Danzig ist deutsch! – Goebbels in Translation Elisabeth MÖCKLI University of Edinburgh

Abstract This paper investigates what images of the National Socialist regime and its intentions regarding Danzig were created in the British ventre/left of centre newspaper Manchester Guardian and the French communist newspaper l’Humanité, through the respective translations of Goebbels’ speech “Danzig ist deutsch”1 (Danzig is German) delivered in June 1939. The aim is to show that particular selection and de-selection choices made on the textual level, the semantic choices made in terms of the exact rendering of the speech parts, as well as strategies applied to the particular realization of the surrounding news texts make for a specific framing of a politically highly relevant event. In order to do so, this paper draws on Critical Discourse Analysis, on media studies approaches to the concept of framing and the function of quotes, and on research describing the nature of news translation. The analysis reveals that l’Humanité creates the image of an aggressive nation with illegitimate claims and is not in favour of caving in to German demands, whereas the Manchester Guardian constructs the image of a strong nation with legitimate claims and strongly favours diplomatic solutions over armed conflict.

Keywords: framing, function of quotes, news translation, political discourse

“But whoever closes his eyes to the past becomes blind to the present”.2 Richard von Weizsäcker

1. Introduction Within a highly intercultural and multilingual context like Europe, political discourse relies heavily on translation since it is the principal means by which information travels across linguistic borders. In this respect the mass media play an important role because they not only provide society with information about political issues but also select what aspects of the 1 2

All translations from German and French into English are provided by myself. „Wer aber vor der Vergangenheit die Augen verschließt, wird blind für die Gegenwart.“

© 2012. Isis HERRERO and Todd KLAIMAN (eds.). Versatility in Translation Studies: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2011. http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/papers.html

Elisabeth MÖCKLI. “Danzig ist deutsch! – Goebbels in Translation”

2

source culture discourse to present and how they will be presented. This clearly has implications for the translation processes and affects the reception in the target culture. Indeed “it is very frequently the case that reactions in one country to statements that were made in another country are actually reactions to the information as it was provided in translation” (Schäffner 2004: 120). Thus, the consequences of the way in which information is provided through translation can be far-reaching. Despite its importance, the role translation plays in the development of political media discourses has only recently attracted the interest of scholars in Translation Studies and remains surprisingly widely neglected outside the field. Academics such as Schäffner (2004), Calzada Pérez (2002) and Valdeón (2005) have presented compelling case studies showing the impact of translation on political and political media texts. Other studies (Bassnett and Biesla 2009; Bassnett and Schäffner 2010; van Doorslaer 2010) have provided insights into the position of translation in the news making processes and the constraints and norms governing them. Arguably, these studies have much to offer to political discourse analysis and journalistic studies and are of practical relevance to politics and journalism. What has not been undertaken so far, however, is the analysis of historical journalistic material dating back to the first half of the twentieth century and the birth of the mass media. Such an analysis could support previous findings by highlighting the role translation plays in discourse mediation and by revealing interesting results in relation to a particular set of data, thereby contributing to historical studies and translation history. Of particular interest in this respect is the French and British political media discourse about the National Socialist regime (NSregime) during the inter-war period. Studying how the NS-discourse was translated into other languages not only adds to the (scarce) research that has so far been conducted in this area (Baumgarten 2009) but also complements studies looking at its counterpart, i.e. the translation practices under the NS-regime (Kohlmayer 1994; Sturge 2004; van Linthout 2012). This paper aims to investigate what images of the NS-regime and its intentions with regards to Danzig were created in the British centre/left of centre newspaper Manchester Guardian and the French communist newspaper l’Humanité, through the translation of Goebbels’ speech “Danzig ist deutsch” (Danzig is German) delivered in June 1939. The data at hand makes part of a larger corpus of speeches, which is analysed in the framework of a PhD project investigating the French and British media images of the Nazi-regime during the inter-war period. The two main criteria governing the selection of newspapers for this project are on the one hand, the political orientation of the newspapers (My aim is to cover left and right of © 2012. Isis HERRERO and Todd KLAIMAN (eds.). Versatility in Translation Studies: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2011. http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/papers.html

Elisabeth MÖCKLI. “Danzig ist deutsch! – Goebbels in Translation”

3

centre, and centre newspapers.), and on the other hand, the influence exerted by these newspapers (Not only in terms of circulation figures but also with regards to the social position of the targeted readership.). For this paper I have decided to work on Goebbels’ speech “Danzig ist Deutsch” because of its political relevance. The German foreign policy was of major concern for France and the United Kingdom at the time since it had the potential to destabilise the fragile political situation in Europe. Therefore, this speech in which Goebbels clearly stated the German intentions with regards to Danzig is suitable for the intended analysis. In order to give a detailed account, I have contained myself to only present the examples of the two afore mentioned newspapers. They are particularly interesting because of their unexpected but striking difference, which puts into question the principle of journalistic objectivity. The aim of this paper is to show that particular selection and deselection choices made on the textual level, the semantic choices made in terms of the exact rendering of the speech parts, as well as strategies applied to the particular realization of the news text surrounding the quoted speech parts make for a specific framing of a politically highly relevant event. Firstly, the main theoretical aspects relevant to this paper (discourse, framing, the function of quotations in media texts and the nature of media translation) will be explored; secondly, the historical background to the speech event will be outlined; thirdly, the textual analysis will be exemplarily presented and finally, the differing media images of the German intentions regarding Danzig in l’Humanité and the Manchester Guardian will be discussed.

