The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Volume 13 | Issue 20 | Number 2 | Article ID 4319 | May 18, 2015

1

Zen and War: A Commentary on Brian Victoria and KarlBaier's Analysis of Daisetz Suzuki and Count Dürckheim 禅と戦争　ブライアン・ビクトリアとカール・バイヤーによる鈴木大拙とデュルクハイム伯爵分析の検討

Hans-Joachim Bieber

Figure 1. The alliance. Draft of poster by15-year-old Japanese boy from exhibitionof drawings of Japanese pupils, 1941/1942.

In three articles published in 2013/14 in thisjournal, Brian Victoria and Karl Baier shed lighton the relationship of Japanese Buddhists, inparticular of Daisetz Suzuki, to GermanNational Socialism, and, in turn, of GermanNational Socialism to Buddhism, in particularto Japanese Zen Buddhism and to the history of

the Japanese samurai.1 All three articles arehighly commendable because these relationswere hitherto nearly unknown and provideinteresting insight into the cultural tiesbetween Germany and Japan in the years of the“axis”. I would like to reexamine some of theassertions made in these articles, to presentadditional details and introduce certainsources, which neither Victoria nor Baier, norother authors quoted by them, had utilized. Idiscovered these sources while conductingresearch for a comprehensive study onGerman-Japanese cultural relations between1933 and 1945 which was published recently.2

Remarks on Suzuki’s report on a trip toGermany in 1936

I would like to begin with some remarks aboutSuzuki’s report on a trip to Germany in October1936. Prior to Victoria's discovery of thisreport, the fact that Suzuki had visited NaziGermany and wrote about his visit was hardlyknown.3 Victoria has shown that the reportreveals certain sympathies on Suzuki’s part forNational Socialism and suggests that thesesympathies might have been based on socialistinclinations which Suzuki had felt in his youth.It may be interesting to note that the reportalso reveals Suzuki’s lack of knowledgeregarding Germany and German history ingeneral and National Socialism in particularwhen he arrived there and shows that hemerely reproduced what he heard and saw.One example of his unfamiliarity with Germanyis his interpretation of the so-called Hitler

APJ | JF 13 | 20 | 2

2

salute as a sign of Hitler’s popularity. In fact,this salute was quite common since theNational Socialists had come to power and evenmandatary for representatives of thegovernment and the Nazi party on officialoccasions. Suzuki’s remarks on the anti-Jewishpolicy of the Nazis serve as another example.They obviously repeat what followers of theNazi movement told him – namely, that Jewshad “rushed into Germany like a flood” afterWorld War I, that they were a non-indigenous“parasitic people“ who lacked any ability todevelop a “connection to the land”, and that“they monopolized profits in the commercialsector while utilizing their power in thepolitical arena solely to advance their owninterests.”4 All these statements were anti-Semitic clichés that had been rampant inGermany even before 1933 and blatantlydistorted historical and social facts. In truth, inthe early 1930s, the majority of German Jewsbelonged to families that had been living inGermany for generations – in many cases, evenfor centuries. They were assimilated culturallyand successful economically and no longerperceived their Jewishness as an ethnic feature,but, if at all, as a religious or cultural one. Theysaw themselves as Germans. But theypossessed little political power and observedwith mixed feelings the increasing immigrationof Jews from Eastern Europe into Germany – atrend which had already begun at the end ofthe 19th century. Nevertheless, for some timeafter 1933, many German Jews continued tobelieve that the revocation of their equalitybefore the law and their segregation fromGerman society would be impossible, eventhough the National Socialist Regime hadbegun its relentless pursuit of such a policy. Asa consequence, many Jews did not leaveGermany, while it was possible, after the onsetof National Socialist rule. Suzuki's encounterwith Jewish émigrés in London must have givenhim an idea of what expulsion from Germanymeant for them. His view, however, was thatthe expulsion itself was “an action taken in self-defense”, and thus justified.5

Figure 2. Nogi, the last samurai: theJapanese hero of Port Arthur, Ronald E.Strunk.Figure 3. "'Spirit of your spirit': howJapanese women fight at home for victory".

Some remarks on National Socialism andBuddhism

Obviously, Suzuki did not meet prominentrepresentatives of the National Socialist regimenor scholars and intellectuals during his visit toGermany in 1936. In addition, the Germanpress, as far as is known, did not take note ofhis stay. At that time, Suzuki’s level offamiliarity in Germany was limited to scholarsof religion, and only a few of his essays hadbeen translated into German.6 Victoria does notrefer to these facts, nor does he mention thatthe German press began to show an increasinginterest in Japan in general and Buddhism inparticular soon after the Nazis’ rise to power.This interest was based on the desire tounderstand Japan’s coup d’état in establishing

APJ | JF 13 | 20 | 2

3

Manchoukuo in 1931 and subsequent conflictsthereafter. Even more important was therapprochement between Germany and Japanwhich began in 1934 and was underscored bythe December 1936 German-Japanese anti-Comintern pact (Antikominterpakt). By meansof essays and books, photographs and films,screen plays and exhibitions, the Germans wereto be familiarized mentally and emotionallywith their new ally in the Far East. (See figures2, 3, 4 and 5.)

