해방 정국에서의 신탁 통치 파동 : 1945-1947 = A Study of Disputes on Trusteeship after the Liberation in Korea

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

［1］ This study was written to depict the logic of disputes on trusteeship after the Liberation in Korea, 1945-1947.
［2］ It is necessary to analyse the traditional interpretation exactly that the right-wings asserted the anti-trusteeship and the left wings assented the trusteeship, because right-wing really asserted the anti-trusteeship but left-wing, exactly speaking, asserted the Agreement of Three Ministers of Foreign Affairs(USA, USSR, UK) in Moscow Conference. Considering that the right-wings focused on the terms of trusteeship but the left-wings on those of provisional government, it is not logical to say that the right-wing protested against the trusteeship and the left-wing approved the trusteeship. The right-wing, who read the English edition of Agreement which focused on the trusteeship, were deeply impressed by the term of 'Trusteeship' but the left-wing, who read the Russian edition which contained the guardianship(Oneka) in stead of trusteeship, were impressed by the promise of Provisional government, and consequently they were not negative to the Moscow Agreement. Therefore the disputes on trusteeship were originated from their misunderstanding of the terms of Moscow Agreement. This controversial problem could be solved by sincere dialogue and broader view point among the political leaders, but both sides of them were neither generous nor able.
［3］ Our ultimate question is which was right, anti-trusteeship or pro-trusteeship? As the advocates of pro-trusteeship said, it is true that the trusteeship would postpone the independence of their state but it could deter the aggressive desire of Russian people. But the history could not turn her face from the popular emotion, as to say, anti-trusteeship atmosphere. It is important to point that they had to unite along the same line whether it was anti or pro-trusteeship. It was tragic that they were separated along their partial and selfish interest. If they were united, there would be some possibilities to evade the separation of territory.
［4］ It is not true logic to say that pro-trusteeship was pro-communist and anti-trusteeship was nationalistic. And it is not true to say that pro-trusteeship was emotional conclusion and anti-trusteeship was theoretical one. Both of them were neither reasonable nor patriotic. They did not have any concrete idea. They were worried about their own interest. They had to persuade the mass who were indulged in Jacobian mentality. They had to guide the people in the turmoil of Liberation. "ey had to do as the eye-surgeon specializing in removing cataracts."
［5］ The above logic does not deny the reasonabilities of the three Powers. They were also responsible for the national rupture after the Liberation of Korea. They devoted himself to exclude the "main of one power."hey were not sympathetic to the destiny of Korean people. Concludingly speaking, the device of anti-trusteeship was impossible one. It made the Korean people give up the Union of peninsula as hopeless one.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 1. 머리말
• 2. 모스크바 협정과 미국의 구상
• 3. 반탁의 논리
• 4. 찬탁의 논리
• 5. 좌익이 찬탁으로 선회한 이유
• 1) 소련 지령설
• 2) 스스로의 판단이라는 설
• 3) 정치적 주도권을 위한 싸움이었다는 주장
• 4) 반사작용설
• 6. 결론