2. Theoretical Concepts Within the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) approach discourse is seen as a process of social interaction that includes a process of production and a process of interpretation and is conditioned by non-linguistic aspects of society (Fairclough 1989: 24). Texts are products of this process and therefore bear traces of the production and the interpretation. When analysing texts it is therefore necessary to account for the relationship between the text, the processes involved and the social conditions under which production and reception take place. Furthermore, discourse is defined as socially determined language use, i.e. language use as governed by underlying social conventions (Fairclough 1989: 22). Discourse is then assumed to have social effects (ibid.: 23). When applying this discourse concept to politics it should be © 2012. Isis HERRERO and Todd KLAIMAN (eds.). Versatility in Translation Studies: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2011. http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/papers.html

Elisabeth MÖCKLI. “Danzig ist deutsch! – Goebbels in Translation”

4

noted that “(…) the situational, institutional and social contexts shape and affect discourse, and, in turn, discourses influence social and political reality” (Wodak et al. 1999: 9). Particular discourses exclude certain ways of speaking and thinking and foster others, thereby determining how certain issues are perceived and influencing subsequent reactions (Landwehr 2006: 109). It is here that the power of discourse, and of political discourse in particular lies: the more successful a social group is in persuading others of their views, the more power this group holds and the more influence it can exert. In this respect the mass media are particularly interesting as they “play an important role in disseminating politics and mediating between politicians and the public” (Schäffner 2004: 118). Hence, the mass media embody a great potential to influence the public opinion. Many studies from various disciplines in the social sciences and the humanities have investigated this relationship. A particularly useful concept in this respect is framing, of which many different definitions exist. Common ground is the assumption that the way in which information is presented (or not presented) influences how we perceive a given issue and ultimately how we act upon it. De Vreese describes framing as a dynamic process consisting of three distinct parts: “frame building, frame setting and the individual and societal consequences of framing” (2005: 51). Frame building refers to the construction of the frame by the communicating institution or person. Various journalistic factors such as editorial policies, journalistic norms and values, as well as extra-journalistic factors influence this stage of the framing process (ibid.: 52). Frame setting designates “the interplay between media frames and individuals’ prior knowledge and predispositions” (ibid.). The prior knowledge of an individual, which has been acquired through experiences made when growing up in a given culture, organizes the individual’s “knowledge about the world and [the individual] uses this knowledge to predict interpretations and relationships regarding new information, events and experiences” (Tannen 1993: 16). Such structures of expectation are also called schemata (Baker 2006: 106) or in Goffman’s terms frameworks (ibid.) and largely influence how information is processed and interpreted. Frames play on these schemata by “activating knowledge” and “stimulating stocks of values” (Capella and Jameison 1997: 47 quoted in de Vreese 2005: 53) thereby fostering certain ways of interpreting a given text. Framing effects then occur on the individual and societal level and can translate themselves into changes in behaviour, attitude, etc. (ibid.: 52). Frames are to a certain degree embodied in texts. Only a particular set of textual and visual elements in a given text serve as framing devices whereas others are, at least in the journalistic field, “core news facts” (ibid.: 53). Before taking a closer © 2012. Isis HERRERO and Todd KLAIMAN (eds.). Versatility in Translation Studies: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2011. http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/papers.html

Elisabeth MÖCKLI. “Danzig ist deutsch! – Goebbels in Translation”

5

look at these framing devices in translated news texts, we shall briefly consider the nature of news translation. Translation in the journalistic field has very little in common with “translation proper” (van Doorslaer 2010: 181). The reason for this lies in the nature of journalism where news items such as articles come into being through the common effort of various people who neither necessarily belong to the same institution nor always know about each other. The journalists of a particular newspaper might base their article on a news item provided by a news agency, a news channel, an online source, etc. Furthermore, it might be decided that several sources are used and there might be more than one person working on a text. In the production of news “translation is one element in a complex set of processes whereby information is transposed from one language into another and then edited, rewritten, shaped and repacked in a new context, to such a degree, that any clear distinction between source and target text ceases to be meaningful” (Bassnett and Biesla 2009: 11). Indeed, direct translation rarely takes place in this context (ibid.: 12). The absence of a source text “challenges established definitions of translation” (ibid.) whereas the way in which translated news texts come into being questions the concept of authorship (ibid.: 65) and subsequent claims of the translator’s responsibility. Translation as an integral part of the news production process is subordinate to journalistic norms and requirements. This means that speed, newsworthiness, spatial limitations, stylistic guidelines, etc. have priority over other considerations and affect the translation process. One aspect that is given special consideration in news texts and especially in news translation is the phenomenon of quotes (ibid.: 71). In media texts it is often the case, that intertextual references are not made visible. If they are highlighted as such they have a special rhetorical function within the discourse (Burger 2005: 75). Direct quotes claim to be demonstrations of their originals, to represent the content and the form whereas indirect quotes suggest describing their content (Clark and Gerrig 1990: 764). They refer to an original speech event that has taken place in the real world and therefore a certain degree of authority and truthfulness is assigned to them (Parmentier 1993: 263 quoted in Obiedat 2006: 292). The degree of authority assigned is closely linked to the social position of the original enunciator. If high-ranking politicians are quoted directly, and especially when they were speaking in their function as state officials, theses quotes are indeed believed to be truthful. Furthermore, such quotes also feature a high representational power in that what has been said by these politicians, is often believed to constitute the opinion of the whole political apparatus that © 2012. Isis HERRERO and Todd KLAIMAN (eds.). Versatility in Translation Studies: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2011. http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/papers.html