Figure 4. Final cut of the German-Japanesefilm The daughter of the samurai, 1936:the newborn in Manchukuo, the "countryof the future."Figure 5. Meeting of German and Japanesestudents and scientists in the AustrianAlps, 1939.

One strategy used by many of the publicationsin question was the construction of allegedaffinities and similarities between Germany andJapan – historical, cultural, and politicalkinships. Similarities were seen to existbetween Shintoism and Japanese nationalethics and Germanic pagan religions andethics; in a common respect for ancestors; inplacing the importance of the community abovethat of the individual; and in centering societyand political structures around the Tenno orthe Führer respectively. Furthermore, bothsocieties were viewed as being similar in theirrejection of liberalism, individualism,

APJ | JF 13 | 20 | 2

4

democracy, private capitalism, and communismas well as in their commitment to commonideas of race and hereditary health. Bothnations were also depicted as having a commonneed for expansion, as both were seen to besuffering from a lack of “living space”(Lebensraum). Occasionally, descriptions of thealleged kinship between the two peoples evenwent so far as to suggest certain racial links.7

From very early on National Socialist authorsshowed special interest in Buddhism, mainlybecause of their race theory, particularly theirassumptions regarding Aryans, whom they sawas the ancestors of the Germanic peoples.H.F.K. Günther, the leading National Socialisttheorist dealing with racial questions, depictedBuddha as an Aryan, probably light-skinnedand blue eyed, and explained the teachings ofBuddha as being “a life teaching for individualnobles” („Lebenslehre für einzelne Edelinge”),demanding “self-discipline and innersuperiority” („große Selbstzucht und innereÜberlegenheit”).8 A National Socialistindologist described Buddha as an Aryan hero,as a “warrior yogi” („Kriegeryogi“), andpresented his early followers as examples of“passive heroism”.9

Figure 6. Japanese soldiers in Germanpress, circa 1940-43.

Ideologists of National Socialism held Japanese

Zen Buddhism in particularly high regard. Theydescribed it as a “path of utmost discipline andsel f -denying commitment” to “ innerconcentration and meditative contemplation”(„Weg härtester Zucht und selbstverleugnenderHingabe“ zu „innerer Sammlung undVersenkung”), but perceived the contemplationin question as one “leading to action”(„Tatversenkung”) which was “excellentlysuited to the art of combat” and which gavef ight ing i t s “unconquerab le force”(„unbezwingliche Gewalt“). This interpretationof Zen Buddhism was inextricably linked to anaffirmation of the existing (outer) world,including that of fighting („Jasagen zumWeltgegebenen, ja zum Kampfe“). Thus, ZenBuddhism was not perceived as a spiritualphenomenon but as a prerequisite state of mindfor the “most outstanding type of warrior”;above all, for the “aristocracy of warriors” (füreinen „hervorragenden Kriegertyp“, ja„Kriegeradel“) – that is, for the samurai. It wasalso treated as an integral part of a “folkish-national ethos”.10

Victoria does not deal with the vast number ofGerman works on Japan that were published inthe 1930s, nor does he deal with the increasingGerman interest in Buddhism in general andZen Buddhism in particular. Similarly, hedevotes no attention to the small group ofBuddhists who lived in Germany in the early1930s and whose spokesmen showed asurprisingly strong affinity to NationalSocialism.11 He treats only one aspect of theNationalist Socialist interest in Japan, namelythe explicit and early interest in the samurai,whose history is closely connected to that ofZen Buddhism. He rightly mentions a series ofarticles about the samurai which was publishedby the SS periodical The Black Corps (DasSchwarze Korps) in the spring of 1936. Thesearticles suggested that the samurai had notonly displayed similarities to medievalGermanic knights but also possessedcharacteristics embodied in the politicalideology of National Socialism, such as “an

APJ | JF 13 | 20 | 2

5

ethos of chivalry and masculinity” („ritterlich-männliche Gesinnung“), a “strong emphasis onobedience and loyalty” („starke Betonung desGehorsams und der Treue“), and an “idealp r inc ip l e o f l eadersh ip” ( „ idea lesFührerprinzip“)12. It is worth noting that theauthor of the articles, Heinz Corazza as early as1935 published a book about Japan in which hedrew strong parallels between Japan andNational Socialist Germany.13

On one point regarding the relationshipbetween the SS and the samurai, Victoria'sobservations may be somewhat inaccurate. Heremarks that Heinrich Himmler, leader of theSS, “planned to model the SS on the Japanesesamurai”, and “received permission from AdolfHitler” to do so.14 This belief, which appears tobe an idée fixe of Victoria, is based on aconversation between Himmler and Hitlerquoted in Peter Longerich’s biography ofHimmler.15 Victoria not only misdates thisnotice by stating that it was written in 1937 (itwas written in November 1935), but alsoexaggerates its importance. Himmler notedthat he presented Hitler with the idea “that theSS should one day become the Germansamurai”, and that Hitler agreed.16 In myunderstanding this does not mean thatHimmler presented a solid plan to Hitler, butmerely referred to the samurai in a generalsense rather than as a model. Furthermore, itseems that Hitler concurred only generally butdid not grant any official consent. If Himmlerhad had a solid plan, other sources would havereported it, too.

