian policy toward Korea was changed to aggressive policy. A representative example were The Triple Intervention and Russo-Japanese negotiation in Korean Peninsular(1896-1898). However, from a long-term perspective, Russia s policy was consistent during the Sino–Japanese war period. It has been based on the strategic principle of preserving the independence of Korea.

러일전쟁 전후 한국인의 러시아 이미지 형성 경로와 러시아 인식

최규진 경상대학교 사회과학연구원 2010 마르크스주의 연구 Vol.7 No.3

Russo-Japanese War was the large scale one in the region of North-Eastern Asia at the beginning of 20 century. Besides, it was “the Zero World War” and the one which surrounding the ruling power on Korea. This article intends to show the consciousness and situation of those who were the intellectuals at that time, following the thought of them on Russia during the Russo-Japanese War. In terms of the Korean intellectuals, they had a mingled feeling of fear and expectation about Russia. They feared the invasion of Russia. Some used to expect Russia would be the power to restrain Japan. However, many Korean intellectuals saw Russia as the hostile country from the beginning or at least didn’t welcome Russia. Before Russo-Japanese War, “wariness to Russia” and “the concept of Russo-threat” pervaded among Korean intellectuals. They watched the “russian expansionism. Anti-Russian perception of China and Japan had a great influence on them. They imagined Russia through the knowledge ad information coming from Japanese and China. During the Russo-Japanese War, Racism stirred up Anti-Russian perception. With the order of conventional East-Asia broken, and an outlook on the new world formed, the notion of the whites Russia versus the yellow Asia became the obvious symbol. Racism had a great effect on other Asian countries, such as Japan, China, Vietnam and India as well as Korea 러일전쟁은 20세기 초 동북아 지역의 대규모 전쟁이자, ‘0차 세계대전’이며 한국지배권을 둘러싼 전쟁이었다. 이 글은 러일전쟁을 앞뒤로 한 때에 지식인이 러시아를 바라보았던 눈길을 따라가며, 그들의 의식과 시대 상황을 보여주려고 한다. 또한지식인이 러시아를 인식하는 경로를 추적하면서 근대 지식과 국제 정보가 유입되는과정에 대해서도 설명하려고 한다. 한국 지식인에게 러시아란 두려움과 기대가 엇갈리는 나라였다. 그들은 러시아의침략성을 두려워했다. 일부에서는 러시아가 일본을 견제할 세력이 될 것을 기대하기도 했다. 그러나 많은 한국 지식인은 처음부터 끝까지 러시아를 적대적으로 보거나 적어도 달갑게 여기지 않았다. 러일전쟁 전에는 한국 지식인들 사이에 ‘러시아 경계론’과 ‘러시아 위협론’이 널리 퍼졌다. 그들은 제정 러시아의 ‘팽창주의’를 경계했다. 한국 지식인에게 중국과일본의 반러 인식이 큰 영향을 미쳤다. 한국 지식인은 일본과 청국에서 들어오는지식과 정보를 통해 러시아 이미지를 그렸다. 러일전쟁 때에는 인종주의가 반러 인식을 더욱 부추겼다. 전통적인 동아시아 질서가 무너지고 새로운 세계관을 형성하는 과도기에 ‘백인종 러시아 대 황인종 아시아’가 선명한 상징이 되었다. 인종주의는 한국만이 아니라 일본 중국 베트남 인도같은 다른 아시아 나라에도 큰 영향을 미쳤다.

The Russo-Japanese War and its Effects on Ukraine

shchegelolena 한국외국어대학교(글로벌캠퍼스) 동유럽발칸연구소 2016 동유럽발칸연구 Vol.40 No.6

The article examines the influence of the Russo-Japanese war onto Ukraine and the changes in Russian policies towards Ukraine after its defeat in the war. While historians have discussed effects the war had on Asia, Africa, Europe and the United States there have been no previous studies on the influence of the Russo-Japanese war on Ukraine. The paper approaches the subject from two points – direct and indirect. With help of the former approach the article discusses how Ukrainians participated in the war and how they perceived it, while the latter one discusses how the Russo-Japanese war catalyzed social unrest in the Russian Empire thus accelerating the onset of the revolution and giving rise to Ukrainian national and cultural movement. The research shows that the war was highly unpopular among the Ukrainian population albeit far more often for personal reasons than for political ones. It also concludes that political changes that were triggered by the Russo-Japanese war had tremendous impact onto Ukraine but were short-lived and were followed by harsh counterrevolutionary imperial policies.

러일전쟁이 우크라이나에 미친 영향

올레나쉐겔(Olena Shchegel) 한국외국어대학교 동유럽발칸연구소 2016 동유럽발칸연구 Vol.40 No.6

본 논문은 러일전쟁이 우크라이나에 미친 영향에 관한 논의를 펼치며 러시아제국이 러일전쟁에서 패배를 당한 후 제국의 대 우크라이나 정책에 어떠한 변화가 있었는지를 살펴보고자 한다. 기전의 연구에서 러일전쟁이 아시아, 아프리카, 유럽국가들과 미국에 미친 영향에 관한 논의 및 분석은 어느 정도로 이루어졌지만 우크라이나와 러일전쟁의 관계에 관한 연구는 아직 진행된 적이 없다. 본 논문은 두 가지의 접근방법을 활용하여 러일전쟁이 우크라이나에 미친 영향을 살펴보고자 한다. 하나는, 우크라이나인들의 러일전 쟁에서 참여의 규모와 특징을 소개하고 당시 우크라이나인들의 러일 전쟁에 대한 인식이 어떤 것이었는지 보여 주는 방법 이다. 또 다른 하나는, 러일전쟁을 러시아제국의 사회적 불만을 심화시키고 1905년 혁명의 계기가 된 것으로 해석하여 혁명과정에서 러시아제국의 대 우크라이나 정책이 어떻게 바뀌었고 그것은 우크라이나인들에게 어떤 변화를 안겨주었는지를 논하는 방법이다. The article examines the influence of the Russo-Japanese war onto Ukraine and the changes in Russian policies towards Ukraine after its defeat in the war. While historians have discussed effects the war had on Asia, Africa, Europe and the United States there have been no previous studies on the influence of the RussoJapanese war on Ukraine. The paper approaches the subject from two points – direct and indirect. With help of the former approach the article discusses how Ukrainians participated in the war and how they perceived it, while the latter one discusses how the RussoJapanese war catalyzed social unrest in the Russian Empire thus accelerating the onset of the revolution and giving rise to Ukrainian national and cultural movement. The research shows that the war was highly unpopular among the Ukrainian population albeit far more often for personal reasons than for political ones. It also concludes that political changes that were triggered by the Russo-Japanese war had tremendous impact onto Ukraine but were short-lived and were followed by harsh counterrevolutionary imperial policies.