NationStates Jolt Archive

The Christmas truce: When the guns fell silent
So extraordinary was the Christmas truce of 1914 that some no longer believe it could have happened. But as a new film recreates those days, Stanley Weintraub says it was no myth
Published: 24 December 2005

Live-and-let-live accommodations occur in most wars. Chronicles since Troy record stops in fighting to bury the dead, to pray to the gods, to assuage a war-weariness, to offer signs of amity encouraging mutual respect. But none had happened on the scale or duration - or the potential for change - as when the shooting suddenly stopped on Christmas Eve 1914.

The difference then was in its potential to become more than a momentary respite. In retrospect, the interruption of the horror, to soldiers "the sausage machine", seems unreal, incredible in its intensity and extent, impossible to have happened without consequences for continuing the war. Like a dream, when it was over, troops wondered at it, then continued with the grim business at hand.

Under the rigid discipline of wartime command authority, that business was killing, targeting even those whose hands one had clasped, whose rations one had shared, and who had joined in singing of peace on earth and goodwill to all men.

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article334971.ece

http://www.antiwar.com/photos/christmastruces.jpg

The Christmas truce: When the guns fell silent
So extraordinary was the Christmas truce of 1914 that some no longer believe it could have happened. But as a new film recreates those days, Stanley Weintraub says it was no myth
Published: 24 December 2005

Live-and-let-live accommodations occur in most wars. Chronicles since Troy record stops in fighting to bury the dead, to pray to the gods, to assuage a war-weariness, to offer signs of amity encouraging mutual respect. But none had happened on the scale or duration - or the potential for change - as when the shooting suddenly stopped on Christmas Eve 1914.

The difference then was in its potential to become more than a momentary respite. In retrospect, the interruption of the horror, to soldiers "the sausage machine", seems unreal, incredible in its intensity and extent, impossible to have happened without consequences for continuing the war. Like a dream, when it was over, troops wondered at it, then continued with the grim business at hand.

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article334971.ece

http://www.antiwar.com/photos/christmastruces.jpg

# new film is out about it with the guy from Eastenders who played Trevor little Mo sycotic hubby

It was clear why it happened more in World War 1 than in other wars. It's because more than most other wars, WW1 was such an obvious game of political football between the powers of Europe. The kings treated their soldiers as expendable pawns, spilling their blood without guilt in an unnecessary war. To lay down their arms and join each other was the only act of defiance against the heirarchy that the soldiers could dare.

Merry Christmas the films called

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3718303.stm

It was clear why it happened more in World War 1 than in other wars. It's because more than most other wars, WW1 was such an obvious game of political football between the powers of Europe. The kings treated their soldiers as expendable pawns, spilling their blood without guilt in an unnecessary war. To lay down their arms and join each other was the only act of defiance against the heirarchy that the soldiers could dare.
This is the primary reason I so greatly enjoyed the book ( not the movie ) "Starship Troopers," by Robert A. Heinlein. It posits a revolution of sorts by the veterans of all nations, who proceed to impose a world-wide peace.

Starship Troopers :sniper: love it

Starship Troopers love it
Great book, wasn't it. And the basic premise ( world-wide peace imposed by veterans ) really isn't that far-fetched. Who better knows the true cost of war?

Great book, wasn't it. And the basic premise ( world-wide peace imposed by veterans ) really isn't that far-fetched. Who better knows the true cost of war?
no read it sorry loved film not to be taken seriously

no read it sorry loved film not to be taken seriously
Which is why I said I preferred the book much more than the film. :p

It was clear why it happened more in World War 1 than in other wars. It's because more than most other wars, WW1 was such an obvious game of political football between the powers of Europe. The kings treated their soldiers as expendable pawns, spilling their blood without guilt in an unnecessary war. To lay down their arms and join each other was the only act of defiance against the heirarchy that the soldiers could dare.

i may be wrong but i dont think thats why it was more likely to happen than then it is now. back then christmas meant more than it does now. people back than still had a respect for the religious dimensions in this holiday and put more faith in the "good will towards men" aspect that, now-a-days, is just a hollow phrase to boost sales between thanksgiving and this once holy day. the reason these men got together wasnt to show their respective leaders that they had enough of the fighting, but to join together as human beings rejoicing in the coming of a mutual savior that would one day come again and remove these conditions that they found themselves in permenantly from the world. to say that they did this as a mere act of defiance removes the beauty of what happened that night: peace and beauty can be found within such a world that contains such war and filth.

It was clear why it happened more in World War 1 than in other wars. It's because more than most other wars, WW1 was such an obvious game of political football between the powers of Europe. The kings treated their soldiers as expendable pawns, spilling their blood without guilt in an unnecessary war. To lay down their arms and join each other was the only act of defiance against the heirarchy that the soldiers could dare.