APJ | JF 13 | 20 | 2

6

Figure 8. Japanese army.Figure 9. Japanese infantry.Figure 10. Japanese navy.From German press, circa 1940-43.

National Socialism and Buddhism duringthe war

Victoria indicates correctly that after theoutbreak of war in Europe in 1939 main worksof Suzuki were translated into German: in 1939his Introduction to Zen Buddhism, in 1941 ZenBuddhism and its Influence on Japaneseculture17; in the same year, the second editionof the German translation of Introduction toZen Buddhism appeared. These translationswere consistent with the image that NationalSocialist authors and German Buddhists hadpreviously created of Japan in general and ofBuddhism in particular. Thus the SouthGerman edition of the central organ of theNSDAP, the Völkischer Beobachter, quoted atlength from Suzuki’s book on Zen and Japaneseculture, placing special emphasis on the

APJ | JF 13 | 20 | 2

7

samurai’s readiness to die.18

The translations of Suzuki’s writings were partof a flood of publications on Japan that wereappearing in Germany during the war.19

Victoria mentions only one of them, CountAlbrecht von Urach’s booklet “On the secret ofJapanese power” („Vom Geheimnis japanischerKraft”), which was printed in several editionscomprising 600,000 copies altogether.20 It mustbe pointed out that numerous other books andarticles on Japan were published as weretranslations of Japanese heroic literature, films,screen plays, poems, and even musicalcompositions. The goal was to increaseempathy among the Germans towards their allyin the Far East and, above all, to present themorale of Japanese soldiers as an example forGerman soldiers. A Japanese article quoted byVictoria asserts that the translations ofSuzuki’s writings exerted a deep influence onthe military spirit of National SocialistG e r m a n y . 2 1 T h i s a s s e r t i o n m e r i t sreexamination. According to a classified reportof the Security Service (Sicherheitsdienst) ofthe SS of August 1942, the depiction of theJapanese “as something akin to ‘Super-Germans’” („sozusagen als `Germane imQuadrat`”) had a rather daunting effect onGerman soldiers, for whom these depictionswere to serve as examples. Accounts dealingwith Japanese swimmers who removed minesnear Hong Kong or describing Japanesekamikaze pilots who, in total disregard for theirown life, crashed their bomb laden planes ontoenemy vessels, the report said, produced “akind of inferiority complex” („so etwas wieMinderwertigkeitskomplexe”) among Germansand failed to do justice to the achievements ofGerman soldiers. The Security Service thusconcluded that the image of Japan presented to“fellow Germans” („deutsche Volksgenossen”)was “in need of correction, mainly in the formof a clear and posit ive comparison to[Germany’s] own achievements and values.”22

In the summer of 1944, however, in an addressdelivered to high ranking SS officials in

Sonthofen (Bavaria), Himmler again expressedhis respect for the bravery of Japanese soldiers,who had no fear of death, but went on to say“that we, the world’s oldest civilized people andits oldest warrior people, do not need a foreignrace to provide us with examples or to serve asrole models. The history of German soldiersand German women can most certainly presentus with as many numerous examples and rolemodels as can that of the Japanese, Chinese, orany other people.”23 (See figure 11.) Praise ofJapan disappeared in publications of the SS. Inother publications it continued but wassuperseded everywhere by depictions of theGermanic heroes of the Edda, the medievalNibelungenlied, and the myth of Walhall. Thesewere now to provide the dominant rolemodels.24

Figure 11. "'Jibaku' for the future of hiscountry: determined to die, the pilot ties

APJ | JF 13 | 20 | 2

8

the sun banner to his forehead and in anact of self-annihilation will dive his aircraftand payload into the enemy battleship."One of the last images of Germanpropaganda for Japan, 1944.

Count Dürckheim’s path to Japan

Victoria and Baier must both be commendedfor their in-depth treatment of the biographyand writings of Count Karlfried von Dürckheim,a German who propagated National Socialismin Japan between 1938 and 1945. Baier tracedDürckheim’s intellectual development, inparticular his völkisch religiosity and hisinvolvement with the so-called BureauRibbentrop, a private foreign office of sortswhich Hitler’s expert on international affairs,Joachim v. Ribbentrop, maintained before hebecame Foreign Minister. Victoria describesDürckheim’s contacts to Suzuki in Japan. As tothe reasons why Dürckheim went to Japan in1938, Victoria and Baier rely on whatDürckheim himself later wrote and said: that hehad been dismissed without notice in 1936 as“politically unacceptable” („politischuntragbar”) at the instigation of Göring25, orthat his removal from the Bureau Ribbentropand ensuing “deportation” to the Far East weredue to the discovery that his maternalgrandmother had been Jewish.26