Elisabeth MÖCKLI. “Danzig ist deutsch! – Goebbels in Translation”

6

they represent. What a high ranking politician of a specific nation says, and how this is represented in another country, can have a huge impact on how the nation he or she represents is perceived, especially in politically highly charged times. Linking the function of quotes to the concept of framing it can be said that quotes are very efficient framing devices, which fulfil a number of rhetorical purposes. They can add vividness and dramatic quality to a text, they might serve to distance reporters from what is reported on or, as described above, they might lend authority to the text (Obiedat 2006: 289293). Framing devices, as pointed out by Baker (2006: 111), are often altered in the process of translation to reframe an event in a different way. This is especially true in the case of quotations.

Direct speech is lifted out of one textual context and inserted into a very different one, which represents it, frames it, manipulates it and subordinates it to another voice and to different communicative goals; by definition, this de-contextualization and recontextualization deform the meaning, whether in large or small ways (Waugh 1995: 155).

As will be shown when presenting the textual analysis, the use of quotation marks might signal a verbatim rendering but this is the exception rather than the rule. In that sense translation may function as means of discourse mediation, which can lead the reader to a particular interpretation of a given text.

3. Textual Analysis In the following section an example will be presented that illustrates how two newspaper articles – in combination with the incorporated quotes, which claim to be exact renderings of the original enunciations – make for a particular framing of a politically highly relevant event. In that sense, this paper focuses on frame building. Firstly, I will provide information regarding the function of propaganda and subsequently the function of the Minister of Propaganda (Goebbels) within the NS-regime. Furthermore, I will draw a picture of the historical background of the speech event, summarize the content of the speech and very © 2012. Isis HERRERO and Todd KLAIMAN (eds.). Versatility in Translation Studies: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2011. http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/papers.html

Elisabeth MÖCKLI. “Danzig ist deutsch! – Goebbels in Translation”

7

briefly introduce the source and target texts. Secondly, I will compare how the two newspaper articles frame the speech outside the quotes, thereby mentioning different framing strategies. Thirdly, the way in which the quotes have been translated will be looked at, linking the changes that have been introduced to the texts to the previously identified frames. Finally, I will compare the different images of the Nazi intentions regarding Danzig created in the two newspapers. The translations provided by myself by no means claim to represent what Goebbels truly intended to say but are rather to be seen as alternative readings, highlighting different shades of meanings. I would also like to apologize for not including the untranslated versions of the STs and TTs into the article – spatial restrictions do not allow for it. What makes Goebbels and subsequently his speeches an interesting object of study is his influential position within the Third Reich. The importance of his role as a propagandist and then as the Minister of Propaganda and Enlightenment is based on the unique status of propaganda within the NS-regime. Both, Hitler and Goebbels were acutely aware of the potential of propaganda to influence the public opinion. Despite numerous technical inventions, the most central element of the NS-propaganda system remained the spoken word. Political speeches under the NS-regime were in many cases embedded within political mass events. It has been widely acknowledged that the participants of such events are subjected to psychological processes, which lower the intellectual capacity and increase affectivity (Freud 1967: 16 in Nill 1991: 69). This facilitates manipulation – the declared goal of the NS propagandists. The psychological processes were amplified by the highly semiotic and carefully arranged settings in which the speeches took place and it was here that the political leaders of the NS-regime held their speeches most effectively. In this sense, political speeches under the NS-regime were not aimed at convincing people of political views by logical argumentation but by emotional appeal. Besides Hitler, Goebbels was the most successful orator (Nill 1991: 147). He cared little about the truth of what he was saying: “No sense of shame restrained his constant readiness to lie: lying despite the obvious contradiction to reality in which he is not interested since the only thing that counts is achieving the propagandistic goal” (Gathmann and Paul 2009: 194). His rhetorical talent combined with his misanthropic beliefs made him a very dangerous demagogue. It is due to this unscrupulousness and amorality that to the present day the comparison of someone with Goebbels is synonymous to “extreme moral deprivation, to lack of conscience, to cynically designed and with great slyness conducted political and propagandistic tricks” (Nill 1991: 13). When dealing with the translations of Goebbels speeches we have to take into © 2012. Isis HERRERO and Todd KLAIMAN (eds.). Versatility in Translation Studies: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2011. http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/papers.html

Elisabeth MÖCKLI. “Danzig ist deutsch! – Goebbels in Translation”

