Challenges of Nuremberg Trials Interpretation

The following program was produced by the United States Courts. Thank you very much for this kind introduction. It's very fortunate that My presence here coincides with a mission that brought me to Washington during this week. I'm coordinating and accompanying a group of 15 scholars from China, from the People's Republic of China, who are doing an intensive exploration of the United States, beginning in Washington this week and then going on to Boston, San Francisco, and finally to the host state and city in Honolulu. I was asked to speak to you briefly about the origins and challenges of simultaneous interpreting relating to my experience at the Nuremberg trials. You heard from Xavier also some of my background, but let me just, from an autobiographical point of view, just say briefly how I got to Nuremberg and what brought me there and what made it possible for me to actually. stay there for four years from the beginning of, during the pre-trial phase, the trial itself, the big international trial, and the 12 subsequent proceedings. In other words, four years from 1945 to 1949. Now the fact that I'm able to stand here and speak to you about this, in a way also has to do with my age at that time, because my contemporaries at that time are no longer with us. In fact, the The main actors, the chief actors at Nuremberg, whether they are the judges or the prosecutors or the defense counsel or the defendants themselves, are no longer alive. Because at that time, as you can imagine, they were, I mean, we're talking about an event that took place 60 years ago. And then those people at that time were in their 40s and 50s. But in my case, what happened was that I was unusually young. I mean, I was this young. as 22 years old at that time. I'm right now 86, but I was 22 then. And it's quite amazing that I was employed. I would not have employed myself at that time. But let me come to that. As you heard, I lived in London. I mean, I was born in Vienna. Then my studies and my... Life in London was interrupted by World War II, stayed in London during the Blitz. And as the tides of the war changed in favor of the Allies towards the end of World War II and the advance into Germany, there was need for linguists, especially in the case of helping the U.S. troops, of having linguists available with logistics, with disarmament issues and so on. So I was attached. to actually a 9th U.S. Air Force Battalion that was advancing into Germany to help them with their logistics with the battalion dealing with Germans, dealing with requisitions, dealing with logistics, also dealing with interrogations and collection of materials that would be sent to a central screening agency for their significance for the Allies. And in doing that... And this was early. I was close, came close. Actually, we were at the university city called Erlangen in Germany, very close to Nuremberg. And it was just that the war had just ended, and I really heard rumors that the heads of state, the chiefs in crucial leading positions in Germany, had been arrested and were awaiting trial at Nuremberg. So I went. to Nuremberg to inquire about this, talked to the adjutant general and was told, they heard about my background, was told I was really needed. I won't go into detail because it takes some time, but it so happened that the colonel of the battalion, who was in fact my superior with that battalion, had no interest whatsoever in Nuremberg and said there's nothing doing, you stay here and I won't let you go. So literally, I described that in my autobiography, which has just been published. I realized that there's nothing I could do, but when I received orders to return to London, I made a decision, and it was a decision that influenced the rest of my life, and it is not to obey these orders to go to a Frankfurt air base and return to London, Because I knew that once I returned to London, the situation right at the end of the war in Germany was so chaotic. The channels of command were so confused in a way that we would never be able to get back. So I made a decision not to obey these orders and simply go to Nuremberg myself without getting on that airplane. By that time, I'd lost my jeep and driver, and I had to get out to the autobahn, really to hitchhike. ride to Nuremberg, presented myself to the adjutant general, and then from that time on I was immediately immersed in the, first of all in the pre-trial phase, setting, doing all of the necessary preparations for the trial itself. You may ask what happened to my AWOL status, absent without leave, well it so happened that there was a military military police detachment, I think it was a sergeant and a military police captain, who caught up with me in Nuremberg, but I had no problems because the Nuremberg trials had a top priority in the European theater at that time, and they smoothed the way for me, and there was no problem. Well, let me say first, before we're getting into the simultaneous issues, something about the pre-trial interrogations, which you conduct. conducted on a consecutive level where the accused and some key witnesses were brought into interrogation rooms and there was a number of prosecutors and lawyers who would actually prepare both the testimony and the documentary evidence which would be the basis of the trials. Sometimes when I'm asked what most impressed me about my career at Nuremberg at the Nuremberg trials, I will often say it was these pretrial interrogations were done exactly. And why am I saying that? It was because this was an experience of history in the raw, raw history. What I mean by that is this was an occasion where the leaders of a nation that had been totally defeated, where the infrastructure of that nation was totally destroyed, And those leaders of the nations were given an opportunity to articulate and express themselves during that pretrial phase, very often very anxious to express themselves. And this was done before the testimony was filtered by defense counsel or by defense strategy. It was prior to any kind of strategy. It was very much spontaneous and extremely interesting. But then, as the preparation... preparations for the trials advanced, the questions came up on how to deal with the language issues and the language barriers. It was evident that the languages that were needed were obviously were German, was the language of the defendants of the accused, of defense counsel and so on, and then when it came to the international judges and the prosecution, we had the US prosecution team, the British prosecution, French prosecution, and Soviet, at that time we called it Soviet, rather than Russian. So it was important that the proceedings be understood, not only by all of the participants at Nuremberg in the Nuremberg trials, but in a sense by the world, because this was an occasion for media from all over the world to come to Nuremberg. In a sense, it was one of the most important media events at Nuremberg. at the end of World War II. And they were reporting on the trials to their respective communities in their respective countries. And they needed to do that, obviously, in their own languages. And they needed to understand what was going on. So now, how to deal with this dilemma? Because if we had to do it consecutively, it would have just, I mean, you couldn't conceive on how cumbersome it would be, how boring it would be, and how difficult it would be. You just. It was just not acceptable. So, you know the English proverb, the English saying, necessity is the mother of invention. So if something is really necessary, there is some ingenious way to deal with it. In fact, it's very hard to pinpoint the originator. of the notion, the theme of simultaneous interpreting. But I think a key person was a man called Leon Dostaire, who was a colonel in the US Army, but of French origin, brought up in France, and was by bilingual in French and English, had also served as an interpreter to General Eisenhower himself. And he was one of the key persons, you know, with that vision, with that ideas. So that during the pre-trial phase, that during that phase before the international trial, we had a relatively short time, no more than, I would say, three or four months to make those preparations. And there were two aspects to it. One was the human aspect, of course, that was the key. key aspect to choosing the people who were able to do that and dealing with the criteria for these kinds of choices, and I'll come to that in a moment. But then there was also the technical aspect of how technically to do that. Now, nowadays, now throughout the world, we are so technically able that we don't really think of these things. We know that things can be electronically handled very