In reality, Dürckheim was not dismissedwithout notice, nor was his dismissal instigatedby Göring. Moreover, his partly Jewish familybackground was not the reason why his work inRibbentrop’s office ended; and, contrary toVictoria’s assumption, neither did theestablishment of closer ties between Germanyand Japan in the second half of the 1930s haveanything to do with Dürckheim's journey to theFar East.27 The whole affair was much moretrivial. Prior to his engagement by Ribbentrop,Dürckheim had been professor of psychologyand philosophy at the College of Education inKiel, from which he was only on leave during

his stay in Berlin. His contract to Ribbentropended at the end of 1937, and he could haveeasi ly returned to Kiel . But after hisinvolvement in foreign affairs, he wanted toremain in the German capital and be entrustedwith more important duties than the educationof teachers for primary schools. As Ribbentropobviously did not intend to take him with him inthe Foreign Office when he became foreignminister in February 1938, Dürckheim wantedto obtain a professorship in foreign studies(Auslandskunde) and go on a study tour of EastAsia in order to prepare. Apparently, hesucceeded in winning Ribbentrop’s support forthis idea and in obtaining the promise that hisstudy tour would be funded by the BureauRibbentrop. Ribbentrop may have agreed onthe assumption that a College of ForeignStudies (Auslandshochschule), which had beenunder consideration for some years, would soonbe established and that Dürckheim could betransferred there. For several reasons,however, this turned out to be surprisinglydifficult. A dispute between the BureauRibbentrop, the ministry of Education, many ofDürckheim's supporters, and Dürckheimhimself ended after several months when it wasagreed that Dürckheim would be granted leavefor an additional year to conduct research inJapan to be funded by Ribbentrop andsubsequently be engaged in the Foreign Officeor would return to Kiel.

The German Embassy in Tokyo was notinvolved in this decision, and may not havebeen quite enthusiastic about Dürckheim’scoming to Japan. According to his ownstatements, made after the war, Dürckheimacted as a “cultural envoy” (Kulturdiplomat) inJapan. Victoria has given credence to thesestatements and linked them to a generaldiscussion of the meaning and role of “culture”in National Socialism.28 His arguments arelargely correct. Dürckheim, however, did nothave diplomatic status when he arrived inJapan, and “cultural envoys” were unknown tothe German Foreign Service. Instead, in every

APJ | JF 13 | 20 | 2

9

major German embassy one diplomat was incharge of cultural relations to the respectivecountry. In Tokyo until the end of 1938, thatwas the brief of ambassadorial counselor(Gesandtschaftsrat) Hans Kolb.29 Neverthelessit may true be that, as Dürckheim later wrote,the embassy informed Daisetz Suzuki aboutDürckheim’s arrival and Suzuki came to theembassy to meet him; however, embassyreports that have been preserved do notconfirm this. It is worth mentioning thatDürckheim was not the first German scholar tovisit Japan to campaign for the new Germanyand meet prominent Buddhists. He waspreceded in 1936-37 by the famous educatorEduard Spranger from Berlin University.Spranger had lectured throughout Japan andmet prominent Buddhists, among whom Suzukimay have been included.30 Walter Donat, fromthe Japanese-German Cultural Institute inTokyo, had accompanied Spranger. TheInstitute was a bi-national institution foundedin 1926, and Donat had been serving as theInstitute’s German secretary general since thebeginning of 1937. He was a fervent supporterof National Socialism, leader of the Japanesechapter of the National Socialist Teachers’Association (Nationalsozial ist ischerLehrerbund) and strove to establish ties toJapanese scholars, intellectuals and artists. Hemay have been the one who introduced Suzukiand Dürckheim to each other. Suzuki knewDonat, as is mentioned in Suzuki’s diary, fromwhich Victoria quotes.

Dürckheim stayed in Japan from mid-1938 tothe beginning of 1939 and then returned toGermany to resume teaching at the College ofEducation in Kiel. But in January of 1940 hereturned to Japan. Later he declared that uponthe conclusion of the 1939 German-SovietTreaty, which had caused German-Japaneserelations to ice over suddenly, Ribbentrop hadexpressed interest in establishing ties toJapanese scholars and that he – Dürckheim –had offered to return to Japan to foster this.31

Again, this might be true, but it is not

confirmed in the extant files of the ForeignOffice or the Ministry of Education. At any rate,Dürckheim was given a research assignment inJapan once more (“a study of the foundations ofJapanese thought and of strengthening friendlyrelations between Japanese scholars andGermany”) and, again, his stay was for alimited period of time only, until October 1942.This time his journey was funded by theForeign Office, with such generosity thatDürckheim could afford a personal secretary, aspacious apartment, and a car.32

Figure 12. A delegation of the Hitler Youthin Japan, 1937: Dōmei kokusai shashinshinbun, 5 September 1938.

Contrary to Victoria’s belief, however,Dürckheim continued to play only a secondaryrole rather than that of a “key figure” inGerman-Japanese relations.33 The Germanembassy in Tokyo was opposed to his visit to

APJ | JF 13 | 20 | 2

10

Japan, and, as before, he was not granteddiplomatic status. Moreover, the post ofcultural affairs officer, which had been vacantsince the end of 1938, was not given to him butto Reinhold Schulze, an official of the HitlerYouth who had come to Japan in 1937 in orderto strengthen the relations between Germanand Japanese youth organizations (see figure12). Nevertheless, Dürckheim believed that hisstay in Japan enabled him “to achieve whatanother individual would not have been able toaccomplish in the same time.” He worked “dayand night, to the limits of [his] power”, gavelectures, and wrote essays and booklets forJapanese publishing houses to present to theJapanese public “the true face of NationalSocialist Germany”, as he informed his formerKiel student Paul Karl Schmidt, whom he hadbrought into the Bureau Ribbentrop and whonow headed the press and informationdepartment of the Foreign Office in Berlin.34 Nostudies have, as yet, been carried out on whatDürckheim published in Japanese media and onhow the public in Japan reacted to thesepublications.