8

consideration all these factors in order to fully appreciate to what degree the foreign press images of Goebbels and the Nazi intentions differed from the impression one possibly would have gained when attending the original speech event. The speech “Danzig ist deutsch” was held by Goebbels on 17 June, 1939, in the Free City of Danzig. He had arrived early that evening to talk at the closure of the annual Gaukulturwoche the following morning. However, whilst he was visiting the national theatre people who had gathered demanded he should speak. The speech, according to the Nazis, was spontaneous, a claim that was vigorously contested by many European newspapers. Goebbels’ visit came at a highly tense time since the conflict between Poland and NS-Germany over the city had reached boiling point. Both countries claimed a legitimate right to Danzig. The conflict was old but the special status the Treaty of Versailles had assigned to the city aggravated tensions. Before the outbreak of the Great War Danzig had been part of the German Empire. However, the Treaty of Versailles, stripping Germany of many territorial possessions and recognising the Polish need for access to the sea, declared Danzig to be “a free city under the protection of the League of Nations with special rights for Poland” (Lemkin and Power 2005: 154). The treaty guaranteed Poland amongst other privileges the free use of the railway system and access to the port – both of which were vital for Poland’s import and export industry (ibid.). However, throughout the twenty years of the existence of the free city “the issue of Polish privileges developed into a source of controversy” (Stahn 2008: 177) between the mostly German population of Danzig and the Polish economic and political interests. Poland continually tried to increase its influence over the city and the representative of the League of Nations was constantly occupied resolving these issues (ibid.). Germany, which under the pretext of wanting to unify all Germans within the Reich pursued aggressive expansion plans, had a great interest in incorporating Danzig with its large German-speaking population into its territory. Despite Hitler’s promises of wanting to maintain peace, issued during the negotiations of the Munich agreement in September 1938, German troops invaded the remaining part of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. Hastily, the United Kingdom and France began renewing their guarantees of assistance to the states most likely to be attacked next, amongst them, Poland. Repeatedly the Third Reich had expressed its interest in the city and the rest of Europe was now anxiously observing the situation in Danzig.

© 2012. Isis HERRERO and Todd KLAIMAN (eds.). Versatility in Translation Studies: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2011. http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/papers.html

Elisabeth MÖCKLI. “Danzig ist deutsch! – Goebbels in Translation”

9

In his speech, Goebbels stressed the inherently German character of Danzig. Therefore, so he reasoned, Danzig wanted to belong to the Reich. He then went on laying out the problem, that is, the Polish claim to Danzig. In this part he ridiculed the Polish claim and depicted the British government as indecisive, implying that it would once again not intervene should Nazi Germany take action with regards to Danzig. Furthermore, he accused London of having given Poland a “blank cheque” to do what ever it wanted, as no sanctions had met the Polish attempts of gaining influence over the city, despite the blatant violation of the Treaty of Versailles. He stressed that Nazi Germany had no intention of backing down on this issue and was in fact in possession of the most imposing army worldwide. Goebbels then reassured the people of Danzig that the Reich was backing them up and that their return to the fatherland was not far away. In France, the three French newspapers L’Humanité, Le Figaro and Le Petit Parisien published a relatively short abridged version of the speech on 18 June. Since the corresponding speech parts in the three newspapers are translated identically, I assume that the translation had been undertaken by the French news agency Havas. Le Petit Parisien in fact indicated that their publication originated from Havas. L’Humanité published a second article about the speech on 19 June, and some of the quotes had been substantially changed. In the United Kingdom, the Manchester Guardian, the Daily Mail and the Daily Herald published articles on 19 June, featuring differing translations. In terms of the source text, a full transcript of the speech is published in Helmut Heiber’s collection of Goebbels’ speeches (1971). Although I cannot with certainty know on what text or texts the translations are based on, the quotations claim to be exact renderings of what has actually been said and it is therefore justifiable to compare the translations against the transcript. However, I will rarely be able to pinpoint at what moment of the news production process the changes were introduced to the text.

3.1. Embedding News Text The embedding news text will be analysed in terms of labelling and selective appropriation on the textual level. Baker defines labelling as “any discursive practice that involves using a lexical item, term or phrase to identify a person, a place, group or event or any other key element in a narrative” (2006: 122). Furthermore, these elements then “provide an interpretative frame that guides and constraints our response to the narrative in question” © 2012. Isis HERRERO and Todd KLAIMAN (eds.). Versatility in Translation Studies: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2011. http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/papers.html

Elisabeth MÖCKLI. “Danzig ist deutsch! – Goebbels in Translation”

10

(ibid.). In terms of the framing strategy labelling I will look at the headlines, the way in which the speaker and the speech event is referred to.

3.1.1. Headlines The Manchester Guardian uses in its article, which features on the page dedicated to events abroad, the headline “GOEBBELS IN DANZIG. Tension Not Brought to Crisis Point” (1939: 14). L’Humanité titles on its front page: “IN DANZIG Goebbels proclaims the Reich’s will of ANNEXATION”3 (1939: 1). The actual article is placed on the page about foreign affairs and features the headline “Provocations and fanfaronades of Doctor Goebbels”4 (1939: 4). The fact that l’Humanité mentions the event on the title page implies that it is judged to be of great importance. The two main headlines suggest two different perceptions of the event. Whereas the Manchester Guardian expresses relief over the avoided confrontation “tension not brought to crisis point”, l’Humanité emphasises the aggressive intentions that are the “will for annexation” of the NS-regime. These two differing positions are also highlighted graphically by writing words judged to be important in bold. The second headline used by l’Humanité on the one hand suggests that the NS-regime was aggressive, provoking potential opponents; on the other hand, the term “fanfaronades” questions the seriousness of this provocation.