efficiently. But keep in mind, now we're dealing with 1945. Keep in mind that at that time, even the tape that we now use had not yet been used or invented. So recording was done through a wire, wire recording. So at that time, IBM had already existed and helped with the technical setup of dealing with a simultaneous system. Let me go back to the choice of personnel. We started out with the language division at Nuremberg, in other words, with some of the people who were already involved in the translation of documents, who were document translators, in order to see whether they could be used in the courtroom on the microphone, you know, to be dealing simultaneously. And we found that that was a very, very difficult thing to do. We set up a system of sort of mock trials. preparation to test people to see if they're able to respond immediately to language stimuli and handle that and in many cases they were not in many cases these were people who were outstanding linguists scholars with translated books and so on but were not able to handle this notion of dealing with a language stimulus in such a way that it could be useful for simultaneous interpreting. However, some, in fact, what the stumbling block for some of those very learned people was, is that they were perfectionists. And it is good to be a perfectionist, you know, when you have the time and you're translating a book or a journal. But you can't be a perfectionist when you have to respond to an immediate stimulus. So in other words, it called for the ability to think of the second best word instantly, or even the third best word, because you could not afford to stop. If you stopped, there's a breakdown in what you're doing. So it required that kind of language agility, which we found out turned out to be rather rare and not as easy to find. But anyway, we managed to bring a team together. And actually, we needed a team of 12. each three teams, about 36 people. When I say 12, and I'm sure many of you are now familiar with that, we would essentially have an English booth. So the English class booth would be German into English, which, by the way, was my function. I was on the English microphone listening to German and speaking English. So the English booth would have German into English, French into English, and Russian into English. And that's what I was doing. And they would share one booth, and in essence, one microphone. And then there would be the German booth, English into German, French into German, Russian into German. And they would be on the German microphone. The same would be true for Russian, and the same would be due for French. And to coordinate all of that, there would also be a monitor who was sitting by the side, that later on in the subsequent proceedings was often my position, would sort of turn the dial. and listen to all of them. to deal with possible breakdowns and so on. So we had these teams where the procedure was something like this. They would be in the courtroom much longer than we do it usually now, for about an hour and a half. half or two hours sitting on that microphone. Of course, when the verbatim language was a given language, was English or German or whatever it was, you would hear verbatim through the earphones. In other words, there was no need for somebody interpreting it into German, you know, when a German witness was speaking. And that would have been done verbatim. We would then... After, as we were speaking, court reporters would take down the testimony. Both the testimony as it came through verbatim, directly, but also especially but the testimony that was coming through the earphones. So there would be a group of French court reporters, German court reporters, English court reporters, and Russian court reporters. And the court reporters would go into... the courtroom and do takes of 15 or 20 minutes in the courtroom. They would use the stenotype or sometimes stenograph, and then they would go back into their offices and would transcribe. And without going into details, let me just tell you that, and I think it was quite a feat, that at the end of a working day of the trials, there was a transcript that was ready. in four languages, in English, French, Russian, and German. Now, it was not a Polish transcript. For example, what I had to do when I was, say, for 90 minutes in the courtroom, I would then go to my office, and I would have in front of me, through wire recording, the verbatim version of what was said, and I had my translation. And I would... was able to do, make a quick review. And since we're dealing really with life and death matters, we had to be careful that no mistakes were done. But there was not enough time to really polish it and to have a polished version. But enough attention was paid that we were sure that it would be accurate. And it was possible for the lawyers, for the prosecutors, and for defense counsel, and for judges to review what had been done. we faced a great many challenges. We faced challenges of special terminology, military terminology. For example, in the medical trial in one of the subsequent proceedings, there was a great deal of medical terminology. And all of that presented great challenges to the court interpreters. So it meant that we needed, to some extent, possible... to have preparation for these challenges. For example, to request in advance to know what would be happening in the courtroom and what kinds of things we need to be prepared for. We also had one, and many of you who are interpreters in the room would relate to this. There is a difference between free, spontaneous talk and then, and... written language. In other words, if a witness or a prosecutor, a defense counsel, was reading a document in the courtroom and if that document was not also available to the interpreter, it caused a tremendous problem. It's sometimes almost as difficult as being even able to do that. So we made very sure that everyone actually in this proceedings knew that the interpreters had to have this material in front of them. But there were many challenges. I mentioned medical terminology. To give you an example, on medical terminology, we know that most of the medical terms have Latin roots. So sometimes the only difference between one language and another language on medical terminology was the pronunciation. that would fit that particular language. And though very often the interpreters themselves did not understand the technical aspects of it, they were able to use it. use that system to make it intelligible to those people, you know, in the audience, who need it to know. Ideally, we realized when the simultaneous interpreting system worked well, the person in the courtroom, whether it was a visitor in the spectator's gallery or counsel or judges and so on, were not really conscious of the presence of an interpreter. They were just listening to the proceedings as though they were hearing the actors speak themselves in that language. And then that's when it worked very smoothly. We developed a system of traffic lights where we had orange light and orange light go on, which is a warning signal, which meant that counsel was speaking too quickly. And at that point, the judges would caution whoever was on the microphone to speak slowly. Or situations where the actors in the courtroom were very agitated and they were not being very careful. trying to speak at the same time. And when they were doing that, obviously the simultaneous interpreting of the system did not work. So we had the cooperation of the justices who were very conscious of the fact that we faced difficult challenges and were trying to be as helpful as possible. And I think particularly of the president of the International Military Tribunal, who is... Sir Geoffrey Lawrence, the British, who was very, very careful about helping the interpreters at that time in order to meet those challenges. We also had some issues. dealing with what some of us describe as so-called Nazi German, or official National Socialist policy German that was used in the court. And by that we meant that very often, where there were several translations possible, perhaps one version would be innocuous and another version would be quite incriminatory. one could choose one or the other. Let me give you an example, because it's difficult to describe that without an example. This happened in my case, and it put myself into an interesting role. The testimony said that a certain number of the population in eastern Ukraine, for example in Russia, Russia was seized and gotten ready for deportation to other parts of Ukraine and so on. So I had to deal with that verb, that population was seized. Now, when you take that verb translated to the German, you have, I mean, from German into English, I