아시아태평양전쟁기 한인 ‘강제동원’에 관한 연구의 동향과 과제

• 영문명: Research Trends and Tasks on Korean Forced Mobilization in the Asia-Pacific War - Focusing on Korea and Japan -
• 발행기관: 한일민족문제학회
• 저자명: 김광열(Kim, Gwang-Yol)
• 간행물 정보: 『韓日民族問題硏究』제36집, 131~163쪽, 전체 33쪽
• 주제분류: 인문학 > 역사학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2019.06.30

국문 초록

本稿は、1965年の朴慶植「朝鮮人強制連行の記録」以来、韓国と日本で 行われた朝鮮人｢強制動員｣関連の研究を労働力動員および兵力動員中心に 検討して、今後の課題を提示しようとするものである。 日本における関連研究は1960年代の半ばから始まった。朝鮮総督府の役割 を含めた抑圧的な動員の実態や、主な動員対象であった朝鮮農民の生活実 態まで注目したり、日朝の間の労務動員のシステムが異なっていたというところに まで関心が及んだ。さらに、その過程で動員現場で働かされた朝鮮人の処遇 を日本人の場合と比較して朝鮮人が差別的な状況におかれていたことを究明し たし、動員による負傷や死亡に対しても無責任な状態に置かれていたことを注目 した。一方、韓国における関連研究は1980年代から本格化した。動員に関す る政策、送出過程における総督府機関の役割、動員現場への配置過程、 被動員朝鮮人が置かれた劣悪な待遇などに注目した。韓国と日本で行われた 研究の共通点は朝鮮人動員に｢強制性｣があったと究明することであった。相 違点は何かといえば、日本での研究はその｢強制性｣とともに｢特殊性｣(日本人 との比較)まで把握しようとしたのに対し、韓国での研究は動員の事実と｢強制性 ｣の追究を一貫して行った傾向があったと言えよう。 以来、韓国と日本で 行われた朝鮮人｢強制動員｣関連の研究を労働力動員および兵力動員中心に 検討して、今後の課題を提示しようとするものである。 日本における関連研究は1960年代の半ばから始まった。朝鮮総督府の役割 を含めた抑圧的な動員の実態や、主な動員対象であった朝鮮農民の生活実 態まで注目したり、日朝の間の労務動員のシステムが異なっていたというところに まで関心が及んだ。さらに、その過程で動員現場で働かされた朝鮮人の処遇 を日本人の場合と比較して朝鮮人が差別的な状況におかれていたことを究明し たし、動員による負傷や死亡に対しても無責任な状態に置かれていたことを注目 した。一方、韓国における関連研究は1980年代から本格化した。動員に関す る政策、送出過程における総督府機関の役割、動員現場への配置過程、 被動員朝鮮人が置かれた劣悪な待遇などに注目した。韓国と日本で行われた 研究の共通点は朝鮮人動員に｢強制性｣があったと究明することであった。相 違点は何かといえば、日本での研究はその｢強制性｣とともに｢特殊性｣(日本人との比較)まで把握しようとしたのに対し、韓国での研究は動員の事実と｢強制性 ｣の追究を一貫して行った傾向があったと言えよう。

영문 초록

The purpose of this article is to examine how the research of Korean forced mobilization in the Asia - Pacific War has developed in Korea and Japan, and propose future tasks. The research conducted in Japan have seen the oppressive mobilization of labor and mobilization of troops, including the role of the colonial ruling body, which was carried out against the Korean people at that time. It also paid attention to the actual situation of the life of Korean farmers who were the main mobilization targets. In addition, tried to compare the discriminatory treatment of Korean who were present at the mobilization site with those of Japanese, and also paid attention to the irresponsible treatment of injuries or deaths caused by mobilization. On the other hand, the research conducted in Korea also tried to clarify the role of the colonial ruling body in charge of the transmission process and the mobilization work, and the impossibility of revealing the inhuman and poor situation of Koreans in the mobilization area. It is common to point out that there was a ‘coercion’ in the mobilization of Koreans in the Pacific War, both Japan and Korea. As for the differences, research in Japan tries to pursue its specificity in addition to its ‘coercion’, whereas research in Korea tends to concentrate on the mobilization of facts and ‘coercion’. Nevertheless, the question of whether the specificity and “coerciveness” of the mobilization of the Korean people is clearly defined is not a situation that can be said to be quite certain. The tasks are as follows. It is necessary to clarify how the colonial rule of the Japanese Empire on the Korean Peninsula, which was the cause of the mobilization of Koreans and functioned in the background, functioned in the total mobilization system. The reason is that Koreans mobilized by the Japanese empire were ultimately a kind of national discriminatory policy using the discriminatory structure of colonial rule. Therefore, it is necessary to observe the following detailed subject. Above all, labor mobilization needs to be identified by industry, and military mobilization by type, on the actual situation of mobilization developed on the Korean peninsula. It is because there are many unknown parts of mobilization in the Korean peninsula. Whether it is labor mobilization or military mobilization, it is necessary to thoroughly understand how the system of mobilization system implemented in the Korean Peninsula and Japan was different. In addition to the fact that the Koreans who were mobilized from abroad, including Japan, were placed in a poor environment and were highly likely to suffer injuries and deaths, or were not only restricted in paying wages, were unable to pay most of their wages even after the end of the war, It is necessary to disclose how it differs from the mobilization of the Japanese at that time, such as the fact that it was not responsible for at all. It is

목차

Ⅰ. 머리말 - 문제의 소재

Ⅱ. 일본에서 진행된 관련 연구

Ⅲ. 한국에서 진행된 관련 연구

Ⅳ. 맺음말 - 향후의 과제

키워드

아시아태평양전쟁(the Asia-Pacific War) 식민지지배(colonial rule) 한인 강제동원(forced mobilization of the korean) 강제성(coercion) 특수성(specificity) 차별적 대우(discriminatory treatment) 민족차별(national discrimination) 동원의 시스템과 방식(System and method of mobilization) 민족별 차이(Difference by nation)