Well, that's certainly a post-modern trench-eye view of the war. I think you're positing anachronistic motives and perspectives on the soldiers, though.

It was clear why it happened more in World War 1 than in other wars. It's because more than most other wars, WW1 was such an obvious game of political football between the powers of Europe. The kings treated their soldiers as expendable pawns, spilling their blood without guilt in an unnecessary war. To lay down their arms and join each other was the only act of defiance against the heirarchy that the soldiers could dare.
In my opinion, it was more because World War I was the watershed between two kinds of warfare. The older traditions between soldiers that regarded each other as humans still lingered into those first few months of the war. But a new kind of warfare was developing, where killing was done so efficiently, that the humanity of the other side was something that needed to be suppressed.

See post 4

You know, when I think back to high school when we learned about this, and everyone thought that the Christmas Truce was cool, because the Brits and Germans played football- I am horrified. Come to find out, they didn't play football at all, but soccer. I have lost all respect for those WWI soldiers.

Damn textbook must have been made in England or something. :p

See post 12
Link is broke.

This is the primary reason I so greatly enjoyed the book ( not the movie ) "Starship Troopers," by Robert A. Heinlein. It posits a revolution of sorts by the veterans of all nations, who proceed to impose a world-wide peace.
I must read it. I have not seen the film, but have heard nothing but bad things about it.

the reason these men got together wasnt to show their respective leaders that they had enough of the fighting, but to join together as human beings rejoicing in the coming of a mutual savior that would one day come again and remove these conditions that they found themselves in permenantly from the world. to say that they did this as a mere act of defiance removes the beauty of what happened that night: peace and beauty can be found within such a world that contains such war and filth.
That's true. It was a day when they proved how superficial the purpose of the war was, and how there were more beautiful things to live for than ugly things to die for.

Elgesh']Well, that's certainly a post-modern trench-eye view of the war. I think you're positing anachronistic motives and perspectives on the soldiers, though.
If course it is speculation, but surely the fact that these guys who spent most of the year killing each other at command just got up and came together unarmed shows how most soldiers viewed the reasons for fighting as superficial.

In my opinion, it was more because World War I was the watershed between two kinds of warfare. The older traditions between soldiers that regarded each other as humans still lingered into those first few months of the war. But a new kind of warfare was developing, where killing was done so efficiently, that the humanity of the other side was something that needed to be suppressed.
Then why was this not done so much in previous wars? Your answer is partially true, but it is also worth considering how unlike many other wars, the soldiers on each side had a common cultural unity that transcended their borders. In the case of WW1 that was Christianity.

I must read it. I have not seen the film, but have heard nothing but bad things about it.
Totally different perspective than the book's. Great special effects and lots of fun, but only so-so acting.

Totally different perspective than the book's. Great special effects and lots of fun, but only so-so acting.
fair enough

Link is broke.
try post 4 it works for me

In my opinion, it was more because World War I was the watershed between two kinds of warfare. The older traditions between soldiers that regarded each other as humans still lingered into those first few months of the war. But a new kind of warfare was developing, where killing was done so efficiently, that the humanity of the other side was something that needed to be suppressed.

Then why was this not done so much in previous wars? Your answer is partially true, but it is also worth considering how unlike many other wars, the soldiers on each side had a common cultural unity that transcended their borders. In the case of WW1 that was Christianity.
First, the truce was not a widespread phenomenon, even in 1914. It was confined to a few places along the front. I suspect this happened because men were not within arm's reach of one another in previous battles. Remember this was the dawn of trench warfare, where everyone mostly played defense, but only a narrow no-mans land separated the two sides.

Another factor that made it more likely to happen at this point in the war, rather than any time following was that the no-mans land wasn't littered with body parts, shell craters, and other artifacts of war. No one had used gas at this point and I don't think tanks were in place yet. Aircraft were still used to observe and not to strafe. The war was still a battle between men, not men that operated deadly machines.

Plus, don't forget that it had been a pretty central part to the propaganda on all sides (which was what got the soldiers into the trenches in the first place) that they'd all be home by Christmas. So there was a special emotional significance to it.

BTW, did you know that both the Christmas Tree and the "Silent Night" (really: "Stille Nacht") was German? I watched an interesting documentary about that yesterday...

If course it is speculation, but surely the fact that these guys who spent most of the year killing each other at command just got up and came together unarmed shows how most soldiers viewed the reasons for fighting as superficial.

I still say you're imposing your modern view onto historical figures. 'most of the year' = 3 months, tops (war started august). mass draft of civilian = unprofessional soldiers? didn't happen again. Germans tried the same thimg - singion g silent night - as a trick to lure brit soliders into an ambush later on. Speculating based on opinion and a _modern_ worldview = futile.