used the term seized, which fit the context perfectly, as far as I was concerned. However, that particular verb could also be translated that that population was registered. Now, the difference between seized and registered, seized has an aggressive connotation. Registered has a totally innocuous connotation. I use the term seized on the microphone. Why? Because it fit the context perfectly. However... Now, among the defense counsel, there were quite a number of them who spoke English quite well and who were usually following the procedure with one part of the earphone onto the translation and one to the original, and they raised an objection, saying that that should have been translated as registered and not as seized. Now, how that affected me in an interesting and almost humorous way is, that for the next 15 minutes or so on the microphone, I was involved in interpreting a discussion about my interpretation, which sort of went back and forth until finally Chief Justice Lawrence did something that he often had to do and judges have to do, and saying is we will end this discussion and the tribunal will take it into consideration and deal with it when the tribunal is in power. the time comes. So that just gives you an idea. As I mentioned, I stayed with... No, let me just before I do that, let me talk about another challenge. I think it may resonate with you. And that has to do with translation from German into English. Those of you who have studied... German or know something about German or German speakers amongst you, know that in the subordinate clause, the verb comes at the very end of a subordinate clause. So in other words, you have a... various adjectives and adverbs and so on, preceding the verb, and then finally you have the verb at the end. Now that presented a great challenge to the interpreter, because when you speak English, the verb anchors the sentence. In other words, you need it immediately, so that you could not afford to wait until you heard the verb at the end of the clause in order to use it, because by that... time, whoever was speaking had already gone on beyond that, and there would be a breakdown. So we developed a system of dealing with that through language segments, and taking the adverbial clause that preceded the verb and making a short sentence out of it until the verb is heard, and then have the verb include. everything that had preceded it. Now, as I explained it now, that sounds awfully complicated and very difficult. But actually, it is not. Once you get the hang of that system, it worked very well and allowed us to keep pace. During the trials, as you know, and during all simultaneous interpreting, it requires a great deal of focus and a great deal of concentration and also something becoming... to being in tune to some extent with how the person is speaking and engaging that. And once you capture that, then there's a flow. And then you just go with the flow and it tends to... to work pretty well. There's another interesting aspect to that process. To give you an example, in my case, from time to time, I would be spending an hour or two in front of the microphone. Then there would be a recess, and I'd go outside to the corridor outside of the courtroom. And people who had not been spectating were interested in what was going on. And they would ask me, well, what happened here and what happened there? And I was unable to respond. And why was I unable to respond? Because in some ways, when you have that kind of a focus and that concentration, you're almost in a trance-like situation. You're doing it correctly, but it's a quasi-trance. And then you come out, and it's very difficult to reconstruct what had gone on and what had gone on previously. I'm very often asked, you see, keep in mind that, you know, at that time, as I mentioned, I was a very young fellow. I was 22, 23 years old. I was asked very often, and I'm asked now. What was your reaction to the trials in terms of the war crimes and the crimes against humanity and the things that happened later with the Holocaust and so on? And how did you react? How did you feel about all of that kind of a testimony that was coming across at that time? And then I would say, I had to say that I was so focused on the linguistic, on the language challenges, and I was, in a sense, too young to really deal with the full impact in international law, for example. example of the Nuremberg trials. My concern was really basically doing a good job linguistically and preparing myself well enough that I could handle that job. However, as later, 10, 20 years later, in my later career, my later work, I became more and more interested in the impact of the trial, in the legal implications. And since then I've lectured about it and I've written about it. It's not the theme of this conference here, but it is something that I've been doing and I'm still required. to do. I've just written, and some of you have it, it will be available here after my talk, I've written an autobiography, a book of memoirs, which is entitled Nuremberg and Beyond. Now, in that book, I do deal not only with some of the challenges in simultaneous interpreting that I've just enumerated, but also with the impact of the trial with the legal... implications with the role of the trials preceding the Tokyo trials. We followed a year later the trials at The Hague that have been going on, what is happening in Cambodia and so on. In other words, Nuremberg set the stage for a phase in international law which is still going on today. Let me say something about the interpreters at Nuremberg, the kind of people who were gathered there. And it was an interesting mix of people. Different age groups were represented. few as young as I am, but some of them are coming from academia, some of them actually had already had experience as interpreters in Geneva. So it was a very mixed group. We've also formed a social group and formed friendships. Unfortunately, most of them are no longer alive, but I did keep in touch with quite a number of them. And then we had also close connections with the court reporters. For example, as a linguist at Nuremberg, I had one of my duties in addition to simultaneous interpreting from time to time to phases, and it's, you'll see me when you see me, see photos of the Nuremberg trials, you might see my face underneath the tier of judges. On those occasions, my job was to give information to the court reporters that they needed in order to transcribe. For example, they were unable to deal with German place names, with names of military ranks, all kinds of proper nouns and proper words. that were not in their experience. They would come to full stop in their transcribing. So I would listen for all of these things, and as the court reporter finished that take of 15 or 20 minutes, I would hand them the sheet of paper where all of that was written, so that when they did their transcription, they could do it smoothly. As I said, at that time, simultaneous interpreting had not yet been done, but when we move fast forward to the 21st century, right now, it has become an aspect of the linguistic... training. Every major university has a department that trains people in simultaneous interpreting. It has become something that is accepted everywhere. international gathering. And I would like to think that the skill and the ability to handle that also has grown quite a bit, so that it has not only become an accepted profession, but also that the ability level, you know, has increased a great deal. There's a great deal more to be said about translation and about simultaneous interpreting. My life right now is not involved with that anymore. You know, I'm at the moment a fellow, an adjunct fellow at the East-West Center, which is a center that deals with the understanding of the... Asia-Pacific region, and in that, obviously, I deal primarily in English. But to some extent, I've used my language background in the community in terms of... working with various community groups in a variety of capacities. I'm a founder, for example, in Hawaii of the Alliance Francaise that encourages French culture. In my case, I would describe myself as trilingual, English, French, and German. But in addition to that, although I have not mastered that, because my work takes me frequently to Asia, so I'm very often in Japan, and in the People's Republic of China, other places. So I've picked up a smattering of those languages, but I would only describe them as street Chinese or street Japanese, and I'm not able to deal with it. It's kind of curious because when I say something in Chinese or if I say something in Japanese, because of my background as a linguist, my pronunciation tends to be quite good. So when I say something, there's a