Worst. Translation. Ever.
I just came across an extremely interesting nugget of information while writing a comment to a comment on my last post.
10 days before the atomic bombing of Hiroshima the United States issued the Potsdam Declaration demanding an unconditional Japanese surrender or face "prompt and utter destruction". Behind closed doors Prime Minister Kantarō Suzuki had been an advocate of surrender (resulting in two assassination attempts) but on July 26 a significant government faction was not yet willing to surrender. At a press conference Suzuki was asked what the Japanese government's reaction would be and he said they would 黙殺 (mokusatsu).
The literal meaning of the phrase's kanji is "kill with silence". It's what you'd do in a meeting if someone suggested something so stupid that everyone pretends that they didn't hear it. Everyone ignores it and the silence kills it. But it can also mean "no comment" or "to remain in a wise and masterly inactivity". The complexity of the translation is explained in an unclassified cautionary article by the NSA. I encourage you to read the entire thing, but here's a crucial part:
"Whoever it was who decided to translate mokusatsu by the one meaning (even though that is the first definition in the dictionary) and didn't add a note that the word might also mean nothing stronger than "to withhold comment" did a horrible disservice to the people who read his translation, people who knew no Japanese, people who would probably never see the original Japanese text and who would never know that there was an ambiguous word used. As a matter of principle, that unknown translator should have pointed out that word has two meanings, thereby enabling others to decide on a suitable course of action.
...
[The fault of the] mokusatsa incident is not entirely the translator's. Believe it or not, the real culprit is no less a personage than Kantaro Suzuki, the Japanese Prime Minister himself! After all, there would have been no translation problem if he had not used an ambiguous word for such an important statement. However, politicians are notorious for preferring words that are either meaningless or so full of meanings that no one can be sure of just what they do mean. In all probability the word mokusatsu was well beloved by Japanese officials as their equivalent of no comment."
I sent this story to a Japanese friend and he initially thought the NSA was off-base:
"I am sure what he meant was very strong rejection. If somebody told me 'I decide to mokusatu your proposal', I would take it offense. In this case, what he meant was Japanese goverment would not response because we don`t think it is worth to do so."
Then he considered the context - talking to reporters, not American military officials - and gave it a second thought:
If the comment wasn't official, he might have been trying an appeal. "The proposal isn't acceptable no at all, we mokusatu that to show our strongest rejection, so bring something else." We also have to consider their political situation. The Army has the biggest power in Japan at that time, and they are a really warlike group. He might meant this is obviously not acceptable for those guys, the Army, so bring something moderate, so I can persuade them. I heard they tried to negotiate a surrender proposal but the Allies rejected it. What he might have meant was "unless you talk with us, we cannot help but ignore your proposals"... might be.
Another Japanese friend provided a little more background:
When checking more story around "mokusatsu", the word is rarely used in conversation or press release nowadays merely because that has very strong sense of rejection including contempt, I thought such unexpected misinterpretation could happen to not only writers at that time but me today. It reminds me of the day I visited Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum as a part of school trip. The day U.S started "Operation Desert Storm". I found my history teacher standing with extra news at the exit of the museum. Such a perfect timing to confront the fact that there is another war going off. Years later, I found published article introducing my visitor's comment at the museum. I probably wrote "I feel deeply sorry that we are facing another war", but not sure if the sentence could also be translated like "I feel sorry that someone was so stupid to do that again". (It is common to skip the subject in Japanese; "we", "she", or "someone" is added to English translations because it is assumed from context.) I should thank that I have never been in important position as equivalent as Suzuki.
As with my last post I'm not really on anyone's "side" here, except to feel frustrated and appalled that something as serious as the atomic bombing of a city of civilians could end up being decided on a translation error. The Japanese PM should have spoken more clearly so that we wouldn't be guessing what he meant, the English translator should have communicated the ambiguity more clearly so that we didn't end up making a decision based on incomplete or inaccurate information, and the American government should have gotten their own translators on the case without relying on some anonymous reporter.