The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Volume 14 | Issue 12 | Number 4 | Jun 15, 2016

1

Hitler Youth 1940 Visit to Japan: A Comment on BrianVictoria’s “The Zen of Hitler Jugend”

Hans-Joachim Bieber

Title of Jürgens’ report on the visit toJapan in the Hitler Youth periodical JungeWelt, February to April 1941

In his article, “The Zen of Hitler Jugend” (AsiaPacific Journal: Japan Focus, Volume 14,Issue 2, Number 2; January 18, 2016)(https://apjjf.org/2016/02/2-Victoria.html),Brian Victoria presents two Japanese reportsand some photos that deal with a visit by adelegation of the Hitler Youth to Eiheiji inNovember 1940. One of the most importantJapanese monasteries, Eiheiji was establishedin 1244 by Zen Master Dōgen, who was thefounder of the Sōtō sect. These newlydiscovered reports, which were originallypublished in the Eiheiji periodical Sansho inDecember 1940 and August 1942, undoubtedlyprovide interesting source material and arethus worthy of being republished. However, Iwould like to add some further informationabout the delegation's visit to Japan andcompare the Japanese reports found by Victoriawith a report published by the head of thedelegation upon his return to Germany. Indoing so, I hope to shed light on some strikingdifferences between the perception of the visitto Eiheiji by the monks of the monastery on the

one hand and the German delegation on theother.

Celebration of 2600th jubilee of imperialdynasty, 11 November 1940

To begin, the occasion for sending a delegationof the Hitler Youth to Japan in 1940 was not thesigning of the Tripartite Treaty in September ofthat year, as Victoria suggests, but rather the2600th jubilee of Japan’s imperial dynasty twomonths later (November 1940). The originalplan called for sending hundreds of Germanworkers to Japan on ships operated by Kraftdurch Freude (“Strength through joy“), thenational socialist organization for recreationand leisure. With the outbreak of the war inEurope in September 1939, however, oceantravel from Germany to Japan becameimpossible; furthermore, many young Germanswere then conscripted immediately intomilitary service. Thus, only a small delegationof the Hitler Jugend (Hitler Youth) and an evensmaller one, consisting of members of the

APJ | JF 14 | 12 | 4

2

Deutsche Arbeitsfront (German Workers’Front), were sent to Japan in late 1940. Theytraveled by means of the Trans-SiberianRailway, the only remaining connectionbetween Germany and Japan. The six membersof the Hitler Jugend delegation, led by HeinrichJürgens, head of the Far East Department ofthe Reichsjugendführung (Head office of thenational youth organization), began their tourby visiting the Japanese puppet state ofManchukuo and Korea, which had been aJapanese colony since 1910. They wereimpressed by “the idealism, sense of nationalidentity, commitment, strong will, and courage“[“dem Idealismus, dem Nationalbewußtsein,der Einsatzfreudigkeit, dem starken Willen undMut”] of the young Japanese who were trainedin Harbin to become farmers and settlers inManchukuo and they were equally impressedby the achievements of the Japanese in Korea.1

The members of the delegation apparently hadno misgivings regarding the legitimacy ofJapan’s policy of expansion and settlement inEast Asia, an attitude which might be explainedby the fact that, on the occasion of theirdeparture for Japan, the periodical of the HitlerYouth published an illustrated report in whichJapan’s alleged lack of “l iving space”(Lebensraum) was used to justify its expansionin East Asia without reservation.2

Upon arriving in Japan, the delegation of theHitler Youth was greeted with music and flagsdisplaying both the swastika and the rising sun.The Völkischer Beobachter reported how “in areal triumphal procession [the delegation]marched through the rows of the public”, whichgreeted them enthusiastically.3 During their six-week tour of the country, the delegation'smembers traveled from Beppu to Hokkaido,visiting schools, barracks, and the mythologicalbirthplace of the family of the tenno. In Tokyo,they met the respective ministers of war,foreign affairs, and culture and education.There were meetings as well with industrialleaders, heads of youth organizations, and thedeputy chief of the admiralty. They visited

universities, the Meiji and Yasukuni shrine, andattended receptions hosted by the Germanembassy and the Japanese German CulturalInstitute. The head of the delegation wasreceived by Prime Minister Konoe. According toan article in the Völkischer Beobachter, thedelegates thus attained an understanding ofhow the education of Japan's youth was gearedtowards establishing a “mentality of defense”.The article continued with a description of thepositive impression created among thedelegates by the “warm acceptance” giventhem throughout Japan as representatives ofthe German people.4 The delegation waspresented on Japanese radio several times and,as the first delegation of the Hitler Youth haddone during its visit to Japan in 1938,performed songs of the Hitler Youth.5 Itsmembers also recorded the German version ofa Japanese song written on the occasion of thesigning of the Tripartite Pact by YamadaKosaku, one of the best-known Japanesecomposers of the time. The recording wasreleased as a gramophone record. Thehighlight of the delegation's visit was itsparticipation in the official observance of thejubi lee of the Japanese dynasty. Thecorresponding festivity, to which 50,000 guestshad been invited, was held in front of theimperial palace in Tokyo in mid-November of1940.