flood that comes back to me in response, and then I'm totally lost. So that's one of the perils of having a good pronunciation. When you have a limited vocabulary and a good pronunciation, it can get you into a lot of trouble. Let me conclude by saying that I'm very glad to be here. There's a lot to be said about my subject, but I would prefer to deal with your particular interest that brings you here, and any questions, or if my remarks have stimulated any particular question where you would like to have my comment. So please feel free to express yourself in terms of my talk. As the years went on, I would imagine that you created relationships within the courtroom with the different participants. How did you, did the interpreters and the rest of the group keep that relationship that you might have created from actually... influencing and the knowledge you were gaining throughout the years from influencing the day-to-day hearings? Well, actually, we were quite professional about that. It did not actually affect ourselves vis-a-vis the defendants. Socially, we had many different opportunities to get together among interpreters, among linguists, among reporters, among journalists. I, in particular, had many friendships among the journalists that came because, as I mentioned, it was a big media event, and we would relate to one another. We had many incidents. You know, in the medical trial, I was very much involved with the medical trial from beginning to end, and these were Nazi Germans. doctors who were accused of doing experiments on concentration camp inmates, on prisoners of war, all kinds of very cruel experiments, like being exposed to salt water without anything else until the point of death. I mean, they're injecting Polish women with gangrene in order to see what kind of... Their response in their defense... defense, which was not accepted as a defense, was that this was all done in the spirit of medical science. But in fact, there was no progress in medical science as a result of these experiments. But that was their defense. But apropos of incidents, I remember once it was during the medical trial, and I developed an irritation on my skin, on my cheek that just wouldn't disappear. Now remember that one of the... defendants. And those doctors in the dock, some of them had international reputations and were renowned medical scholars and were still pursuing that. Well, anyway, one of those doctors beckoned me over and he looked at my skin irritation and he scribbled something, which was a prescription, and handed it to me. And he said, you know, you can take that to a pharmacy and that irritation will disappear. Now, just... Just as curiosity, at Nuremberg, I did take it to a pharmacy, and the pharmacy said that this is a very popular salve or something, and that it's perfectly okay. There's nothing you need to worry about. I mean, this is just one anecdote of many. I enjoyed particularly the French delegation. We were billeted in... in Nuremberg, in the suburbs of Nuremberg, in some cases in the university town of Erlangen and Danbach, and we would very often get together for social occasions. In a sense, my life in Hawaii really has to do with, you know the expression in French, when you read French books, if you want to know why a male, a man, moves from one place to another, you know, It was said, Cherchez la femme. That means, look for the woman. And if you find out where the woman goes, the man may well follow. Well, I met a court reporter, actually of Hawaiian descent. Who was one of the first court reports from Hawaii in Europe. And we got married in Paris. And the fact that we got married really launched my career in Hawaii, had I not met her. That would not have happened. On the outskirts of Nuremberg, there was an inn which we dubbed the French Club, where many members of the French delegation would stay. We would often meet there and gather there for social events. There were many recesses called during the trials, and we were in a privileged position where we would be able, during a recess, to fly free of charge to various destinations in Europe during recess periods. So these were some of the social events that took place. There was also a castle called the Stein Castle outside of Nuremberg where the press had stayed, and very often we would go to the Stein Castle. We had functions and social gatherings in that castle. In fact, when I got married in Paris afterwards, we had a reception right at that castle, at the Stein Castle. Among the journalists, some that may resonate amongst you, one of the journalists was a man who became very famous in the United States, passed away now, Walter Cronkite. Walter Cronkite was at that time not a television reporter. reporter, but he wrote, a print reporter, he wrote for United Press and had duty. And there were many others who also became quite well known. I think there's a question over there. I'm curious, during the time that the trials were going on, without going into specifics, did you consider that you were well paid as an interpreter or marginally paid or? Well, by the standards at that time, it was okay. It was fairly well. By standards of today, it was pitifully small. No, I think, if I can give you a figure, I'm not really quite sure anymore, but it was something to the equivalent of $3,000 or $3,500 per year, which was not very much, but we didn't have many expenses. Actually, this was the period right after World War II had just ended. The German mark was worth nothing, and you had to pay for it. had sort of military notes other than Marx. And people were paid in kind by Americans would buy coffee from the PX and then give it to some Germans and so on. So there was a lot of barter and a lot of exchange going on. And, for example, in my case, both my woman I was to marry later as a court reporter, she was very busy in her profession and I was as an interpreter. We were very busy. But we had... had many facilities. I mean, we had a housekeeper, you know, to keep the house. We had a driver and a car, you know, to go wherever we wanted. So when you think about that, it was unusual for young people, a young couple in their 20s to have that kind of support. But it kind of went with the job and it went with the conditions at that time. But I think in some ways we were mature enough to realize that when the Nuremberg trials came to an end, and not only the major trial but all the subsequent proceedings, we had some offers to stay on with the occupation in Germany and other related positions, which at that time would have been quite well paid and secured with all kinds of service. But we realized that this was not life as it should be led, that one needed to take root somewhere, and it didn't make sense to stay and go from one job like that. overseas to another. So we decided, you know, I hadn't finished my education. I needed to do more graduate work. My wife had other interests too. So we went to Hawaii. Our first idea was not to settle down in Hawaii, but just to visit her family and her parents and then go back either to the United States or to England to do something else. But then various positions and offers opened up in Hawaii. And I realized that Hawaii was a place where I could do whatever I wanted. rather than an isolated place, was really a bridge between the Asia-Pacific region and the mainland United States, and there were many opportunities there for me. And I became quite fascinated with the population, with the way of life, with the beauty of the country. So we've never regretted the fact that we've settled down there. There's this lady over there. Yes, Professor. As interpreters, we emphasize the need to work in teams today, and studies have been done about interpreter fatigue. At the time that the North... Nuremberg trial took place, obviously there was no protocol as to how interpreters would work or for how long. And I imagine that there was an emotional toll on the interpreter also, as you say, when you describe when they were interpreting the medical experiments, etc. How did you divide the work up to prevent yourselves from getting too tired? Yeah. Well, I was involved in this aspect of it towards the end of the subsequent proceedings in the final two years when I was there. As mentioned, I was there from 1945. 5 to 49. But as of late 47, 48, I was appointed chief of the interpreting branch, you know, at a very young age. And this is when I took these things into consideration. As chief of the interpreting branch, I still continued to be active on the microphone, but my main duty was really scheduling interpreters and selecting them and making sure that they were not oversleeping. or under scheduled for that matter, and deal with those issues of potential fatigue.

