本文關(guān)鍵詞： 美國 戰(zhàn)后朝鮮 托管政策 演變　出處：《延邊大學(xué)》2010年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】： 目前朝鮮半島正處于南北分裂的狀態(tài),其統(tǒng)一問題關(guān)系到整個東北亞地區(qū)的穩(wěn)定和發(fā)展,已經(jīng)成為當(dāng)前國際社會關(guān)注的焦點。朝鮮半島因其獨特的地理位置,在歷史上多次成為大國沖突的舞臺。朝鮮半島所處的地緣政治上的因素,使其成為強權(quán)政治的犧牲品。從地理位置上來看朝鮮半島對美國來說是非常重要,美國對朝鮮的控制能有效地遏制戰(zhàn)后蘇聯(lián)在東北亞地區(qū)的擴張。 太平洋戰(zhàn)爭爆發(fā)后,美國開始考慮被日本占領(lǐng)數(shù)十年之久的朝鮮戰(zhàn)后政治前途問題。一直到太平洋戰(zhàn)爭結(jié)束前的數(shù)年中,美國沒有接受朝鮮方面關(guān)于戰(zhàn)后立即獨立的要求,而是提出了戰(zhàn)后托管朝鮮的方案,對戰(zhàn)后朝鮮半島政治命運產(chǎn)生了巨大的影響,在一定程度上成為朝鮮南北分裂的起因。 美國在制定戰(zhàn)后朝鮮托管政策中,僅考慮到各大國在朝鮮的利益平衡,進(jìn)而制定出各大國都能滿意的托管政策,對朝鮮的托管政策沒有考慮朝鮮人民的意愿,僅以朝鮮人民在日本的殖民統(tǒng)治下,缺乏管理國家的能力為借口,把朝鮮人民排除在戰(zhàn)后治理國家之外。二戰(zhàn)后,美蘇之間的戰(zhàn)時同盟關(guān)系結(jié)束,美蘇在全球的勢力角逐開始,這對美國的戰(zhàn)后朝鮮托管政策實施產(chǎn)生了巨大影響。由于美蘇之間的不合作、分歧等導(dǎo)致美國的戰(zhàn)后朝鮮托管政策在實施的過程中遭到極大的阻力,最后朝鮮南北部各自建立政權(quán)而宣告美國的戰(zhàn)后朝鮮托管政策失敗。 美國戰(zhàn)后朝鮮托管政策所具有的局限性,注定了它的失敗。作為馬克思唯物史觀的堅持者,筆者認(rèn)為,事物的變化發(fā)展是內(nèi)外因共同作用的結(jié)果,外因必須通過內(nèi)因發(fā)生作用,內(nèi)因才是運動、變化、發(fā)展的根本因素。因此,要在戰(zhàn)后實踐美國制定的朝鮮政策,美國就必須從分裂主體的內(nèi)部因素入手,朝鮮的主體是朝鮮人民,美國的戰(zhàn)后朝鮮托管政策,只有正確地將戰(zhàn)后朝鮮人民的意愿考慮在內(nèi),這才是戰(zhàn)后朝鮮托管政策成功的關(guān)鍵,其他大國的意愿只能起到輔助作用。 本論文正是基于以上觀點,從歷史學(xué)角度,著手于朝鮮半島分裂的起因分析,將此問題主要分為美國戰(zhàn)后朝鮮托管政策的出臺、調(diào)整和戰(zhàn)后美國托管政策的實施與朝鮮的反托管運動來論證,美國的朝鮮政策是根據(jù)其戰(zhàn)時戰(zhàn)后的國力來制定的,在一定程度上是有他的可行性的,但在他的制定過程和結(jié)論中對朝鮮人民的評價一直都甚低,一直都甚少考慮朝鮮人民對戰(zhàn)后朝鮮的意愿,是導(dǎo)致美國戰(zhàn)后朝鮮托管政策失敗的關(guān)鍵。
[Abstract]:At present, the Korean Peninsula is in a state of separation between the north and the south, and its reunification is related to the stability and development of the whole Northeast Asian region, and has become the focus of attention of the current international community. Because of its unique geographical position, Many times in history, the Korean peninsula has become a stage of great power conflict. The geopolitical factors on the Korean peninsula have made it a victim of power politics. Geographically, the Korean peninsula is very important to the United States. American control of North Korea can effectively curb the expansion of the Soviet Union in Northeast Asia after the war. After the Pacific War broke out, the United States began to consider the Korean postwar political future, which had been occupied by Japan for decades. In the years leading up to the end of the Pacific War, the United States did not accept North Korea's demand for immediate post-war independence. Instead, he put forward a proposal to trust Korea after the war, which had a great influence on the political fate of the Korean Peninsula after the war, and to a certain extent became the cause of the division between the North and the South of Korea. In formulating the post-war Korean trusteeship policy, the United States only took into account the balance of interests of the major powers in the DPRK, and then formulated a trusteeship policy that all the major powers could be satisfied with. The United States did not consider the wishes of the Korean people in regard to the Korean trusteeship policy. Just using the Korean people under the colonial rule of Japan and lacking the ability to run the country as an excuse to exclude the Korean people from running the country after the war. After World War II, the wartime alliance between the United States and the Soviet Union ended, and the US-Soviet struggle for power began in the world. This has had a great impact on the implementation of the post-war Korean trusteeship policy of the United States. Due to the lack of cooperation and differences between the United States and the Soviet Union, the United States' post-war Korean trusteeship policy has encountered great resistance in the process of implementation. In the end, North and South Korea established their respective regimes and declared the United States failed in its postwar Korean trusteeship policy. The limitations of the United States' post-war Korean trusteeship policy doomed its failure. As the adherent of Marx's historical materialism, the author believes that the changes and development of things are the result of the joint action of internal and external factors. External causes must act through internal causes, which are the fundamental factors for movement, change and development. Therefore, in order to practice the Korean policy formulated by the United States after the war, the United States must start with the internal factors that divide the main body. The main body of the DPRK is the Korean people, and the United States' post-war Korean trusteeship policy can only take the will of the postwar Korean people into account correctly, which is the key to the success of the post-war Korean trusteeship policy, and the wishes of other major powers can only play an auxiliary role. This paper is based on the above views, from the perspective of history, to analyze the causes of the division of the Korean Peninsula, divided this issue into the introduction of the United States' post-war Korean trusteeship policy. The adjustment and implementation of the post-war US trusteeship policy and the anti-trust movement of the DPRK proved that the US Korean policy was formulated on the basis of its postwar national strength, and to a certain extent had its own feasibility. However, in his formulation process and conclusions, the evaluation of the Korean people has been very low, and very little consideration has been given to the Korean people's will to Korea after the war, which is the key to the failure of the United States' post-war Korean trusteeship policy.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：延邊大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2010
【分類號】：K312.5;D871.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 唐志昂;;美韓外交和美國在遠(yuǎn)東的戰(zhàn)略——淺析1945—1969年美國對韓政策之演變[J];韓國研究論叢;1996年00期

2 武斌紅,孟然;朝鮮半島問題中的大國因素[J];解放軍外國語學(xué)院學(xué)報;2005年02期

3 彭安玉;“冷戰(zhàn)”政策與朝鮮戰(zhàn)爭的爆發(fā)[J];軍事歷史研究;2003年01期

4 余偉民,周娜;1945-1948年朝鮮半島南部地區(qū)的政治變動[J];史林;2003年04期

5 張璉瑰;;朝鮮半島分裂的由來[J];世界知識;1998年19期

，

本文編號：1515209