3.1.2. References to speaker and speech event The Manchester Guardian consistently refers to Goebbels as “The Propaganda Minister” or “Dr Goebbels” thereby reminding its readers of his academic degree and his official political position which assigns, as previously discussed, credibility and authority to his utterances. L’Humanité, albeit using Goebbels’ academic title in the headline, very quickly moves on to refer to him in all but one case as just “Goebbels” and even states that Goebbels called himself “delegate of the Führer”5 to give more relevance to his words. In doing so, l’Humanité distances itself from Goebbels and reduces the credibility and authority of his statements. In terms of the reporting verbs, the Manchester Guardian uses relatively “neutral” expressions such as “affirm”, “speak”, “say”, “add” and “declare”. In contrast, l’Humanité writes that

3

À Dantzig, Goebbels proclame la volonté D’ANNEXION du Reich Provocations et fanfaronnades du Docteur Goebbels 5 Celui-ci, pour donner plus de poids à ses déclarations, s’appela lui-même „envoyé du Führer“. 4

© 2012. Isis HERRERO and Todd KLAIMAN (eds.). Versatility in Translation Studies: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2011. http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/papers.html

Elisabeth MÖCKLI. “Danzig ist deutsch! – Goebbels in Translation”

11

Goebbels “delivered himself to a dangerous and violent diatribe”6, suggesting that he lost control over his emotions to a certain degree, thereby further undermining his credibility. Furthermore, l’Humanité refers to the speech event as “a series of fanfaronades, lies and provocations”7 and states that the tone of the speech was “extremely violent”8. The Manchester Guardian writes euphemistically that the speech was “of passionate nature”. The two newspapers, as demonstrated above, depict Goebbels and the speech event very differently. The Manchester Guardian portrays Goebbels as a politician, even an academic who, although passionately, just delivers a political speech. In contrast, l’Humanité presents Goebbels as an emotion-ridden person who needs to magnify his importance by declaring himself to the delegate of the Führer and who therefore lacks credibility. Nonetheless, his speech is judged to be “dangerous”.

3.2. Quotes Having looked at the embedding news text first, I shall now on the one hand investigate what selection was made in terms of the quotes and, on the other hand, present some examples of how the translated speech parts are realized in comparison to the original utterances of Goebbels. Firstly, I will look at the selective appropriation of Goebbels’ speech. Secondly, I will present four examples of how subtle changes introduced into the translated text help to frame the news text and finally, I will review the results of the textual analysis and discuss the images created of the NS-regime at this moment in time.

3.2.1. Selective appropriations on the textual level Considering the constraints in journalistic work, a selection of which quotes to publish needed to be made. However, not every selection or de-selection can be judged meaningful in terms of framing. Only the ones that add or take away an emphasis in salience and therefore contribute to the creation of an interpretative frame are relevant. Selective appropriation is defined as “patterns of omission and addition designed to suppress, accentuate or elaborate particular aspects of a narrative encoded in the source text or utterance, or aspects of a larger

6

Mais dès hier soir, il s’était livré […] à une dangereuse et violente diatribe. [...] une suite de fanfaronnades, de mensonges et de provocations [...]. 8 Ce discours, d’un ton extrêmement violent [...]. 7

© 2012. Isis HERRERO and Todd KLAIMAN (eds.). Versatility in Translation Studies: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2011. http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/papers.html

Elisabeth MÖCKLI. “Danzig ist deutsch! – Goebbels in Translation”

12

narrative in which it is embedded” (Baker 2006: 114). By looking at how the two main aspects of the speech content are depicted, I intend to show the differing framings. The two main aspects are: (1) the NS-regime’s claim to have a right to Danzig and (2) the illegitimacy of the Polish claim and the United Kingdom’s siding with Poland despite the treaty violations. (1) The claim of the NS-regime to Danzig is clearly mentioned in both articles. L’Humanité writes in the front page headline as “In DANZIG Goebbels declares the Reich’s will for ANNEXATION” (1939: 1) whereas the Manchester Guardian phrases the claim as “Germany wishes to extend the Reich’s sovereignty over the Free City” (1939: 14). The formulation of l’Humanité implies illegitimacy since annexation constitutes a forceful act. In contrast, the expression “a wish to extend sovereignty” does not feature such connotations. The Manchester Guardian substantiates the legitimacy of this claim by writing that Hitler issued his claim “in accordance with the overwhelming majority of Danzigers” (1939: 14) and by quoting Goebbels directly saying that the Danzigers “wish to return home” (ibid.). L’Humanité also renders Goebbels’ quotation of Hitler saying that Danzig as a German city wishes to return home but does not specify outside the quote that a majority of the Danzigers agree with this. (2) In the Manchester Guardian, the accusations of Goebbels against Poland and the United Kingdom are repeated in full, although an allusion by Goebbels to the unjust and anti-German politics from 1914 is erased. These accusations are not printed in l’Humanité. One might argue that they could legitimize the German claim by illegitimating the Polish actions and have therefore been omitted.