I'm coordinating and accompanying a group of 15 scholars from China, from the People's Republic of China, who are doing an intensive exploration of the United States, beginning in Washington this week and then going on to Boston, San Francisco, and finally to the host state and city in Honolulu. I was asked to speak to you briefly about the origins and challenges of simultaneous interpreting relating to my experience at the Nuremberg trials. You heard from Xavier also some of my background, but let me just, from an autobiographical point of view, just say briefly how I got to Nuremberg and what brought me there and what made it possible for me to actually.

stay there for four years from the beginning of, during the pre-trial phase, the trial itself, the big international trial, and the 12 subsequent proceedings. In other words, four years from 1945 to 1949. Now the fact that I'm able to stand here and speak to you about this, in a way also has to do with my age at that time, because my contemporaries at that time are no longer with us. In fact, the The main actors, the chief actors at Nuremberg, whether they are the judges or the prosecutors or the defense counsel or the defendants themselves, are no longer alive. Because at that time, as you can imagine, they were, I mean, we're talking about an event that took place 60 years ago. And then those people at that time were in their 40s and 50s.

But in my case, what happened was that I was unusually young. I mean, I was this young. as 22 years old at that time.

I'm right now 86, but I was 22 then. And it's quite amazing that I was employed. I would not have employed myself at that time.

But let me come to that. As you heard, I lived in London. I mean, I was born in Vienna. Then my studies and my...

Life in London was interrupted by World War II, stayed in London during the Blitz. And as the tides of the war changed in favor of the Allies towards the end of World War II and the advance into Germany, there was need for linguists, especially in the case of helping the U.S. troops, of having linguists available with logistics, with disarmament issues and so on. So I was attached. to actually a 9th U.S. Air Force Battalion that was advancing into Germany to help them with their logistics with the battalion dealing with Germans, dealing with requisitions, dealing with logistics, also dealing with interrogations and collection of materials that would be sent to a central screening agency for their significance for the Allies.

And in doing that... And this was early. I was close, came close.

Actually, we were at the university city called Erlangen in Germany, very close to Nuremberg. And it was just that the war had just ended, and I really heard rumors that the heads of state, the chiefs in crucial leading positions in Germany, had been arrested and were awaiting trial at Nuremberg. So I went.

to Nuremberg to inquire about this, talked to the adjutant general and was told, they heard about my background, was told I was really needed. I won't go into detail because it takes some time, but it so happened that the colonel of the battalion, who was in fact my superior with that battalion, had no interest whatsoever in Nuremberg and said there's nothing doing, you stay here and I won't let you go. So literally, I described that in my autobiography, which has just been published. I realized that there's nothing I could do, but when I received orders to return to London, I made a decision, and it was a decision that influenced the rest of my life, and it is not to obey these orders to go to a Frankfurt air base and return to London, Because I knew that once I returned to London, the situation right at the end of the war in Germany was so chaotic.

The channels of command were so confused in a way that we would never be able to get back. So I made a decision not to obey these orders and simply go to Nuremberg myself without getting on that airplane. By that time, I'd lost my jeep and driver, and I had to get out to the autobahn, really to hitchhike.

ride to Nuremberg, presented myself to the adjutant general, and then from that time on I was immediately immersed in the, first of all in the pre-trial phase, setting, doing all of the necessary preparations for the trial itself. You may ask what happened to my AWOL status, absent without leave, well it so happened that there was a military military police detachment, I think it was a sergeant and a military police captain, who caught up with me in Nuremberg, but I had no problems because the Nuremberg trials had a top priority in the European theater at that time, and they smoothed the way for me, and there was no problem. Well, let me say first, before we're getting into the simultaneous issues, something about the pre-trial interrogations, which you conduct.

conducted on a consecutive level where the accused and some key witnesses were brought into interrogation rooms and there was a number of prosecutors and lawyers who would actually prepare both the testimony and the documentary evidence which would be the basis of the trials. Sometimes when I'm asked what most impressed me about my career at Nuremberg at the Nuremberg trials, I will often say it was these pretrial interrogations were done exactly. And why am I saying that? It was because this was an experience of history in the raw, raw history.

What I mean by that is this was an occasion where the leaders of a nation that had been totally defeated, where the infrastructure of that nation was totally destroyed, And those leaders of the nations were given an opportunity to articulate and express themselves during that pretrial phase, very often very anxious to express themselves. And this was done before the testimony was filtered by defense counsel or by defense strategy. It was prior to any kind of strategy. It was very much spontaneous and extremely interesting.

But then, as the preparation... preparations for the trials advanced, the questions came up on how to deal with the language issues and the language barriers. It was evident that the languages that were needed were obviously were German, was the language of the defendants of the accused, of defense counsel and so on, and then when it came to the international judges and the prosecution, we had the US prosecution team, the British prosecution, French prosecution, and Soviet, at that time we called it Soviet, rather than Russian. So it was important that the proceedings be understood, not only by all of the participants at Nuremberg in the Nuremberg trials, but in a sense by the world, because this was an occasion for media from all over the world to come to Nuremberg. In a sense, it was one of the most important media events at Nuremberg.

at the end of World War II. And they were reporting on the trials to their respective communities in their respective countries. And they needed to do that, obviously, in their own languages. And they needed to understand what was going on.

So now, how to deal with this dilemma? Because if we had to do it consecutively, it would have just, I mean, you couldn't conceive on how cumbersome it would be, how boring it would be, and how difficult it would be. You just.

It was just not acceptable. So, you know the English proverb, the English saying, necessity is the mother of invention. So if something is really necessary, there is some ingenious way to deal with it.

In fact, it's very hard to pinpoint the originator. of the notion, the theme of simultaneous interpreting. But I think a key person was a man called Leon Dostaire, who was a colonel in the US Army, but of French origin, brought up in France, and was by bilingual in French and English, had also served as an interpreter to General Eisenhower himself.

And he was one of the key persons, you know, with that vision, with that ideas. So that during the pre-trial phase, that during that phase before the international trial, we had a relatively short time, no more than, I would say, three or four months to make those preparations. And there were two aspects to it.

One was the human aspect, of course, that was the key. key aspect to choosing the people who were able to do that and dealing with the criteria for these kinds of choices, and I'll come to that in a moment. But then there was also the technical aspect of how technically to do that. Now, nowadays, now throughout the world, we are so technically able that we don't really think of these things.

We know that things can be electronically handled very efficiently. But keep in mind, now we're dealing with 1945. Keep in mind that at that time, even the tape that we now use had not yet been used or invented. So recording was done through a wire, wire recording. So at that time, IBM had already existed and helped with the technical setup of dealing with a simultaneous system.

