메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
李沅埈 (인천대학교)
저널정보
중국근현대사학회 중국근현대사연구 中國近現代史硏究 第79輯
발행연도
2018.9
수록면
133 - 164 (32page)
DOI
10.29323/mchina.2018.9.79.133

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
In the capital debate of the 1940’s, Xi’an(西安), Beiping(北平), and Nanjing(南京) were the cities that earned the most support for the postwar China’s capital. This article has compared the three cities’ arguments from the perspective of defense strategy, and has found out that the arguments can generally be divided into three categories. People who supported Xi’an emphasized ‘inland defense(陆防lufang)’ based on the traditional defense strategy concept. On the contrary, people who supported Nanjing emphasized ‘maritime defense(海防haifang)’ based on the changed international situation since mid 19th century. Beiping was supported as China’s new capital on the basis that it was capable of countering both inland and maritime threats. The intellectuals who participated in the debate raised arguments based on their view of the future military threats facing China in the postwar years, and their claims can be generally classified into three categories, which are ‘inland defense strategy(陆防论)’, ‘maritime defense strategy(海防論)’, and ‘inland and maritime defense strategy(陸海兼顧論)’.
In the viewpoint that both debates were focused on analyzing the military threats facing China and discussing what defense strategy to choose in the future, the 1940’s capital debate is historically similar to the defense strategy debate of 1874-75. The two debates bear historical resemblance in that the participants were absorbed in analyzing the major military threats confronting China and proposing which defense strategy(inland or maritime) China should adapt to confront it. Whether the core of the military threats facing China at the time was on the continent, at sea, or both, the people who participated in the debate presented appropriate alternatives based on their analysis. Although the alternatives showed a certain difference with the passage of time, they were fundamentally based on three categories, and in that point, the two debates could be discussed in the same historical context.

목차

머리말
Ⅰ. 西安建都論과 ‘陸防論’
Ⅱ. 南京建都論과 ‘海防論’
Ⅲ. 北平建都論과 ‘陸海兼顧論’
Ⅳ. ‘塞防 · 海防 논쟁’의 재현
맺음말
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2018-912-003573131