3.2.2. Changes in the quotes Manchester Guardian – Example 1. The source text states: “The world is labouring in any case under a very dangerous illusion if it believes that the Führer shies away from threats or surrenders to blackmail” (Goebbels 1939: 336)9. The Manchester Guardian translates this sentence as follows: “The world will be making a very dangerous error if it believes that he flinches from threats or capitulates to blackmail” (1939: 14). First of all, the passive material process “labouring under a very dangerous illusion” is changed into an active material process, i.e. “to make a very dangerous error”. The actor in that sentence is “the world” and consequently the British reader of the text and it is he or she 9

Die Welt befindet sich jedenfalls in einem sehr großen Irrtum, wenn sie glaubt, dass der Führer vor Drohungen zurückschreckt oder vor Erpressung kapituliert. © 2012. Isis HERRERO and Todd KLAIMAN (eds.). Versatility in Translation Studies: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2011. http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/papers.html

Elisabeth MÖCKLI. “Danzig ist deutsch! – Goebbels in Translation”

13

who is making this error. The use of an active rather than a passive expression suggests that the reader should take action, i.e. not to make this very dangerous error. Furthermore, the translation uses the future rather than the present tense. In doing so, it allows its readers more room for reaction than the original does. Both changes imply that the error should and can be actively avoided. This could consist of being ready for an armed conflict or for giving in to Germany’s demands and resolving the issue diplomatically. Taking into account the headline, which expresses relief “Great Britain does not yet need to face the question whether or not to keep its promise of mutual assistance to Poland”, I would argue that the second option is favoured. This argument is further substantiated when considering the last paragraph of the article which discusses at length the fact that “German official quarters in general deprecate talk of war, and profess the belief that the problem will be solved diplomatically” through “British persuasion upon Poland” (Manchester Guardian 1939: 14).

Manchester Guardian - Example 2. Both, Hitler and Goebbels, repeatedly accused democratic states and especially Britain of not being “true” democracies in that only one social class, the bourgeoisie, actually had a say in politics. This accusation is reflected in the following utterance of Goebbels: “And it is also not governed by cowardly bourgeois, but led by Adolf Hitler” (1939: 335)10. The translation significantly reduces this class criticism by rendering the sentence differently. “It is governed by Hitler not by a cowardly bourgeois” (Manchester Guardian 1939: 14). By inverting the two parts of the comparison and by choosing an elliptical sentence structure, the emphasis is shifted. The subject, Adolf Hitler, is now at the head of the sentence, where the most important information is normally situated. Thereby emphasis is taken away from the “cowardly bourgeois”. Furthermore, the reference to a different governmental system is much less explicit since the ‘governing of the bourgeoisie’ is no longer compared to the ‘leadership of Adolf Hitler’.

L’Humanité – Example 1. The first translation of Goebbels utterance “The world is labouring in any case under a very dangerous illusion if it believes that the Führer shies away from threats or surrenders to blackmail”11 published on 18 June stays very close to the source text: “The world is in a very dangerous error if it believes that the Führer shies away from threats 10

Und es wird auch nicht von feigen Bourgeois regiert, sondern von Adolf Hitler geführt. Die Welt befindet sich jedenfalls in einem sehr großen Irrtum, wenn sie glaubt, dass der Führer vor Drohungen zurückschreckt oder vor Erpressung kapituliert. 11

© 2012. Isis HERRERO and Todd KLAIMAN (eds.). Versatility in Translation Studies: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2011. http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/papers.html

Elisabeth MÖCKLI. “Danzig ist deutsch! – Goebbels in Translation”

14

or capitulates faced with blackmail” (1939: 2)12. The second version, published on the following day, is formulated differently: “The world is mistaken if it believes that the Führer will capitulate faced with blackmail and will shy away from threats” (1939: 4)13. The expression “to be labouring under a very dangerous illusion” is turned into “to be mistaken”. By cutting out the qualifier “dangerous” and the intensifier “very”, the situation is depicted as less threatening than in the original source text and the first version of the translation. This is in accordance with the second headline “Provocations and fanfaronades of Doctor Goebbels”14 which, as we have seen previously, questions the seriousness of Goebbels’ threats. The first French version of the translation, which retains the original wording, interestingly appeared under the headline “Threats of Goebbels in Danzig” (1939: 2), which highlights the threats of Goebbels15.

L’Humanité - Example 2. Although l’Humanité questions the seriousness of the German threats, it depicts the tone of the speech and subsequently the behaviour of the NS-regime as aggressive. Goebbels’ utterance “It is not helpless but possesses currently the most imposing army of the world” (1939: 335)16 is rendered as “With regards to Nazi Germany, clarifies the minister of the nazi propaganda, she possesses the most powerful army in the world” (1939: 4)17. The French adjective “puissante” (powerful) stresses more the potential effects of the army whereas “imposante” (imposing) highlights its impressiveness. Pointing in the same direction is the introduction of a sentence that does not exist in the source text and does not appear in any of the other translations. “À bas la Pologne!” (Down with Poland!) shouted, according to l’Humanité, the German crowd that had listened to the speech.