Let me go back to the choice of personnel. We started out with the language division at Nuremberg, in other words, with some of the people who were already involved in the translation of documents, who were document translators, in order to see whether they could be used in the courtroom on the microphone, you know, to be dealing simultaneously. And we found that that was a very, very difficult thing to do. We set up a system of sort of mock trials. preparation to test people to see if they're able to respond immediately to language stimuli and handle that and in many cases they were not in many cases these were people who were outstanding linguists scholars with translated books and so on but were not able to handle this notion of dealing with a language stimulus in such a way that it could be useful for simultaneous interpreting.

However, some, in fact, what the stumbling block for some of those very learned people was, is that they were perfectionists. And it is good to be a perfectionist, you know, when you have the time and you're translating a book or a journal. But you can't be a perfectionist when you have to respond to an immediate stimulus. So in other words, it called for the ability to think of the second best word instantly, or even the third best word, because you could not afford to stop. If you stopped, there's a breakdown in what you're doing.

So it required that kind of language agility, which we found out turned out to be rather rare and not as easy to find. But anyway, we managed to bring a team together. And actually, we needed a team of 12. each three teams, about 36 people.

When I say 12, and I'm sure many of you are now familiar with that, we would essentially have an English booth. So the English class booth would be German into English, which, by the way, was my function. I was on the English microphone listening to German and speaking English.

So the English booth would have German into English, French into English, and Russian into English. And that's what I was doing. And they would share one booth, and in essence, one microphone. And then there would be the German booth, English into German, French into German, Russian into German.

And they would be on the German microphone. The same would be true for Russian, and the same would be due for French. And to coordinate all of that, there would also be a monitor who was sitting by the side, that later on in the subsequent proceedings was often my position, would sort of turn the dial.

and listen to all of them. to deal with possible breakdowns and so on. So we had these teams where the procedure was something like this.

They would be in the courtroom much longer than we do it usually now, for about an hour and a half. half or two hours sitting on that microphone. Of course, when the verbatim language was a given language, was English or German or whatever it was, you would hear verbatim through the earphones. In other words, there was no need for somebody interpreting it into German, you know, when a German witness was speaking. And that would have been done verbatim.

We would then... After, as we were speaking, court reporters would take down the testimony. Both the testimony as it came through verbatim, directly, but also especially but the testimony that was coming through the earphones.

So there would be a group of French court reporters, German court reporters, English court reporters, and Russian court reporters. And the court reporters would go into... the courtroom and do takes of 15 or 20 minutes in the courtroom. They would use the stenotype or sometimes stenograph, and then they would go back into their offices and would transcribe. And without going into details, let me just tell you that, and I think it was quite a feat, that at the end of a working day of the trials, there was a transcript that was ready.

in four languages, in English, French, Russian, and German. Now, it was not a Polish transcript. For example, what I had to do when I was, say, for 90 minutes in the courtroom, I would then go to my office, and I would have in front of me, through wire recording, the verbatim version of what was said, and I had my translation.

And I would... was able to do, make a quick review. And since we're dealing really with life and death matters, we had to be careful that no mistakes were done. But there was not enough time to really polish it and to have a polished version.

But enough attention was paid that we were sure that it would be accurate. And it was possible for the lawyers, for the prosecutors, and for defense counsel, and for judges to review what had been done. we faced a great many challenges. We faced challenges of special terminology, military terminology.

For example, in the medical trial in one of the subsequent proceedings, there was a great deal of medical terminology. And all of that presented great challenges to the court interpreters. So it meant that we needed, to some extent, possible...

to have preparation for these challenges. For example, to request in advance to know what would be happening in the courtroom and what kinds of things we need to be prepared for. We also had one, and many of you who are interpreters in the room would relate to this.

There is a difference between free, spontaneous talk and then, and... written language. In other words, if a witness or a prosecutor, a defense counsel, was reading a document in the courtroom and if that document was not also available to the interpreter, it caused a tremendous problem. It's sometimes almost as difficult as being even able to do that.

So we made very sure that everyone actually in this proceedings knew that the interpreters had to have this material in front of them. But there were many challenges. I mentioned medical terminology. To give you an example, on medical terminology, we know that most of the medical terms have Latin roots. So sometimes the only difference between one language and another language on medical terminology was the pronunciation.

that would fit that particular language. And though very often the interpreters themselves did not understand the technical aspects of it, they were able to use it. use that system to make it intelligible to those people, you know, in the audience, who need it to know.

Ideally, we realized when the simultaneous interpreting system worked well, the person in the courtroom, whether it was a visitor in the spectator's gallery or counsel or judges and so on, were not really conscious of the presence of an interpreter. They were just listening to the proceedings as though they were hearing the actors speak themselves in that language. And then that's when it worked very smoothly.

We developed a system of traffic lights where we had orange light and orange light go on, which is a warning signal, which meant that counsel was speaking too quickly. And at that point, the judges would caution whoever was on the microphone to speak slowly. Or situations where the actors in the courtroom were very agitated and they were not being very careful. trying to speak at the same time.

And when they were doing that, obviously the simultaneous interpreting of the system did not work. So we had the cooperation of the justices who were very conscious of the fact that we faced difficult challenges and were trying to be as helpful as possible. And I think particularly of the president of the International Military Tribunal, who is... Sir Geoffrey Lawrence, the British, who was very, very careful about helping the interpreters at that time in order to meet those challenges. We also had some issues.

dealing with what some of us describe as so-called Nazi German, or official National Socialist policy German that was used in the court. And by that we meant that very often, where there were several translations possible, perhaps one version would be innocuous and another version would be quite incriminatory. one could choose one or the other.

Let me give you an example, because it's difficult to describe that without an example. This happened in my case, and it put myself into an interesting role. The testimony said that a certain number of the population in eastern Ukraine, for example in Russia, Russia was seized and gotten ready for deportation to other parts of Ukraine and so on.

So I had to deal with that verb, that population was seized. Now, when you take that verb translated to the German, you have, I mean, from German into English, I used the term seized, which fit the context perfectly, as far as I was concerned. However, that particular verb could also be translated that that population was registered.

Now, the difference between seized and registered, seized has an aggressive connotation. Registered has a totally innocuous connotation. I use the term seized on the microphone.

Why? Because it fit the context perfectly. However...

