Say the leaders of Japan and China meet, and they have a tense history and territorial dispute. Obviously the members from their respective countries want to hear what they’re saying. But what language do they speak?
Do they both learn English was a commonground language?
When Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito met to discuss carving up the world, you’ve got a guy who speaks German, one speaking Japanese and an Italian. Do they all speak English, the language of their common enemy, or what?
Interpreters will translate between the native languages of each leader.
My wife, when she was in her native China, would translate either English-Chinese or German-Chinese. The institute she worked at had specialists in many languages, including at least Japanese, Korean, Spanish, Indonesian, Malay and Arabic. Those are just the colleagues she remembers from 25+ years ago.
So, no. At least in Beijing in the late 80s, you didn’t go through English.
However if you did get the odd dignitary for whom the Chinese could not provide an interpreter, they would have the visitors interpreter translate from (e.g.) Burmese to English and the Chinese interpreter (e.g. my wife) translate from English to Chinese.
The English and French interpreters were in the highest demand, because the African countries were frequent visitors, and they were largely accommodated in either English or French. If the visitors’ preferred language was Northern Ndebele, but his English was even passable, they would proceed in English-Chinese, even if he brought an English-Ndebele interpreter.
To answer your specific question, Hirohito never met Hitler or Mussolini, so that didn’t come up, but Hitler and Mussolini met several times. The first time they met, they spoke German to one another, Mussolini knowing some German. But, since Mussolini’s German wasn’t really all that good and he had trouble understanding Hitler’s accent, in future meetings, they used translators.
Every Head of State brings their own translator.
Remember, it’s only in the 20th century that English has become the lingua franca for the world, and really only in the latter half of that century. Before that, there were some centuries of there not really being a single most-common language, though if you had to pick one, it would be Latin if you were OK with a dead language and French if you needed one that still had native speakers. That’s in Europe and European colonies, though; I have no idea which, if any, languages served that purpose in Asia before the colonial period. In the Muslim world, Arabic has been a good bet for a very long time; the modern dialects are not always mutually intelligible, but formal Arabic is what the Koran is written in and is understood in most Muslim countries if you’re OK sounding stiff and formal.
There is not going to be any general rule about this. If they are both reasonably fluent in a certain language, they might use that (and the most likely language for them both to be fluent in probably would be English, but there are many other possibilities). Otherwise, as others have said, they will both have translators to translate into each other’s language. You would each want to have your own translator, so you do not have to rely on the honesty of one working for the other guy.
Mussolini spoke several languages. In addition to the ones you mentioned he also spoke English and French.
But as you note, how fluent he was is an open question. Among other WWII leaders, Churchill supposedly spoke French and Roosevelt supposedly spoke German but anecdotally both spoke these languages terribly. Stalin was the other way. It’s believed he actually spoke English and German but wouldn’t admit how well he spoke them. People noted that he sometimes appeared to respond to statements made in these languages before they were translated into Russian.
Lingua franca
*A lingua franca … is a language systematically used to make communication possible between people not sharing a mother tongue, in particular when it is a third language, distinct from both mother tongues.[1] Lingua francas have arisen around the globe throughout human history, sometimes for commercial reasons (so-called “trade languages”) but also for diplomatic and administrative convenience … *
From what I read here and there, english generally isn’t used. If one leader happens to be fluent in the other’s language, they might use this, but otherwise, they would rely on translators. You don’t want a summit where leaders speak some akward, half-mastered, third language neither is quite fluent in.
Even if both know English, they might not to use it.That’s the case for Merkel and Hollande, for instance, who speak respectively German and French during meetings, even though Merkel is fluent in English and Hollande too to some extent. On the other hand, I believe Merkel speaks Russian with Putin.
Rigellian.
As others have said, nowadays they’d have interpreters to translate between them. IIRC in civil aviation English is the linga franca used, but as mentioned above, that’d definitely be a 20th century thing for obvious reasons, and I have no idea how they do it in foreign countries with local traffic (i.e.: Would a French air traffic controller speak English to an Air France aircrew flying into Paris? The answer there might depend on whether other air crews aloft were expected to monitor the channel to be aware of what was going on, I guess.)
Many years ago I had a friend who worked as a translator in, among other places, the UN in Geneva. She spoke several languages but could only do simultaneous translations in French German and English.
Simultaneous translation is where the translator does their work as the speaker speaks, often without prior knowledge of what they were going to say. Most translation was done in advance from prepared speeches, but what she did was only for the most skilled.
Back in the day, it was reported that French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing and German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt spoke English when they met in a private setting. Other than that, politicians probably chose to have an interpreter, especially in formal situations in which every word counts and/or the other party is more proficient in English.
President Vladimir Putin of Russia speaks excellent German (which he picked up when he was assigned to the KGB station in East Germany), but in negotiations, he only speaks Russian.
Russian wasn’t Stalin’s native tongue either: his first language was Georgian.
Another interesting situation comes up when two politicians (or any two persons, for that matter) from smaller nations want to communicate. For instance, it’s probably hard to find a qualified interpreter who can translate from Slovenian to Norwegian and vice versa. When in doubt, English probably is the common ground.
Remember that the English speaking world is larger than countries with English as the main language. India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nigeria Malaysia etc would and do use English both with each other, outsiders and internally.
If it’s native for both of them, it’s highly likely to be either Spanish or French, simply from the amount of ex-colonies both have.
Isn’t it said (and anecdotally supported by posts from Dopers) that despite a fair degree of mutual intelligibility, Scandinavians often use English to communicate (Danes with Swedes, for example)?
I would think that would extend itself into the worlds of business and politics as well, then?
I guess one aspect is that politicians don’t want to be overpowered linguistically. For instance, politicians from Scandinavian countries or the Netherlands in general have a much better command of English than their counterparts from Germany. From the German politician’s perspective, his English may or may not be good enough to socialize or to chitchat, but when it comes to serious negotiations, they will prefer to speak through an interpreter.
Only politicians who are truly bilingual may feel comfortable in such a situation. That’s for instance the case with the Prime Minister of Luxembourg who is 100 % fluent in French and German or the King of the Netherlands whose father was German.