Jump to content

Talk:Edwin O. Reischauer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saving Kyoto

[edit]

The glowing reference to Reischauer's alleged act of pity is actually a good example of how controversial this figure really is: that is, Reischauer "burst into tears" at the thought of losing Kyoto's precious temples, but had no apparent objection to nuking the realtively temple-less Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

This is unfair, of course, but their are fair and respected criticisms of his work as a historian and statesman. One might see Japan: A Reinterpretation by Patrick L. Smith for a starting point.

I may pound out some of these criticisms and round out the perspective at a future date, but if anybody with the relevant expertise comes across this page I invite you to update it. 5:46 Shanghai Time signed

OK, maybe he only did ONE good thing in his life. Sure, please, let's hear about the other stuff, but let's not forget the one good thing. (Whether he objected to bombing H and N, I don't know, but it's clear he had no power to stop that; at least he did SOMETHING.) 67.113.3.135 05:20, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

... that is, unless you think the story isn't true; the writer Jungk wrote some other inaccuraies; how could he know what happened, he wasn't there; interviewed somebody, who may be inaccurate, perhaps. If anyone could confirm this incident, it would be great. Or maybe you don't think it matters that Kyoto was crossed off the list; people are the same in every city. (Besides, based on what I read, Kyoto was destroyed after the war by a large amount of concrete thanks to Japanese real estate developers.) 67.118.118.196 same person as 67.113.3.135 19:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Or maybe it was inappropriate to save Kyoto. Surely the militarism that fueled the Japanese aggression was a nationalism that was heightened by the national native religion Shinto, of which the Emperor is the divine head. So lots of cultural reinforcement for nationalism may have come from the cultural center of Kyoto. Likewise, based on 2 books I came across but can't remember the name of, the Zen heirarchy as a whole supported the nationalistic war. The tone of these 2 books (writen by Buddhists, 2 generations later) was apologetic, even horrified, that the Zen groups had supported it, but there it is. (What educated person has not seen images of the Zen gardens in Kyoto?) So maybe there are those who would say Reischauer;s mistake was to PREVENT Kyoto's obliteration. 64.165.202.140 02:55, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You do need to "come across" some more books. Kyoto is the center of Japanese buddhism, the important Shinto temples are in Ise, Nikko, Tokyo... (no other comment on what you believe to be arguments)-- Mkill 19:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zen at War, Brian Victoria; Zen War Stories, Victoria; Rude Awakening: Zen, the Kyoto School, & the Question of Nationalism (Nanzan Studies in Religion and Culture) by James W. Heisig, John C. Maraldo 64.165.203.61 22:29, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Your main point seems to be that my selected criticism of the subject was unfair. Which is quite ironic since I statedthat it was "unfair, of course" in the entry. But the criticism of the _article_ that _is_ fair is that it fails to present the clash of POVs that make the subject so controversial. The quotation of the Jungk passage may very well make the article better even after the POV has been rounded out--I'm really not certain. As I said above, the work on the article may be mine in the future, but I welcome anyone with the relevant expertise to give it a shot. If you were thinking about doing so I would question your expertise, but you haven't touched the article so I'm not sure where we disagree. signed 17 Jan 2005 7:13 Shanghai Time

People, the Jungk story is completely bogus. I'm researching Reischauer and Reischauer himself seems to have refuted the story in newspaper interviews. Also, the timeline doesn't work out at all for Jungk's claim. Nick Kapur

Great, looking forward to results of your research with references. GangofOne 06:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
still looking forward... GangofOne 8 July 2005 06:54 (UTC)

Yes the Jungk story is bogus. Reischauer refuted it in his book 'My Life Between Japan And America, 1986, p. 101': "I probably would have done this if I had ever had the opportunity, but there is not a word of truth to it. As has been amply proved by my friend Otis Cary of Doshisha in Kyoto, the only person deserving credit for saving Kyoto from destruction is Henry L. Stimson, the Secretary of War at the time, who had known and admired Kyoto ever since his honeymoon there several decades earlier." Discussions and articles should be based on primary sources, not questionable second hand sources like Jungk.VelvetJ 5 Aug 2005 10:15 Tokyo Time


The paragraph added by GangofOne ends with "Do not underestimate the power of early sexual imprinting.". This non-sequitur totally discredits the paragraph. I have removed that sentence and I suggest an investigation. This might turn out to be bogus...