Now, among the defense counsel, there were quite a number of them who spoke English quite well and who were usually following the procedure with one part of the earphone onto the translation and one to the original, and they raised an objection, saying that that should have been translated as registered and not as seized. Now, how that affected me in an interesting and almost humorous way is, that for the next 15 minutes or so on the microphone, I was involved in interpreting a discussion about my interpretation, which sort of went back and forth until finally Chief Justice Lawrence did something that he often had to do and judges have to do, and saying is we will end this discussion and the tribunal will take it into consideration and deal with it when the tribunal is in power. the time comes. So that just gives you an idea. As I mentioned, I stayed with...

No, let me just before I do that, let me talk about another challenge. I think it may resonate with you. And that has to do with translation from German into English.

Those of you who have studied... German or know something about German or German speakers amongst you, know that in the subordinate clause, the verb comes at the very end of a subordinate clause. So in other words, you have a...

various adjectives and adverbs and so on, preceding the verb, and then finally you have the verb at the end. Now that presented a great challenge to the interpreter, because when you speak English, the verb anchors the sentence. In other words, you need it immediately, so that you could not afford to wait until you heard the verb at the end of the clause in order to use it, because by that... time, whoever was speaking had already gone on beyond that, and there would be a breakdown.

So we developed a system of dealing with that through language segments, and taking the adverbial clause that preceded the verb and making a short sentence out of it until the verb is heard, and then have the verb include. everything that had preceded it. Now, as I explained it now, that sounds awfully complicated and very difficult. But actually, it is not. Once you get the hang of that system, it worked very well and allowed us to keep pace.

During the trials, as you know, and during all simultaneous interpreting, it requires a great deal of focus and a great deal of concentration and also something becoming... to being in tune to some extent with how the person is speaking and engaging that. And once you capture that, then there's a flow.

And then you just go with the flow and it tends to... to work pretty well. There's another interesting aspect to that process. To give you an example, in my case, from time to time, I would be spending an hour or two in front of the microphone. Then there would be a recess, and I'd go outside to the corridor outside of the courtroom.

And people who had not been spectating were interested in what was going on. And they would ask me, well, what happened here and what happened there? And I was unable to respond.

And why was I unable to respond? Because in some ways, when you have that kind of a focus and that concentration, you're almost in a trance-like situation. You're doing it correctly, but it's a quasi-trance. And then you come out, and it's very difficult to reconstruct what had gone on and what had gone on previously. I'm very often asked, you see, keep in mind that, you know, at that time, as I mentioned, I was a very young fellow.

I was 22, 23 years old. I was asked very often, and I'm asked now. What was your reaction to the trials in terms of the war crimes and the crimes against humanity and the things that happened later with the Holocaust and so on?

And how did you react? How did you feel about all of that kind of a testimony that was coming across at that time? And then I would say, I had to say that I was so focused on the linguistic, on the language challenges, and I was, in a sense, too young to really deal with the full impact in international law, for example. example of the Nuremberg trials.

My concern was really basically doing a good job linguistically and preparing myself well enough that I could handle that job. However, as later, 10, 20 years later, in my later career, my later work, I became more and more interested in the impact of the trial, in the legal implications. And since then I've lectured about it and I've written about it.

It's not the theme of this conference here, but it is something that I've been doing and I'm still required. to do. I've just written, and some of you have it, it will be available here after my talk, I've written an autobiography, a book of memoirs, which is entitled Nuremberg and Beyond.

Now, in that book, I do deal not only with some of the challenges in simultaneous interpreting that I've just enumerated, but also with the impact of the trial with the legal... implications with the role of the trials preceding the Tokyo trials. We followed a year later the trials at The Hague that have been going on, what is happening in Cambodia and so on. In other words, Nuremberg set the stage for a phase in international law which is still going on today.

Let me say something about the interpreters at Nuremberg, the kind of people who were gathered there. And it was an interesting mix of people. Different age groups were represented. few as young as I am, but some of them are coming from academia, some of them actually had already had experience as interpreters in Geneva. So it was a very mixed group.

We've also formed a social group and formed friendships. Unfortunately, most of them are no longer alive, but I did keep in touch with quite a number of them. And then we had also close connections with the court reporters.

For example, as a linguist at Nuremberg, I had one of my duties in addition to simultaneous interpreting from time to time to phases, and it's, you'll see me when you see me, see photos of the Nuremberg trials, you might see my face underneath the tier of judges. On those occasions, my job was to give information to the court reporters that they needed in order to transcribe. For example, they were unable to deal with German place names, with names of military ranks, all kinds of proper nouns and proper words.

that were not in their experience. They would come to full stop in their transcribing. So I would listen for all of these things, and as the court reporter finished that take of 15 or 20 minutes, I would hand them the sheet of paper where all of that was written, so that when they did their transcription, they could do it smoothly.

As I said, at that time, simultaneous interpreting had not yet been done, but when we move fast forward to the 21st century, right now, it has become an aspect of the linguistic... training. Every major university has a department that trains people in simultaneous interpreting. It has become something that is accepted everywhere. international gathering.

And I would like to think that the skill and the ability to handle that also has grown quite a bit, so that it has not only become an accepted profession, but also that the ability level, you know, has increased a great deal. There's a great deal more to be said about translation and about simultaneous interpreting. My life right now is not involved with that anymore. You know, I'm at the moment a fellow, an adjunct fellow at the East-West Center, which is a center that deals with the understanding of the...

Asia-Pacific region, and in that, obviously, I deal primarily in English. But to some extent, I've used my language background in the community in terms of... working with various community groups in a variety of capacities.

I'm a founder, for example, in Hawaii of the Alliance Francaise that encourages French culture. In my case, I would describe myself as trilingual, English, French, and German. But in addition to that, although I have not mastered that, because my work takes me frequently to Asia, so I'm very often in Japan, and in the People's Republic of China, other places. So I've picked up a smattering of those languages, but I would only describe them as street Chinese or street Japanese, and I'm not able to deal with it. It's kind of curious because when I say something in Chinese or if I say something in Japanese, because of my background as a linguist, my pronunciation tends to be quite good.

So when I say something, there's a flood that comes back to me in response, and then I'm totally lost. So that's one of the perils of having a good pronunciation. When you have a limited vocabulary and a good pronunciation, it can get you into a lot of trouble.

