Language mistakes that changed history

[aquarius]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Council_(Austria)

The Imperial Council (German: Reichsrat; Czech: Říšská rada; Polish: Rada Państwa; Italian: Consiglio Imperiale; Slovene: Državni zbor) was the legislature of the Austrian Empire from 1861, and from 1867 the legislature of Cisleithania within Austria-Hungary. It was a bicameral body: the upper house was the House of Lords (German: Herrenhaus), and the lower house was the House of Deputies (German: Abgeordnetenhaus). ...

Sessions of the House of Deputies proceeded chaotically, as the deputies could not agree on a working language. Only speeches in German were taken into the official record. After minister-president Count Kasimir Felix Badeni failed to introduce a language ordinance in 1897, many Czech delegates denounced the authority of Council, and sabotaged meetings with countless emergency motions and filibusters. They were fiercely opposed by the German Radicals and the Pan-Germanists, who themselves sought the dissolution of the Monarchy and annexation of all its German-speaking territories to the German Reich. These conflicts culminated in shouting and brawls, which made the galleries a popular entertainment venue for Viennese citizens, among them the young Adolf Hitler.

According to Christopher Clark ("The Sleepwalkers"), Hitler has written that the impression he had of the debates in the Reichsrat had changed to the opposite his inititial preference for parliamentarism.

It would be interesting to know if these problems (absence of a translation service) were rather due to policital reasons, or rather due to the state of the technology at this time. Would the technology of this time have allowed to create a functioning translation service?

[Speakeasy]

… the deputies could not agree on a working language … many Czech delegates denounced the authority of Council, and sabotaged meetings with countless emergency motions and filibusters … It would be interesting to know if these problems (absence of a translation service) were rather due to political reasons, or rather due to the state of the technology at this time. Would the technology of this time have allowed to create a functioning translation service?

I suspect that technology was not the problem. There are numerous examples throughout history in Europe, in the Americas, in Africa, in Asia, and in Oceania where every form of orderly government (from tribal societies to vast empires) has solved the problems of communicating in disparate languages. However, a precondition for success has often been goodwill on everyone’s part. Historically speaking, the period in your referenced quote was known for the “rise of nationalisms” across Europe. That is, what had once worked to the satisfaction of most parties had become simply unacceptable, parliament had become a “zero sum” game to a number of the participants.

Beyond the purely technical question of translation services in parliamentary bodies, there would have remained the highly contentious matter of “which version” of a law should have primacy in the courts. That is, were a law to be published in language X, and shortly thereafter translated into language Y, would both versions have equal value before the courts (despite the widely-accepted notion that translation is an art and that it can never really capture the essence of the original)? Those arguing for a translated version of all laws would, quite naturally, demand that it have equal status before the courts.

Now then, if both the original X and the translated Y versions of the law did enjoy equal value before the courts, it would be quite natural for anyone having a case before the courts to plead their cause based on the version that was most advantageous to them. In cases where the two versions of the law would yield different decisions, in whose favour should the courts resolve the case? Obviously, these are questions of constitutional law which are well outside those of language-learning. Nevertheless, they do serve to illustrate how something as superficially simple as demanding the right to translation services can have far-reaching consequences.

[vonPeterhof]

Not exactly a real example, but there's a rather widespread myth in Russia and other former Soviet countries that the sale of Alaska to the United States by the Russian Empire wasn't meant to be a sale at all, but a hundred year lease similar to the arrangement between the UK and China regarding the New Territories of Hong Kong. The myth goes that the German-bred Empress Catherine II (who was personally writing up the Russian text of the treaty, for some reason) made a spelling mistake, misspelling "на вѣкъ" (for a century) as "навѣкъ" (forever), which gave the Americans the excuse to treat the cession of Alaska as a permanent sale. None of this is true, of course, starting from the fact that Catherine had been dead for 70 years by the time of the Alaska Purchase, yet the myth has been so persistent that even my 7th grade history teacher believed in it.

[Speakeasy]

The “Alaska Purchase” is actually a very good example of how imprecise language led to the “Alaskan Boundary Dispute” which almost led to war between the United States and Great Britain. Very briefly, despite an 1825 treaty between Russia and Great Britain, the eastern borders of what-has-become-to-be-known-as the “Alaska Panhandle” had never been clearly defined to the satisfaction of both parties. We should remember that, at the time, these lands were on the periphery of both empires. Not long after the sale of Alaska, Canada claimed a large portion of the “panhandle” on the basis that the limits of this lengthy coastal area were quite seaward. The United States claimed that the limits reached eastward into the continent. Great Britain became involved as Canada did not, at the time, enjoy full sovereignty and was thus not enabled to sign international treaties. Owing to the value of the commercial fur trade and fishing industries, not to mention the desire for territorial expansion, tensions quickly rose between the claimants, vessels were seized, warships were deployed, and sabres rattled vigorously. Ultimately, the United States’ claim was validated through binding arbitration. Had the 1825 treaty between Russia and Great Britain contained more precise language, the dispute would likely never have arisen.

The resolution of this dispute in favour of their Southerly neighbours did not sit well with many Canadians who later sought revenge by stealing the concept of American Football, by both widening and lengthening the playing field, by playing three “downs” instead of four and, owing to the colder climate, by dressing their comely cheerleaders in ankle-length winter parkas. Language mistakes do have consequences!

[Speakeasy]

Many forum members harbour secret yearnings of immigrating to the terrestrial paradise known as Canada. It comes as no surprise then, that some members have undoubtedly wondered at the rather odd political boundaries of the Province of Quebec. That is, when consulting a map of the region, it would be easy to conclude that a portion of Quebec’s Northeastern territories, known as Labrador, had been ripped away and gifted to the province of Newfoundland. Why would anyone do such a thing? Well, this curious arrangement was the result of yet another use of vague language in a document which, ultimately, served as a reference for establishing the borders between what subsequently became the two provinces.

When the Dominion of Canada was formed in 1867, Great Britain began a process of retro-ceding some of its North American territories to the newly-formed confederation which, while it was self-governing, did not possess all of the rights of a sovereign nation. At the time of this union, Newfoundland was a separate British colony which did not join the confederation. In reasonably quick succession, the British territories of what subsequently became Northern Quebec were retro-ceded to Canada, which then retro-ceded them to Quebec. Both Quebec, and Canada on behalf of Quebec, claimed the lands known as Labrador. However, the separate colony of Newfoundland laid a similar claim. It took several decades of hearings before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council London before the boundary dispute was settled in favour of Newfoundland. The point of dispute centered on the interpretation of a vaguely-worded reference in 1774 to the duties, responsibilities, and jurisdictional authority of the British Governor of Newfoundland which included “the coasts of Labrador.” Now then, a layman might believe that “coast” refers to a very narrow strip of land bordering on the sea. Take a look the map and … I’ll see you in court!

Quebec - Newfoundland.JPG