Dürckheim also propagated National Socialismtirelessly within Japan’s small Germancommunity. After 1945, a compatriot recalledhow “everywhere and without interruption” heheld lectures.35 But the response did not alwaysappear to have met Dürckheim’s expectations.Another compatriot later described him ashaving been “a kind of classy propagandist witha high intellectual level who toured the countrypropagating National Socialism and the idea ofa German empire” („Reichsidee”) andcommented on how “awful” his publicappearances were.36 Germans in Japan calledhim the “Rosenberg of the East”37.

After the end of the Pacific war, Dürckheim wasone of very few Germans in Japan to bearrested by the US army and detained inTokyo’s Sugamo prison. Although not formallyindicted, he was kept there until February1947, a few days before his forced return to

Germany. Here the denazification court in 1948classified him as having been a “fellowtraveler” (Mitläufer) and sentenced him to afine of 100 Reichsmark. This was a relativelylight penalty in monetary terms; however, theconviction may have been heavy enough top r e v e n t h i m f r o m a t t a i n i n g a n e wprofessorship.

Consequently, in 1951, together with thewidow of a former fellow student, Dürckheimfounded “The Existential-Psychological Centerfor Learning and Encounter” („Existential-p s y c h o l o g i s c h e B i l d u n g s - u n dBegegnungsstätte”), located in Rütte, a smallvillage in the Black Forest of southernGermany. Here he embarked on a path of selfredefinition. He became one of West Germany’sfirst Zen teachers and a prolific writer of books.Victoria mentions that Dürckheim neverabandoned his view of kamikaze pilots as theembodiment of a perfect connection betweenthe individual and the “whole” and as primeexamples of selflessness.38 This, however, isonly one example of how Dürckheim’s way ofthinking had not changed since 1945. Hesimply adapted his language to postwarcircumstances. What remained was his basicrefusal of Western modernism – of technology,industrialization, urbanization, individualism,rationalism, mass society, and the loss ofreligious faith. And he continued to placegreater importance upon the community thanupon the individual. It seems never to haveoccurred to him that in Japan the praised idealof selflessness had been subjected to the worstkind of political misuse, and that likewise inGermany the propagation of the individual’sselfless melting into an “ethnic community”(„Volksgemeinschaft“), glorified as an exampleof “wholeness” or “oneness” („Ganzheit”), hadhelped create similarly disastrous results.Moreover, he never expressed interest in thequestion why Japan, despite its “cult oftranquility”39, had waged war against Chinaand other South East Asian countries withexceptional brutality in order to become East

APJ | JF 13 | 20 | 2

11

Asia’s leading power, and why Westerndemocracies, which had been looked downupon as be ing “ indiv idual is t ic” and“liberalistic”, had proven superior both toNational Socialist Germany and authoritarianJapan. Like his neighbor Martin Heidegger,who l ived near Rütte in the vi l lage ofTodtnauberg, Dürckheim avoided examiningthe political, social and mentality-relatedcauses of the war, let alone the question ofpersonal responsibility and guilt. It is probablyno coincidence that even his style of writingbecame similar to Heidegger’s in somerespects.40

Some remarks about Eugen Herrigel

Victoria points out that Dürckheim, when hetraveled to Japan, was familiar with an essayentitled “Zen or the Art of Archery” (Zen oderdie Kunst des Bogenschießens), published in1936 in two German periodicals which had onlylimited circulation.41 The author, EugenHerrigel, had been a visiting professor inSendai from 1924 to 1929 before accepting aprofessorship in philosophy at the University ofErlangen. He shared Dürckheim’s belief inNational Socialism. Nonetheless, placing bothmen on the same level, as Victoria does, maynot be completely justifiable. One reason is thatHerrigel published far less than Dürckheimbetween 1933 and 1945 and his propagation ofNational Socialism was more restricted.Another might be that Herrigel is said to havemade efforts to protect Jewish students whowere still permitted to study under him after1933. One should also note that, while servingas the university’s rector towards the end ofthe Second World War, he arranged forErlangen to surrender to advancing Americantroops – an act that helped prevent a senseless,bloody battle for control of that town.42

German research into Herrigel’s writings andactivities and to archived papers which containinformation about Herrigel’s life after the endof the war reveal that Herrigel’s home was

sequestered by US forces and occupied byfamilies of American army officers, that most ofhis furniture, his collection of East Asian art,and his library disappeared, and the bulk of hismanuscripts were burned in his garden.Furthermore, in December of 1945, Herrigelwas deprived of his post as a professor and, inJanuary of 1946, dismissed from the universityentirely. Although he was reinstated as a fullprofessor in June of 1948, he was sent intoimmediate retirement. As his house remainedoccupied, he moved to Garmisch-Partenkirchenin Upper Bavaria and republished his 1936essay as a booklet, to which Daisetz Suzukiwrote the foreword.43