3.3. Goebbels’ speech in the foreign press – what the textual analysis tells us The textual analysis has shown that both newspapers employ the strategies ‘labelling’ and ‘selective appropriation of texts’ to frame their articles in a particular way. This is accompanied by subtle changes introduced into the quoted texts, i.e. the translations. These 12

“(…) le monde se trouve dans une erreur dangereuse lorsqu’il croit que le Führer recule devant la menace et capitule devant le chantage. 13 Le monde se trompe s’il croit que le Führer capitulera devant le chantage et reculera devant les menaces. 14 Provocations et fanfaronnades du Docteur Goebbels. 15 Menaces de Goebbels à Dantzig 16 Es ist nicht ohnmächtig, es besitzt augenblicklich vielmehr die größte Wehrmacht der Welt. 17 Quant à l’Allemagne nazie, claironne le ministre de la propagande nazie, elle possède elle, l’armée la plus puissante du monde. © 2012. Isis HERRERO and Todd KLAIMAN (eds.). Versatility in Translation Studies: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2011. http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/papers.html

Elisabeth MÖCKLI. “Danzig ist deutsch! – Goebbels in Translation”

15

changes are highly effective in terms of framing because of the quotes’ representative power. Changing the tone of what Goebbels said has a big impact on how the NS-regime is perceived – especially because of the politically highly charged situation. L’Humanité takes an ostensibly negative stance towards the Nazi Regime. This becomes visible in the way in which is referred to the speech event and also in the selection and deselection of quotes. They demonstrate the aggressiveness of the NS-regime and illegitimate its claims to Danzig. In contrast, quotes which talked about Polish aggression and which could be used as a means of justification by Nazi supporters were omitted. Furthermore, the newspapers questioned how seriously the regime’s threats needed to be taken. The changes in the translated parts in the second version are compliant with the overall image created of the NS-regime in this article. In comparison, the Manchester Guardian seems to be more balanced in its reporting style in that it also renders criticism directed at Poland and Britain. The headline stands exemplarily for what is felt about the event: relief that conflict is avoided. Through the selective appropriation of text and particular semantic choices the text subtly suggests to once again resolve the problem diplomatically. The changes introduced into the quoted speech parts are in line with this as they tune down the aggressiveness of Goebbels’ tone. In short, l’Humanité creates the image of an aggressive nation with illegitimate claims and is not in favour of caving in to German demands whereas the Manchester Guardian constructs the image of a strong nation with legitimate claims and favours diplomatic resolve strongly over armed conflict. Although it was hardly possible for the foreign journalists to render the full effect and “meaning” of Goebbels’ speech to their home audiences since nearly all extra- and paralinguistic factors (such as the setting of the mass-event, the intonation and gestures of the speaker) would be lost in a written report, the account of the speech event given by the Manchester Guardian seems to be rather surprising. What Goebbels said and how he said it let little room for a positive interpretation of the intentions of the NS-regime.

4. Conclusion The aim of this paper was to analyse what images of the Third Reich and its intentions regarding Danzig were created in the French and British press, represented by l’Humanité and the Manchester Guardian, when reporting about Goebbels speech “Danzig ist deutsch”. By investigating the strategies of labelling and selective appropriation of text as well as by © 2012. Isis HERRERO and Todd KLAIMAN (eds.). Versatility in Translation Studies: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2011. http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/papers.html

Elisabeth MÖCKLI. “Danzig ist deutsch! – Goebbels in Translation”

16

conducting a linguistic comparison of the translated quotes and their alleged source text, it was shown how these two newspapers constructed two different interpretative frames for their readerships, created two different images of the NS-regime and its intentions regarding the foreign policy. If particular frames are continuously applied to a specific discourse topic, it is very difficult for the members of the receiving society to have a different perception from what the media frame suggests or to make a different viewpoint acceptable. Both countries, France and Britain, were immensely afraid that yet another world war would be triggered off and tried for a long time to ‘appease’ Germany by granting territorial concessions. In Britain, this policy was still reflected in the dominant political discours in June 1939 which might explain the surprisingly moderate tone of the Manchester Guardian. Translation, as this study has shown, played an important role in the development of the French and British political media discourses about the NS-regime – not only because it enabled Goebbels’ speech to cross the linguistic borders but also because it came into play with regards to quotes which have a high representative power when originating from a leading politician such as Goebbels. This paper has, in line with previous research in Translation Studies, contributed to rising awareness that translation is a substantial and integral part of intercultural political media discourse. Further research could investigate the role of translation at the overlap of political institutions and their influence on the political media discourse. The relationship between the news agency Havas on the French government would surely make for an interesting case.

