일본 육군의 ‘대전의 교훈’ 형성 과정과 스토리텔링

초록

This paper analyzes the reports from the military attaches dispatched by Japanese army during the First World War, and reveals the lessons the army learned from the outcomes and how its implications changed over time. Just after the outbreak of the war, Japanese army admired Germany’s military capacities while recognizing the superiority of the Allies in terms of power. Thus, they were anxious about declaring war against Germany and did not agree on the matter of which side would be the final winner between the Allies and the Central Powers. Then, in the middle stage of the war, the army was consistent in highly evaluating the military power of Germany than that of the Allies. After analyzing the causes of Germany’s success, the army derived lessons such as elite troops, national education, and militarism. This was a justification of the way of the army"s existence at the present time. On the other hand, the Army"s perception of the war was somewhat modified by Russia"s revolution and defeat and America"s participation in the war, yet the lessons from Germany’s success were still valid. For that reason, Germany’s defeat and the Allies" victory were a great shock for the army. After the war, the army derived various lessons from this, which involved the universal conscription system, the self-sufficient economic system, the soldiers" obedience based on self-awareness, and national education. However, the army also tried to learn strategic and tactical lessons from Germany’s successes in individual battles, and they did not agree with the view that the outcome of the war meant the victory of wartime improvisational army over the elite troops, or the victory of liberalism and democracy over German militarism. Besides, the army felt a crisis in "the deterioration of the thought" by Russia and Germany"s defeat. The “lessons of the First World War” were derived from mixed causes at each stage of the war such as Germany’s success, Russia’s defeat, Germany"s final defeat and the Allies" victory. If we look at the implications of the lessons, we can see the coexistence of the demand for fundamental changes in the army"s system and the demand for status quo. Because of the conflicting interpretations of the lessons, there was difficulty in adjusting the conflicts over the issues of reform within the army. Thus, it can be argued that the issue of strong leadership had become a pivotal request at that time in order to deal with the conflicts and to enhance the interests of the Army.