The Origins of Simultaneous Interpretation: The Nuremberg Trial

CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERPRETING SYSTEM

CHAPTER TWO DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERPRETING SYSTEM Finally, the day came. On November 20, 1945, the soft, calm voice of Judge Lawrence opened the most important trial of the century. The eyes of the world were pointed on the crowded Nuremberg courtroom , and for the first time in history they marveled at something unknown: simultaneous interpretation. It was "what outsiders noticed and marveled at,"1 and "ce qui a le plus frappe les imaginations."2 The bizarre view of a courtroom full of people with earphones competed for media and public interest with the presence of Hermann Goring and Rudolf Hess. "One reporter thought it looked like a telephone exchange."3 Yet what people did not and could not know was that, beyond the novelty of the shiny earphones, there was the anxiety of those who had worked on the simultaneous interpreting system. They were anxious to see whether their efforts would be rewarded. As the Presiding Judge Lawrence began to speak, his words came through the cable translated into French, German and Russian: the simultaneous interpreting system worked. Of all the branches of the Translation Division, namely, Court Interpreting, Translating, Reporting and Transcript Reviewing, the one that received most attention from the media was the Interpreting Branch. Its profound impact on bothjournalists of the time and, later, historians is shown by the following quotation, in which the author sums up the four crucial, defining elements of the trial: Am 14. [sic] November 1945 begann in NUrnberg vor einem internationalen Militartribunal der ProzeB gegen die deutschen Hauptkriegsverbrecher . Figure I—The International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, Germany, 1945-1946. From left to right: the defendants and defense counsel. In the left corner in the back, interpreters' booths, the monitor and the Marshal of the Court. In the center, the speakers' rostrum, facing the witness box. On the right, the stenographers , the officers of the court and the Judges' Bench. On the bottom of the picture, the four tables of the Prosecution teams plus a table for court personnel. The picture is taken from the elevated gallery for the public. DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERPRETINGSYSTEM 61 Die Zahl der Angeklagten: 21, der Richter: 8, der Anklager: 50, der Zeugen: 111, der Verteidiger: 23. Es wurde simultanin vier Sprachenverhandelt. Der ProzeB dauerte ein Jahr.4 In 1945 "it was a wonder."5 Today, simultaneous interpreting is a daily occurrence at international meetings and conferences. Nonetheless , the Nuremberg simultaneous interpreting system, though not as sensational today as it was in 1945, is still fascinating. The system featured three teams of 12 interpreters working at four language desks. It consisted of a complex electrical transmission requiring technical assistance and was supervised by a monitor. It was a flexible system that allowed for needs such as Bench interpreting, closed session interpreting and interpretation of documents. The Functioning of the Interpreting System This description of the Nuremberg interpreting system is based mainly on Leon Dostert's text, "The Instantaneous Multi-Lingual Interpreting System in the International Military Tribunal." As mentioned earlier, the equipment adopted at Nuremberg was the Filene-Finlay system. The working languages were Russian, English, German and French. Everybody in the room wore earphones and every word was spoken into microphones . Every listener, judge, lawyer and press correspondent could choose the interpreted version of their choice or the original speech, called "verbatim."6 The channel choice was possible by means of a selector switch installed at every seat and connected to the earphones. There were five channels on the dial: channel one for the verbatim speech, channel two for English, channel three carried Russian, channel four French and channel five German. When a French prosecutor was examining a German witness, for example, the prosecutor asked a question in French. The witness heard the German translation through the earphones and answered in German into the microphone. The prosecutor heard the answer translated into French, and replied in French, and so on. At the same time an English-speaking listener heard the English version of both questions and answers. Usually, there was a pause of only a few seconds between the original and the translated versions, a pause (decalage) that was necessary for the interpreter to understand what he or sheheard and to start translating. The interpreters received the original speech through their earphones and translated into microphones into the language to which they 62 THE ORIGINS OF SIMULTANEOUSINTERPRETATION were assigned. They had to speak softly...