References Anon, 1939. À Dantzig, Goebbels proclame la volonté d’annexion du Reich. Provocations et fanfaronnades du Docteur Goebbels. [In Danzig Goebbels proclaims the Reich’s will of annexation. Provocations and fanfaronades of Doctor Goebbels] L’Humanité, 19 June, 1 and 4. Anon, 1939. Goebbels in Danzig. Tension not brought to crisis point. Manchester Guardian, 19 June, 14. Baker, Mona (2006) Translation and Conflict – A Narrative Account, London & New York: Routledge. © 2012. Isis HERRERO and Todd KLAIMAN (eds.). Versatility in Translation Studies: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2011. http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/papers.html

Elisabeth MÖCKLI. “Danzig ist deutsch! – Goebbels in Translation”

17

Bassnett, Susan and Christina Schäffner (2010) Political Discourse, Media and Translation, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Bassnett, Susan and Esperança Biesla (2009) Translation in Global News, London & New York: Routledge. Baumgarten, Stefan (2009) Translating Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” – A Corpus-Aided DiscourseAnalytical Study, Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag. Burger, Harald (2005) Mediensprache. Eine Einführung in Sprache und Kommunikation der Massenmedien [Language of the Media. An Introduction to the Language and Communication of the Mass Media], Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyeter & Co, 3d edition. Calzada Pérez, María (2002) ‘A Three-Level Methodology for Descriptive-Explanatory Translation Studies’, Target 13(2): 203-239. Clark, Herbert H. and Richard J. Gerrig (1990) ‘Quotations as Demonstrations’, Language 66(4): 764–805. de Vreese, Claes H. (2005) ‘News Framing: Theory and Typology’, Information Design Journal and Document Design 13(1): 51–62. Fairclough, Norman (1989) Language and Power, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Gathmann, Peter and Martina Paul (2009) Narziss Goebbels. Eine Biografie [Narcissist Goebbels. A Biography], Wien, Köln and Weimar: Böhlau Verlag. Heiber, Helmut (1971) Goebbels Reden. 1932 – 1939, München: Heyne. Kohlmayer, Rainer (1994) ‘Übersetzung als ideologische Anpassung’ [Translation as Ideological Assimilation], in Mary Snell-Hornby, Franz Pöchhacker and Klaus Kaindl (eds) Translation Studies – An Interdiscipline. Selected Papers from the Translation Studies Congress, Vienna 9-12 Sept. 1992, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Landwehr, Achim (2006) ‘Diskursgeschichte als Geschichte des Politischen’ [History of Discourse as History of Politics], in Brigitte Kerchnert and Silke Schneider (eds) Foucault: Diskursanalyse der Politik. Eine Einführung [Foucault: Discourse Analysis in Politics. An Introduction], Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften & GWV Fachverlage GmbH, 104-122.

© 2012. Isis HERRERO and Todd KLAIMAN (eds.). Versatility in Translation Studies: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2011. http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/papers.html

Elisabeth MÖCKLI. “Danzig ist deutsch! – Goebbels in Translation”

18

Lemkin, Raphael and Samantha Clark (2005) Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress, Clark: The Law Book Exchange Ltd. Nill, Ulrich (1991) Die geniale Vereinfachung – Anti-Intellektualismus in Ideologie und Sprachgebrauch des Joseph Goebbels Ribbentrop [The Genious Simplification – AntiIntellectualism in Ideology and Language Use of Joseph Goebbels], Frankfurt am Main, Bern, Paris and New York: Lang. Obiedat, Nawaf (2006) ‘The Pragma-Ideological Implications of Using Reported Speech: The Case of Reporting on the Al-Asqa Intifada’, Pragmatics 16(2/3): 275–304. Schäffner, Christina (2004) ‘Political Discourse Analysis from the Point of View of Translation Studies’, Journal of Language and Politics 3(1): 117-150. Sturge, Kate (2004) “The Alien Within”: Translation into German during the Nazi Regime, München: Iudicium. Stahn, Carsten (2008) The Law and Practice of International Territorial Administration: Versailles to Iraq and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tannen, Deborah (1993) ‘What’s in a Frame? Surface Evidence for Underlying Expectations’, in Deborah Tannen (ed.) Translation, Framing in Discourse, New York and New York: Oxford University Press, 13-76. Valdeón, Roberto (2005) ‘The Translated Spanish Service of the BBC’, Across Languages and Cultures 6(2): 195–220. van Doorslaer, Luc (2010) ‘The Double Extension of Translation in the Journalistic Field’, Across Languages and Cultures 11(2): 175–188. Waugh, Linda R. (1995) ‘Reported Speech in Journalistic Discourse: The Relation of Function and Text’, Text Interdisciplinary Journal fort he Study of Discourse 15(1): 129–173. Wodak, Ruth, Rudolf de Cillia, Martin Reisiegel and Karub Liebhart (1999) The Discursive Construction of National Identity, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Ltd.

About the author:

© 2012. Isis HERRERO and Todd KLAIMAN (eds.). Versatility in Translation Studies: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2011. http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/papers.html

Elisabeth MÖCKLI. “Danzig ist deutsch! – Goebbels in Translation”

19

Elisabeth MÖCKLI is currently a PhD student at the University of Edinburgh (2010-2013). She holds a BA in Multilingual Communication from the University of Geneva and a MA in Translation Studies from the University of Edinburgh. She works as a part-time tutor of French, German and Translation Studies at the University of Edinburgh and as a free-lance translator (EN-DE & FR-DE). Her PhD project investigates the French and British media images of the Third Reich created through the translations of Goebbels’ speeches between 1935 and 1939. Email: [email protected]

© 2012. Isis HERRERO and Todd KLAIMAN (eds.). Versatility in Translation Studies: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2011. http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/papers.html