This booklet was an unexpected success. Thesecond edition appeared as early as 1951, thefourth in 1954, the sixth in 1956. An Englishtranslation was published in New York. Thissuccess brought Herrigel “so many new andpersonally meaningful friendships” that he felt“abundantly compensated” for what he had lost4 4 Suzuki , then s t i l l the best -knownrepresentative of Zen Buddhism worldwide,was among his visitors. Herrigel, “grateful” forhis “good fortune”, proceeded to write anotherbook, which dealt with the mysticism of Zen.Self-critical reflection on his earlier praise ofNational Socialism was as unknown to him as itwas to Dürckheim.

Herrigel died in 1955, half forgotten in the fieldof German philosophy, in which he had neverplayed a prominent role. Before his death, heburned the manuscript on the mysticism of Zen.Zen or the Art of Archery, however, became areal bestseller when, in the 1960s, interest inZen Buddhism spread from the US to Europe.The 10th edition was printed in 1963, the 21st in1982, the 43rd in 2003. In addition, the book hasbeen translated into at least 13 languages,among them French, Spanish, and Swedish. In1999, there even appeared an Estoniantranslation and, in 2005, one in Russian; someof these translations were also published inseveral editions.

APJ | JF 13 | 20 | 2

12

Of the numerous publications on Japan thatappeared in Germany between 1933 and 1945,Herrigel’s Zen or the Art of Archery remainedthe only one to gain popularity after the end ofthe Nazi regime. All other publications inquest ion sank into obscurity , e i therimmediately or in the course of two or threedecades.45

Conclusion

The essays of Victoria and Baier shed light onlittle known relations between GermanNational Socialism and Japanese Buddhism.Some aspects of their essays, however, may besupplemented and corrected. I have attemptedto offer some relevant additional informationhere. It is also necessary to place the relationsbetween German National Socialism andJapanese Buddhism in the larger context of thecultural relations between Germany and Japanbetween 1933 and 1945. For the Japanese part,a s tudy of these re lat ions remains adesideratum. In my view, Victoria’s narrowfocus on Dürckheim and Suzuki and on thereference of the SS to the samurai has causedhim to overestimate both dimensions. For thehistory of German National Socialism andGerman-Japanese relations between 1938 and1945, Dürckheim’s activities were of marginalimportance. Moreover, the reference of the SSto the samurai was at all times limited, if notundermined by Hitler’s insistence on theinferiority of Japanese culture and by a silent,sometimes even manifest, disdain of the“yellow race” by leading National Socialists.46

For Buddhism in both Japan and the West,however, the activities and views of individualssuch as Dürckheim confirm what Victoriademonstrated in his book on Zen at War47: that– as with Christianity and other religions – evenBuddhist concepts, like wholeness andselflessness, can be subjected to politicalmisuse.

Hans-Joachim Bieber is professor emeritus ofModern History at the University of Kassel,Germany. His research focuses on Germansocial history, including the history of GermanJews; history of globalization; history of the‘nuclear age’, and of German-Japanese culturalrelations. His most recent book is SS undS a m u r a i . D e u t s c h - j a p a n i s c h eKulturbeziehungen 1933-1945, München:iudicium 2014. His article on Cultural Relationsbetween Germany and Japan in Nazi-Times. AnOverview is forthcoming in Sven Saaler andTobuo Najima (eds.): Mutual perceptions inJapanese-German relat ions: images,imaginings, and stereotypes.

Recommended citation: Hans-Joachim Bieber,"Zen and War: A Commentary on Brian Victoriaand Karl Baier's Analysis of Daisetz Suzuki andCount Dürckheim", The Asia-Pacific Journal,Vol. 13, Issue 20, No. 2, May 19, 2015.

Related articles

•Brian Victoria, Sawaki Kōdō, Zen and WartimeJapan: Final Pieces of the Puzzle

• Narusawa Muneo and Brian Victoria, “War isa Crime”: Takenaka Shōgen and BuddhistResistance in the Asia-Pacific War and Today

• Karl Baier, The Formation and Principles ofCount Dürckheim’s Nazi Worldview and hisinterpretation of Japanese Spirit and Zen

• Brian Victoria , Zen Masters on theBattlefield (Part I)

• Brian Victoria , Zen Masters on theBattlefield (Part II)

• Brian Victoria, A Zen Nazi in Wartime JapanCount Dürckheim and his Sources—D.T.Suzuki, Yasutani Haku’un and Eugen Herrigel

• Vladimir Tikhonov, South Korea’s ChristianMilitary Chaplaincy in the Korean War -religion as ideology?