I added the Reischauer quote on the 'Choice of Targets' section regarding the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings to refute the bogus Jungk account. GangofOne copied it to the Reischauer page adding his own inappropriate comment “Do not underestimate the power of early sexual imprinting.” The original quote is easy to find in Reischauer’s autobiography, please check it yourself in the last paragraph of chapter 17 ‘In Uniform’ of ‘My Life Between Japan And America’. Because of this I think the whole Reischauer page should re-written and the entire Kyoto/Jungk story deleted. Just stick to the facts of the man’s life. VelvetJ 8 Aug 2005 13:18 Tokyo Time

"I added the Reischauer quote on the 'Choice of Targets' section regarding the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings to refute the bogus Jungk account." A simple perusal of the history will show your statement to be inaccurate.GangofOne 07:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One advantage to the reader of leaving the story of Kyoto and its refutation in is that the story has a life of its own outside wikipedia, and any who look here can be informed of the true facts. I am glad that someone has some texts on the subject, and look forward to your contributions about Oldfather. GangofOne 07:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reischauer autobiography says

[edit]

I have read the history but I don't understand your comment: 'A simple perusal of the history will show your statement to be inaccurate'. The Jungk account is not true, that was all I was trying to point out. The entire last paragraph of Chapter 17: "After the war the Japanese popularly attributed the sparing of Kyoto from atomic attack and serious conventional bombing to my respected colleague, Langdon Warner of the Art Department at Harvard. In his typical modesty, Warner always denied all credit for this and refused permission for the erection of a bronze statue of him, claiming that he did not wish to go through eternity bearing the burden of pigeon droppings on his head and shoulders. Actually, a tasteful stone lantern was erected in his memory outside the gates of Horyuji Monastery in Nara. Some Japanese shifted the credit for the sparing of Kyoto from Warner to me, and a German book, entitled in English translation 'Brighter Than a Thousand Suns', has a moving story of me appearing in tears before the high command and begging for the sparing of Kyoto. I probably would have done this if I had ever had the opportunity, but there is not a word of truth to it. As has been amply proved by my friend Otis Cary of Doshisha in Kyoto, the only person deserving credit for saving Kyoto from destruction is Henry L. Stimson, the Secretary of War at the time, who had known and admired Kyoto ever since his honeymoon there several decades earlier."

On the previous page, Reischauer explains that his superiors called him and 5 other officers into the central office of the Special Branch on the morning of August 8 and was told about the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima. The group was also given a list of other possible targets that included Kyoto "though it was fortunately placed at the bottom of the list." This some 15 hours before the dropping of the bomb on Nagasaki. VelvetJ 8 Aug 2005 20:55 Tokyo Time

I thought I would add my comment to the debate on this page. It seems to me like the article is fairly non-biased as it is, aside from the statements in the questionable Jungk quote. The article itself merely states that the decision was made not to bomb the most important cultural treasures of Japan in the process of getting her to surrender. It seems to me that anyone that thinks that decision was in error has some serious anti-Japanese sentiment motivating them. Just my opinion. --Scipantheist 15:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the dispute was about the Jungk quote. the dispute ended when the quote from Reischauer was added. I will now remove the dispute tag. If there is another dispute, you may reapply it. GangofOne 20:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of adding some more relevant information. EOR had nothing to do with bomb targets, but he did play a role in keeping the Japanese Emperor in place. And his Ambassadorship was an important chapter as well. If nobody objects, will give it a go. VelvetJ 9 September 2005 0:55 Tokyo Time

By the way, in his book, "My Life Between Japan and America," Reischauer says that he agreed with dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, but that he thought dropping a second bomb on Nagasaki was unnescessary. Cla68 06:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity

[edit]

Do we have a source that states his ethnic background? I remember reading that he was half-Japanese, but I don't have the source. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is American of German/Austrian decent. See his autobiography: My Life Between Japan and America.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edwin O. Reischauer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edwin O. Reischauer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Edwin O. Reischauer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edwin_O._Reischauer&oldid=1223104884"