APJ | JF 14 | 12 | 4

3

Reception by major of Beppu

The reason for the delegation's visit to Eiheiji isnot documented in German sources; yet, sincelate 1937, Reinhold Schulze, an official of theReichsjugendführung, had been in Tokyo toestablish closer ties between the Hitler Youthand Japanese youth organizations. It isconceivable that the itinerary for the delegationhad been arranged by him and his Japanesecounterparts, from whom the idea of showingthe delegates one of Japan's most prominentBuddhist monasteries may have originated. Inany case, the Japanese reports found byVictoria reveal three striking features: thedescription of Eiheiji as a cultural center ofinternational relevance, the importanceattributed to the visit of the Hitler Youthdelegation, and the hosts' perception of whatthe delegates had said.

The first report quoted by Victoria waspublished in August 1942. It contains adescription by Eiheiji’s head monk trainer, ZenMaster Ashiwa Untei, who speaks of Asia as awhole and Eiheiji in particular as a centerwhere the human spirit is trained through thepractice of zazen and quiet sitting. Ashiwa goeson by saying that the “the training of thehuman spirit, the importance of vigorousspiritual power is something the citizens ofJapan are now selflessly demonstrating to theworld”. He thus presents Eiheiji as a placewhere, like other visitors, the visiting membersof the Hitler Youth could learn to disciplinetheir spirit and to cultivate “the latent energyof their spiritual power”. At least Ashiwa wascertain that the young Germans were“profoundly impressed by the existence of thetraining center for the human spirit theyencountered here in the deep mountains”.

An article appearing even earlier, in theDecember 1940 issue of Sansho, and translatedin its entirety by Victoria emphasizes thepolitical significance of the visit by thedelegation of the Hitler Youth to Eiheiji. It

introduces the delegates as representatives of“the brilliant future” of Japan’s most important“youthful ally” and highlights how thedelegation was escorted by Japanese officialsand welcomed at Kanazawa railway stationnear Eiheiji by pupils waving German flags. Itaccentuates as well the uniqueness of the visitby stating that for the first time “blue-eyes[Westerners]” were “formally welcomed […] ona mission like theirs”, and by describing, as”something that hadn't been seen since thefounding of the monastery“, the scene "beneaththe banquet room's gorgeously painted ceilingand brilliantly illuminated electric lights”,where “the monastery's senior officials withtheir shaved heads and [...] Buddhist robes“were sitting on one side and "the delegation ofyoung Germans of blue eyes with redarmbands“ on the other.

According to the same report, the officials atEiheiji were primarily interested in religiousissues, and they seemed pleased by what theyheard from the delegates. In his response tothe welcoming speech by Eiheiji’s chiefadministrative officer, Jürgens expressed thedelegation's gratitude for the invitation, “notingthat up until [the visit] they had only been ableto read about Zen in books. Now, however, theyhad a wonderful opportunity to directlyexperience the spirit of Zen by stayingovernight at this training center.” Later,Jürgens spoke about the religious orientation ofthe Hitler Jugend and informed the monks that“the people of Germany [were] no longersatisfied with the religion they’ve had up tonow”, but then added that “a new religion thatcould fully satisfy the German people had yet tobe born”. Germans who decided to abandontheir former religion, however, didn’t have tobecome atheists “or turn their backs on God”;instead, they continued “to have a very strongreligious spirit, identifying themselves as‘people who believe in God’” while “eagerlyawaiting the emergence of a mighty religionwith great religious leaders”.

APJ | JF 14 | 12 | 4

4

When the author of the report, who apparentlywas present when the speeches were given,heard this, he could not help thinking that theyoung German “was also speaking about theoutcome of the Buddhist world, not just thereligious world in Germany”, and that he “hadput his finger on a sore spot”. The other reportsaid that the monks of Eiheiji were “trulysurprised” to learn “that Christianity had […]lost its power to guide” the German spirit, andthat they were overjoyed to have experiencedfor themselves “the true path” shown to themby Zen Master Dogen and thus be able “toguide the nation’s citizens”. Perhaps theythought the same path could serve to guide thecitizens of Germany, too. At least the author ofthe first report appeared convinced that thevisit to Eiheiji deeply impressed the delegatesof the Hitler Youth. He wrote without furtherexplanation that spending a night at themonastery and having the opportunity toobserve three religious practices – zazen, theoffering of tea before the image of Zen MasterDōgen, and a sutra recitation service – and totake part in a solemn morning service “meantso much to them”. He was also sure that they“profited […] immensely” from a basicintroduction to Buddhism, Zen and Japaneseculture as well as from a detailed explanationof the teaching of Zen Master Dogen giventhem by the assistant administrative chief ofEiheiji.