https://apjjf.org/-Brian-Victoria/4316/article.htmlhttps://apjjf.org/-Brian-Victoria/4316/article.htmlhttps://apjjf.org/-Brian-Victoria/4182/article.htmlhttps://apjjf.org/-Brian-Victoria/4182/article.htmlhttps://apjjf.org/-Brian-Victoria/4182/article.htmlhttps://apjjf.org/-Karl-Baier/4041/article.htmlhttps://apjjf.org/-Karl-Baier/4041/article.htmlhttps://apjjf.org/-Karl-Baier/4041/article.htmlhttps://apjjf.org/-Brian-Victoria/4145https://apjjf.org/-Brian-Victoria/4145https://apjjf.org/-Brian-Victoria/4145https://apjjf.org/-Brian-Victoria/4145https://apjjf.org/-Brian-Victoria/4063https://apjjf.org/-Brian-Victoria/4063https://apjjf.org/-Brian-Victoria/4063https://apjjf.org/-Vladimir-Tikhonov/3935https://apjjf.org/-Vladimir-Tikhonov/3935https://apjjf.org/-Vladimir-Tikhonov/3935

APJ | JF 13 | 20 | 2

13

• Brian Victoria, Buddhism and Disasters:From World War II to Fukushima

• Brian Victoria, Karma, War and Inequalityin Twentieth Century Japan

Notes

1 Brian Daizen Victoria: D.T. Suzuki, Zen andthe Nazis, in: The Asia-Pacific Journal: JapanFocus, Vol. 11, Issue 42, No. 4 (October 28,2013); Karl Baier: The Formation andPrinciples of Count Dürckheim’s NaziWorldview and his Interpretation of JapaneseSpirit and Zen, ibid., Vol. 11, Issue 48, No. 3(December 2, 2013); Brian Daizen Victoria: AZen Nazi in Wartime Japan: Count Dürckheimand his Sources – D.T. Suzuki, YasutaniHaku’un and Eugen Herrigel, ibid., Vol. 12,Issue 3, No. 2 (January 20, 2014).

2 Hans-Joachim Bieber: SS und Samurai.Deutsch-Japanische Kulturbeziehungen1933-1945, Munich: iudicium 2014. In thefollowing I will refer to this book only; exactinformation on my sources can be found on theindicated pages.

3 Cf. Victoria 2013, p. 2 ff.

4 Quoted ibid.

5 Quoted ibid.

6 Taisetzu Suzuki: Entstehung und Entwicklungdes japanischen Buddhismus, in: Ostasien-Jahrbuch 10 (1931), pp. 54-61; Daisetsu TeitarōSuzuki: Japanische Kultur und Zen, in: Nippon,vol. 1935, p. 74-78.

7 Cf. Bieber 2014, p. 188 f. and 272.

8 Hans F.K. Günther: Die Nordische Rasse beiden Indogermanen Asiens, Munich 1934, p. 52and 57.

9 Jakob Wilhelm Hauer: Das religiöse Artbildder Indogermanen und die Grundtypen der

indo-arischen Religion, Stuttgart 1937, p. 239 f.and 269 ff.

10 Werner Bichler: Japanisches Heldentum, in:Die Junge Front 7 (1936), p. 357, withr e f e r e n c e t o E r w i n B ä l z : Ü b e r d i eTodesverachtung der Japaner, ed. by Toku Bälz,Stuttgart 1936; cf. Bieber 2014, p. 395 ff. –Reinhard Höhn, responsible for cultural affairs[Kulturreferent] in the SS Security Service(SD), dedicated a collection of Buddhismlectures to his superior, Heinrich Himmler, forChristmas in 1935, saying that they were “anexpression of Aryan thinking“ and a part of “thedictates of our order (Weistum unseresOrdens)“. (Höhn to Himmler, Dec. 31, 1935,quoted in Helmut Heiber: Walter Frank undsein Reichsinstitut für die Geschichte desneuen Deutschlands, Stuttgart 1966, p. 887 f.).Indeed, among religious writings, the lecturesof Buddha were said to have been the ones thatHimmler most esteemed. (cf. Felix Kersten:Totenkopf und Treue, Hamburg 1953, p. 185).

11 Cf. Bieber 2014, p. 640 ff. und 810 ff.

12 Die Samurai. Eine alte Kampfgemeinschafterneuert den Staat, in: Das Schwarze Korps,March 5, 1936, p. 12, and March 12, p. 12.

1 3 Heinz Corazza: Japans Wunder desSchwertes, Berlin: Klinkhardt & Biermann1935.

14 Victoria 2014, p. 16.

15 Peter Longerich: Heinrich Himmler, Munich2008, p. 291.

16 Ibid.

17 Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki: Die große Befreiung.Einführung in den Zen-Buddhismus. Geleitwortvon C. G. Jung, Leipzig: Curt Weller & Co.1939; Zen und die Kultur Japans, Stuttgart:Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt 1941.

18 „Zen und der Samurai”, in: Völkischer

https://apjjf.org/-Brian-Victoria/3717https://apjjf.org/-Brian-Victoria/3717https://apjjf.org/-Brian-Victoria/2421https://apjjf.org/-Brian-Victoria/2421

APJ | JF 13 | 20 | 2

14

Beobachter, South German edition, January 11,1942. Victoria does not know that the VölkischeBeobachter was published in different editionsand ascribes the quotation from Suzuki’s bookwrongly to the main edition which appeared inBerlin; cf. Victoria 2014, p. 15.