Let me conclude by saying that I'm very glad to be here. There's a lot to be said about my subject, but I would prefer to deal with your particular interest that brings you here, and any questions, or if my remarks have stimulated any particular question where you would like to have my comment. So please feel free to express yourself in terms of my talk. As the years went on, I would imagine that you created relationships within the courtroom with the different participants. How did you, did the interpreters and the rest of the group keep that relationship that you might have created from actually...

influencing and the knowledge you were gaining throughout the years from influencing the day-to-day hearings? Well, actually, we were quite professional about that. It did not actually affect ourselves vis-a-vis the defendants. Socially, we had many different opportunities to get together among interpreters, among linguists, among reporters, among journalists.

I, in particular, had many friendships among the journalists that came because, as I mentioned, it was a big media event, and we would relate to one another. We had many incidents. You know, in the medical trial, I was very much involved with the medical trial from beginning to end, and these were Nazi Germans.

doctors who were accused of doing experiments on concentration camp inmates, on prisoners of war, all kinds of very cruel experiments, like being exposed to salt water without anything else until the point of death. I mean, they're injecting Polish women with gangrene in order to see what kind of... Their response in their defense... defense, which was not accepted as a defense, was that this was all done in the spirit of medical science.

But in fact, there was no progress in medical science as a result of these experiments. But that was their defense. But apropos of incidents, I remember once it was during the medical trial, and I developed an irritation on my skin, on my cheek that just wouldn't disappear. Now remember that one of the... defendants.

And those doctors in the dock, some of them had international reputations and were renowned medical scholars and were still pursuing that. Well, anyway, one of those doctors beckoned me over and he looked at my skin irritation and he scribbled something, which was a prescription, and handed it to me. And he said, you know, you can take that to a pharmacy and that irritation will disappear.

Now, just... Just as curiosity, at Nuremberg, I did take it to a pharmacy, and the pharmacy said that this is a very popular salve or something, and that it's perfectly okay. There's nothing you need to worry about. I mean, this is just one anecdote of many. I enjoyed particularly the French delegation.

We were billeted in... in Nuremberg, in the suburbs of Nuremberg, in some cases in the university town of Erlangen and Danbach, and we would very often get together for social occasions. In a sense, my life in Hawaii really has to do with, you know the expression in French, when you read French books, if you want to know why a male, a man, moves from one place to another, you know, It was said, Cherchez la femme.

That means, look for the woman. And if you find out where the woman goes, the man may well follow. Well, I met a court reporter, actually of Hawaiian descent. Who was one of the first court reports from Hawaii in Europe.

And we got married in Paris. And the fact that we got married really launched my career in Hawaii, had I not met her. That would not have happened.

On the outskirts of Nuremberg, there was an inn which we dubbed the French Club, where many members of the French delegation would stay. We would often meet there and gather there for social events. There were many recesses called during the trials, and we were in a privileged position where we would be able, during a recess, to fly free of charge to various destinations in Europe during recess periods.

So these were some of the social events that took place. There was also a castle called the Stein Castle outside of Nuremberg where the press had stayed, and very often we would go to the Stein Castle. We had functions and social gatherings in that castle. In fact, when I got married in Paris afterwards, we had a reception right at that castle, at the Stein Castle. Among the journalists, some that may resonate amongst you, one of the journalists was a man who became very famous in the United States, passed away now, Walter Cronkite.

Walter Cronkite was at that time not a television reporter. reporter, but he wrote, a print reporter, he wrote for United Press and had duty. And there were many others who also became quite well known.

I think there's a question over there. I'm curious, during the time that the trials were going on, without going into specifics, did you consider that you were well paid as an interpreter or marginally paid or? Well, by the standards at that time, it was okay. It was fairly well.

By standards of today, it was pitifully small. No, I think, if I can give you a figure, I'm not really quite sure anymore, but it was something to the equivalent of $3,000 or $3,500 per year, which was not very much, but we didn't have many expenses. Actually, this was the period right after World War II had just ended. The German mark was worth nothing, and you had to pay for it. had sort of military notes other than Marx.

And people were paid in kind by Americans would buy coffee from the PX and then give it to some Germans and so on. So there was a lot of barter and a lot of exchange going on. And, for example, in my case, both my woman I was to marry later as a court reporter, she was very busy in her profession and I was as an interpreter. We were very busy. But we had...

had many facilities. I mean, we had a housekeeper, you know, to keep the house. We had a driver and a car, you know, to go wherever we wanted.

So when you think about that, it was unusual for young people, a young couple in their 20s to have that kind of support. But it kind of went with the job and it went with the conditions at that time. But I think in some ways we were mature enough to realize that when the Nuremberg trials came to an end, and not only the major trial but all the subsequent proceedings, we had some offers to stay on with the occupation in Germany and other related positions, which at that time would have been quite well paid and secured with all kinds of service.

But we realized that this was not life as it should be led, that one needed to take root somewhere, and it didn't make sense to stay and go from one job like that. overseas to another. So we decided, you know, I hadn't finished my education.

I needed to do more graduate work. My wife had other interests too. So we went to Hawaii. Our first idea was not to settle down in Hawaii, but just to visit her family and her parents and then go back either to the United States or to England to do something else.

But then various positions and offers opened up in Hawaii. And I realized that Hawaii was a place where I could do whatever I wanted. rather than an isolated place, was really a bridge between the Asia-Pacific region and the mainland United States, and there were many opportunities there for me. And I became quite fascinated with the population, with the way of life, with the beauty of the country. So we've never regretted the fact that we've settled down there.

There's this lady over there. Yes, Professor. As interpreters, we emphasize the need to work in teams today, and studies have been done about interpreter fatigue. At the time that the North...

Nuremberg trial took place, obviously there was no protocol as to how interpreters would work or for how long. And I imagine that there was an emotional toll on the interpreter also, as you say, when you describe when they were interpreting the medical experiments, etc. How did you divide the work up to prevent yourselves from getting too tired? Yeah. Well, I was involved in this aspect of it towards the end of the subsequent proceedings in the final two years when I was there.

As mentioned, I was there from 1945. 5 to 49. But as of late 47, 48, I was appointed chief of the interpreting branch, you know, at a very young age. And this is when I took these things into consideration. As chief of the interpreting branch, I still continued to be active on the microphone, but my main duty was really scheduling interpreters and selecting them and making sure that they were not oversleeping. or under scheduled for that matter, and deal with those issues of potential fatigue.

Transcript for:Challenges of Nuremberg Trials Interpretation

Transcript for:
Challenges of Nuremberg Trials Interpretation