Victoria adopts for the most part the perceptionof the report's author by viewing as “one of thearticle’s striking features” the “degree to whichthe German side admits to an ongoing struggleto create a new and authentically Germanfaith” and by pointing out that the article“reveals important features of the values andreligious outlook of both Nazi youth and Japan'swartime Zen leaders”. He goes on to offer abrief discussion of the search for a new Germanreligion in Nazi Germany and of how theJapanese people's commitment to the war effortwas enhanced by prominent JapaneseBuddhists, who thereby effectively acted as the

'spiritual custodians' and 'trainers' of what wasthen popularly known as "the spirit of Japan"(Yamato-damashii).

Victoria's remarks about Japanese Zen leadersare quite accurate and known to those familiarwith his earlier writings. Having studied thesupport by Japanese Buddhists of Japan'simperialist efforts for many years, Victoria,perhaps understandably, thus seems to assumethat religious forces in Germany played asimilar role in supporting National Socialistrule. Those, however, who are familiar with thehistory and language of the Third Reich willrecognize that, in the context of Nazi ideology,the statements made by the young Nazidelegates and quoted in the Japanese reportshad a meaning different from that attributed tothem by the monks of Eiheiji and by Victoria.Although the delegates described themselvesas “believing in God”, this was – contrary to theinterpretation given in the Japanese reports –by no means an indication of a “very strongreligious spirit”. Indeed, support of Christianitywas diminishing in Germany, and an increasingnumber of Germans no longer consideredthemselves to be Christian. Furthermore, it isalso true that only a few Germans describedthemselves as being atheists since atheists inNazi Germany were classified as “glaubenslos”(“without faith”), a nonbelief associated withsocialism and Bolshevism and were persecuted.For Germans who saw themselves as beingneither Christ ian nor atheist , a newdescription, “gottgläubig” (“believing in God”),was invented in 1936. “Gottgläubig” becamethe official term for people who were neitherProtestant nor Roman Catholic (let aloneJewish) but who adhered to what was referredto as a “form of piety originating from theGerman character” (“arteigene Frömmigkeitdeutschen Wesens”). “Gottgläubig” indicatedmainly an ideological affinity to NationalSocialism and may therefore in many caseshave even been employed by individuals whowere, in fact, atheists. Thus, when the membersof the delegation visiting Eiheiji described

APJ | JF 14 | 12 | 4

5

themselves as being “gottgläubig”, they werenot necessarily indicating that they possessed“a very strong religious spirit” but rather thatthey were simply good National Socialists.

Another source of misunderstanding on thepart of both the Japanese hosts and Victoriacan be found in the delegates' statementsconcerning “a new religion that [could] fullysatisfy the German people”. In Nazi Germany,there was indeed “an ongoing struggle tocreate a new and authentically German faith”,as Victoria states. Influenced by NationalSocialist theories on race, Heinrich Himmler,leader of the SS, displayed an interest in“Aryan” religions such as Hinduism andBuddhism. In his view, Buddha was an Aryanand a “warrior yogi” (”Kriegeryogi“); this wasthe categorization of the leading NationalSocialist theorist on racial questions.6 Himmleralso admired the samurai, not for their spiritualtraining but for their preparedness to fight andsacrifice their lives for their ruler, andtherefore saw them as role models for the SS: acommunity with a staunch commitment toplacing its mark on all society. Other Nazileaders saw religious models in Germanic godsand heroes, and yet others were more or lessuninterested in religion.

For the Nazi leadership as a whole, the policyof creating a new German faith did not haveimmediate priority and was an issue to be dealtwith after the war. In 1940, there were onlydrafts and sketches of what such a new faithwould entail: an abrogation of all traditionalreligions, a glorification of Germanic legendsand myths such as those surrounding the HolyGrail and Valhalla, and a deification of Hitler.Nothing indicated that Buddhist elementswould be incorporated as well. When thedelegates of the Hitler Youth who were visitingEiheiji declined to elaborate on the nature of afuture German faith, they were merelyreflecting the state of relevant discussionscurrent in Germany at the time.

