I think it is more likely the reason was uniformity so that opposers couldn't point to inconsistencies with the same word being rendered differently in different countries.
I don't think that was the point. Transliteration will of necessity be different in every language: the natural equivalent for Hebrew heth will be "ch" in German or "j" in Spanish -- not to mention other alphabets or non-alphabetic languages.
Insisting that the transliteration be made from the English rather than the original seems pretty silly and hazardous to me. For instance, the letter h in the WT transliteration (as far as I can remember it) of the Hebrew could stand for a hé, for half a heth (= hh) or for the "soft" or "fricative" pronunciation of the begadkepat (bh, gh, dh, kh, ph, th). Very misleading to a translator who has no real idea of the original language.
Any true "Bible Society" would make sure that its translators have received a basic linguistical education. Only the WT"BS" seems content with the rule "the least they know, the best".
Of course there are exceptions to this rule. The "brother" who translated the NWT into French took the time to learn both Hebrew and Greek and made a very good job (within the limits of the translation options of the English NWT, as he himself admitted). And the Brooklyn headquarters respected him and his work. As a result the French NWT was published very late (1974) but was better than many others. Unfortunately the 1995 revision, probably by someone else, did destroy much of his work (from what I have seen of it).
Back to the KIT: am I right in thinking that this publication was NEVER translated in any language other than English? -- it would have been a very easy thing to do...