19 Cf. Bieber 2014, p. 948 ff.

20 Albrecht Fürst von Urach: Das Geheimnisjapanischer Kraft, Berlin: Eher 1942. Theauthor had been correspondent of theVölkischer Beobachter in Tokyo between 1934and 1938.

21 Cf. Victoria 2014, p. 19.

22 Security Service report, Aug. 6, 1942, in:Heinz Boberach (ed.): Meldungen aus demReich 1938–1945, Herrsching 1984, vol. 11, pp.4042-4044..

23 Himmler on June 21, 1944; in: HeinrichHimmler: Geheimreden 1933-1945 und andereAnsprachen, ed. by Bradley F. Smith, Frankfurt1974, p. 193.

24 Cf. Bieber 2014, p. 1005.

25 Cf. Dürckheim’s self-portrayal in: Ludwig J.P o n g r a t z ( e d . ) : P s y c h o l o g i e i nSelbstdarstellungen, Bern: Huber 1973, p. 159,and Karlfried Graf Dürckheim: Der Weg ist dasZiel, Göttingen 1992, p. 41.

26 Edith and Rolf Zundel: Leitfiguren derPsychotherapie, Munich1987, p. 162.

27 For the following paragraph cf. Bieber 2014,p. 604 ff., with an exact indication of sources.

28 Cf. Victoria 2014, p. 6 f.

29 Cf. Bieber 2014, p. 656.

30 Cf. ibid., p. 509 ff.

31 Cf. Dürckheim 1992, p. 40, and Victoria 2014,p. 6.

32 Cf. Bieber 2014, p. 738 ff. – The fact thatDürckheim travelled to Japan this time via theTranssiberian Railway cannot be explained bythe 1939 Pact between Hitler and Stalin, asVictoria 2014, p. 5, assumes. Since its openingin 1916 the Trans-Siberian Railway had offeredan alternative to sea travel to Japan. Moreover,after the outbreak of war in Europe inSeptember 1939, it was the only connectionbetween Europe and Japan that remained opento Germans. German shipping lines closeddown their routes to East Asia; and sailing onvessels belonging to non-German lines proveddangerous for Germans, as British war shipsoften stopped and inspected these vessels atsea to arrest German passengers if any werefound.

33 Cf. Victoria 2014, p. 6.

34 Dürckheim to Schmidt, November 11, 1940;quoted by Bieber 2014, p. 740; the middle partof the quotation is taken from a letter writtenby Dürckheim quoted in Gerhard Wehr:Karlfried Graf Dürckheim. Leben im Zeichender Wandlung, Freiburg: Herder 1996, p. 115.

35 Bernd Eversmeyer in Franziska Ehmcke /Peter Pantzer (eds.): Gelebte Zeitgeschichte.Alltag von Deutschen in Japan 1923-47,München: iudicium 2000, p. 15.

36 Dietrich Seckel ibid. p. 51. For more detailsof Dürckheim‘s lectures and publications inJapan cf. Bieber 2014, p. 738 ff., 821 ff., 935 ff.,and 1026 ff. – One of Dürckheim‘s lectures waspublished by the OAG in 1943 (Graf K. vonDürckheim-Monmartin: Erkenntnis und Werkals Ausdruck des europäischen Geistes, in:Nachrichten der Deutschen Gesellschaft fürNatur- und Völkerkunde Ostasiens, Tokyo(NOAG) 63, March 1943, pp. 13-33).

37 Cf. Bieber 2014, p. 1094. – Alfred Rosenbergwas the leading ideologist of National Socialismand editor of the party organ VölkischerBeobachter.

APJ | JF 13 | 20 | 2

15

38 Cf. Victoria 2014, p. 20, and Karlfried GrafDürckheim: Mein Weg zur Mitte, Freiburg1991, p. 122.

39 Cf. Karlfried Graf von Durckheim: TheJapanese Cult of Tranquillity, London: Rider &Co. 1960.

40 Cf. Bieber 2014, p. 1150 ff.

41 Eugen Herrigel: Zen in der Kunst desBogenschießens, in: Ostasiatische Rundschau17 (1936), pp. 355-357 and 377-381, andNippon, vol. 1936, pp. 193-212.

42 Cf. Bieber 2014, p. 275 and 1055.

43 Cf. ibid. p. 1084 and 1108.

44 Herrigel to Gundert, Sept. 26, 1950; quotedibid. p. 1117.

45 Cf. Bieber 2014, p. 1139 ff.

4 6 In Mein Kampf Hitler stated that theJapanese were merely “bearers of culture”(kulturtragend) in contrast to the Aryans,whom he saw as being “culture creating”(kulturschöpferisch). Hitler however did havesome respect for Japan’s military and wasimpressed that the country had remaineduntouched by “international Jewry” (dasinternationale Judentum). See Bieber 2014, p.153 ff.; for racial disdain of the Japanese duringthe war ibid. p. 767 f., 781 fn. 99, and 862.

47 Brian Victoria: Zen at War, New York:Weatherhill 1997.