Suzuki Daisetsu

Other statements made by the delegates mayalso need to be understood or interpreted in acontext different from the one used by theJapanese hosts. One example would be thedelegates' gratitude for the “wonderfulopportunity to directly experience the spirit ofZen” after they had “only been able to readabout Zen in books”. This statement may havebeen meant as nothing more than a politephrase. Zen Buddhism was still little known inGermany in 1940; only one book, written byDaisetz Suzuki , the most inf luent ia lcontemporary Japanese interpreter of ZenBuddhism in the West, had been translated intoGerman at that time.7 Although it is possiblethat the members of the delegation hadglanced at the book in preparation for theirtrip, there is no indication that the delegates inparticular or even the Hitler Youth organizationin general were particularly interested in ZenBuddhism or Buddhism as such.

Finally, there is no proof for the assertion madein one of the Japanese articles that Hitler hadpersonally given instructions to the delegationprior to its visit to Japan in 1940. Most likely,

APJ | JF 14 | 12 | 4

6

the Japanese interpreter misunderstood aremark made by the delegation's leader or oneof its other members. The delegation hadcertainly been given instructions, but theyp r e s u m a b l y c a m e f r o m t h eReichsjugendführung (“National YouthLeadership”: the highest level of the HitlerYouth) or from Hitler's’ deputy MartinBormann.

Victoria admits that the two Japanese articlesabout the visit by the delegation of the HitlerYouth to Eiheiji convey only “a necessarilyshallow understanding of the spiritualorientation of Nazi youth” on the part of theJapanese and poses the question as to “howmembers of the Hitler Jugend delegationviewed their visit to Eiheiji”, and what theywrote or said about their visit upon returning toGermany. Heinrich Jürgens, leader of thedelegation who is quoted by name in the longJapanese report, did indeed publish the diaryhe had kept during the visit to Japan upon hisreturn to Germany. Mostly, he wrote aboutmeetings with Japanese politicians, militarybrass, industrialists, and leaders of youthorganizations. Much was also written aboutvisits to schools, universities, museums,temples and shrines, barracks, hot springs, andabout meetings with German diplomats andrepresentatives of Nazi organizations in Japan.In addition, the diary contains a lengthyaccount of the Tokyo celebration of theimperial dynasty's jubilee and tells of theconsiderable impression made upon thedelegates by “the deep inner bond of theJapanese people with their imperial family”(“tiefinnerliche Verbundenheit des japanischenVolkes mit seinem Kaiserhaus”)8.

Jürgen's mention of the visit to Eiheiji consistedof only four short sentences: “We spent twodays in the Buddhist temple in Eiheiji. Anenormous complex on a hillslope under very oldtrees with innumerable stairs, hallways, courts,floors. At night we observed meditationexercises and participated in a holy ceremony

lasting several hours. Solemn meal togetherwith the abbot and priests”. (“Zwei Tageverbringen wir in dem buddhistischen Tempelin Eiheiji. Gewaltige Anlage am Berghang unteruralten Bäumen mit unzähligen Treppen,Gängen, Höfen, Stockwerken. Wir erlebennachts Meditationsübungen und nehmen aneiner mehrstündigen heiligen Zeremonie teil.Gemeinsames feierliches Essen mit Abt undPriestern.”9) The leader of the delegation seemsto have been impressed by the buildings of themonastery and the solemnity of the ceremonieshe witnessed. Nevertheless, he did not devoteone word to having experienced any kind ofspirituality, nor did he refer to Buddhism ingeneral or to Zen Buddhism and Dōgen’steachings in particular. For him, the visit toEiheiji appears to have been nothing more thanone of many visits to Japanese institutionswhere the delegation of the Hitler Youthrepresented Nazi Germany and, beyond that,simply observed what was going on. The diarysuggests that the visit impressed him much lessthan his Japanese hosts assumed. Perhapsother members of the delegation were moreimpressed by the visit to Eiheiji, but none ofthem are known to have published differentviews. The Japanese assumption that thedelegation was especially receptive tospirituality or to Buddhism thus seems to havebeen false and what Victoria calls the “Zen ofHitler Jugend” pure fantasy.

Further sources reveal that issues ofspirituality and religion as such did not play amajor role in cultural relations betweenGermany and Japan during the years of Nazirule. Pertinent references can be found neitherin German reports on the first visit by adelegation of the Hitler Youth to Japan in 1938nor in reports on propaganda tours of Japan byNazi officials in 1938/39. They are absent aswell in accounts of a visit by a delegation of theReichsstudentenführung (National StudentLeadership) to Japan in the spring of 1940, avisit that occurred some months prior to thevisit to Eiheiji by the delegation of the Hitler

APJ | JF 14 | 12 | 4

7

Youth. It would be interesting, though, tocompare these reports with correspondingJapanese reports. Perhaps Japanese observersbelieved German guests possessed a degree ofreceptiveness of spirituality similar to that ofthe monks of Eiheiji.

In any case, a comparison of the Japanesereports and the corresponding German reporton the visit of the delegation of the Hitler Youthto Eiheiji in November of 1940 provides aninstructive example of how perceptions of thesame event can differ considerably when valuesystems, expectations, interests, foci differ andperhaps even when language problems areinvolved. Another interesting aspect of theJapanese reports is that they serve as rareexample of the belief on the part of theJapanese that many similarities were to befound between them and the Germans which, inreality, did not exist – a belief that was in factmuch more common among Germans.10

Related Articles

Hans-Joachim Bieber, "Zen and War: ACommentary on Brian Victoria and KarlBaier's Analysis of Daisetz Suzuki andC o u n t D ü r c k h e i m "(https://apjjf.org/2015/13/19/Hans-Joachim-Bieber/4319.html), The Asia-PacificJournal, Vol. 13, Issue 19, No. 2, May 19,2015Brian Victoria, Sawaki Kōdō, Zen andWartime Japan: Final Pieces of the Puzzle(https://apjjf.org/-Brian-Victoria/4316/article.html)Narusawa Muneo and Brian Victoria,

“War is a Crime”: Takenaka Shōgen andBuddhist Resistance in the Asia-PacificW a r a n d T o d a y(https://apjjf.org/-Brian-Victoria/4182/article.html)Karl Baier , The Formation andPrinciples of Count Dürckheim’s NaziWorldview and his interpretation ofJ a p a n e s e S p i r i t a n d Z e n(https://apjjf.org/-Karl-Baier/4041/article.html)Brian Victoria, Zen Masters on theB a t t l e f i e l d ( P a r t I )(https://apjjf.org/-Brian-Victoria/4145)Brian Victoria, Zen Masters on theB a t t l e f i e l d ( P a r t I I )(https://apjjf.org/-Brian-Victoria/4145)Brian Victoria, A Zen Nazi in WartimeJ a p a n(https://apjjf.org/-Brian-Victoria/4063)Count Dürckheim and his Sources—D.T.Suzuki, Yasutani Haku’un and EugenH e r r i g e l(https://apjjf.org/-Brian-Victoria/4063)Vladimir Tikhonov, South Korea’sChristian Military Chaplaincy in theKorean War - religion as ideology?(https://apjjf.org/-Vladimir-Tikhonov/3935)Brian Victoria, Buddhism and Disasters:From World War II to Fukushima(https://apjjf.org/-Brian-Victoria/3717)Brian Victoria , Karma, War andInequality in Twentieth Century Japan(https://apjjf.org/-Brian-Victoria/2421)

Hans-Joachim Bieber is professor emeritus of Modern History at the University of Kassel,Germany. His research focuses on German social 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 und Samurai. Deutsch-japanische Kulturbeziehungen1933-1945, München: iudicium 2014. His article on Cultural Relations between Germany andJapan in Nazi-Times. An Overview is forthcoming in Sven Saaler and Tobuo Najima (eds.):

APJ | JF 14 | 12 | 4

8

Mutual perceptions in Japanese-German relations: images, imaginings, and stereotypes.

Notes1 Heinrich Jürgens: Reise nach Japan. Tagebuchaufzeichnungen von der Japanfahrt der HJ1940, in: Junge Welt, March 1941, p. 22; further parts of Jürgens‘ report were published inthe editions of April 1941, pp. 20-22, and May 1941, pp. 21-23.2 “Japans Lebensraum”, in: Junge Welt, Nov. 1940, p. 8 f.3 Völkischer Beobachter, 9.1.1941.4 Ibid.5 Ibid.6 Jakob Wilhelm Hauer: Das religiöse Artbild der Indogermanen und die Grundtypen der indo-arischen Religion, Stuttgart 1937, p. 239 ff. and 269 ff.7 Daisetz Suzuki: Die große Befreiung, Leipzig 1939; cf. Hans-Joachim Bieber: SS undSamurai. Deutsch-japanische Kulturbeziehungen 1933-1945, Munich: iudicium 2014, p. 640.8 Heinrich Jürgens: Reise nach Japan. Tagebuchaufzeichnungen von der Japanfahrt der HJ1940, in: Junge Welt, May 1941, p. 21.9 Ibid. p. 22.10 Cf. Bieber 2014, passim.