<sidenote - post christmas day... I am wayyyyyyyyyyyyy too pissed to argue well... sorry!:p>

Elgesh']Germans tried the same thimg - singion g silent night - as a trick to lure brit soliders into an ambush later on.
Proof please.

Proof please.
ww2, W. F. Deeds (old journolist who was in ww2), anecdote.

Elgesh']ww2, W. F. Deeds (old journolist who was in ww2), anecdote.
Oh well, I wonder where and when it could've happened...it kinda implies that the soldiers who did that didn't care about it being Christmas and all. Hard to believe, it would've had to be pretty fanatical SS units.

Oh well, I wonder where and when it could've happened...it kinda implies that the soldiers who did that didn't care about it being Christmas and all. Hard to believe, it would've had to be pretty fanatical SS units.

I'm afraid I forget - read it a couple christmasses ago - British offiers had to restrain their men from venturing out of cover when opposition started singing silent night, I remember him writing.(I'm afraid I can't remember who the german soldiers were [SS/regulars], off the top of my head, but I think, from context, it was iin 1944/5 - Germans had been retreating, I remember that - could have been in Africa, '43, perhaps?).

Of _course_ they didn't care it was Christmas!! They were _soldiers_! Better to kill the enemy than be killed, however you accomplish it. The amazing thing is it happened that 1 one time in 1914.

Elgesh']Of _course_ they didn't care it was Christmas!! They were _soldiers_!
They were young men like you and me, put into uniforms probably a size or two too big for them (physically and mentally).

They were young men like you and me, put into uniforms probably a size or two too big for them (physically and mentally).

That's a point of view. I have no doubt that that's sometimes how the soldiers on both sides felt sometimes. But I also think, when it comes down to kill or be killed, they'd (and I'd!) much rather be the one playing a cunning trick to kill than the trusting smuck who wanders out into sniper fire. I'd have _no_ problems doing something like this in a life or death situation - at the tactical level of a battle, humanitarianism and niceness is a luxery - it's silly to not play tricks on your enemy!

Elgesh']I'd have _no_ problems doing something like this in a life or death situation - at the tactical level of a battle, humanitarianism and niceness is a luxery - it's silly to not play tricks on your enemy!
Perhaps. But at least in early WWI, we've seen that soldiers on both sides were quite willing to indulge in luxury.

If it was in Africa by the way, it would've been normal Wehrmacht soldiers - nonetheless, I'd imagine that they would have preferred not to do these things. Although the feelings were not always reciprocal, German soldiers generally respected the Brits, and the fights were usually done in an orderly and honourable fashion at least from one side.

the fights were usually done in an orderly and honourable fashion at least from one side.

Well, frankly, more fool them. No one was giving points for 'honourable conduct' with regard to the enemy (rescuing your own guys though, that's a totallydifferent matter). Absolutely not, I can't disagree with you more here - in a war, where you're pointed at the enemy and told to fight, respect him, and respect his abilities if he has has any, but don't pretend you're going to meet up for drinks and a charge-by-charge replay later on - fight to kill and to win, because second place is freaking _dead_.

Elgesh']Absolutely not, I can't disagree with you more here - in a war, where you're pointed at the enemy and told to fight, respect him, and respect his abilities if he has has any, but don't pretend you're going to meet up for drinks and a charge-by-charge replay later on - fight to kill and to win, because second place is freaking _dead_.
Well, perhaps it's because Britain never fought war in its purest form that you would say that.
You need to keep up the protocol to keep things from going worse. There was no protocol on the Eastern Front, and we know what happened there.

Yes, it is a matter of shooting first - but simply doing whatever it takes will break down everyone involved in no time.

Well, perhaps it's because Britain never fought war in its purest form that you would say that.

I didn't know war was 'pure', or that the second world war was just a bit of a laugh to britain, so I'm not sure what you can possibly mean here. Maybe it's a cultural difference.

Some rules - mostly dealing with surrender and prisoners and torture - are of course needed, that's a given. Stopping soliders from using a clever ruse in the middle of a fight because it's unpleaseant is... well, daft!

Elgesh']I didn't know war was 'pure', or that the second world war was just a bit of a laugh to britain, so I'm not sure what you can possibly mean here. Maybe it's a cultural difference.
Well, you'd have to agree that the Western Front in WWII was positively a doddle compared to what happened in the East. It was pretty much what you'd expect: Move a division there, take tactical, then strategic objectives and you win.
In the East, it was Total War - winning wasn't enough, it was about the complete eradication of not only the humans, but their ideas, their history, their memories. It was what happens if you stop respecting the other side as human beings.

Elgesh']Some rules - mostly dealing with surrender and prisoners and torture - are of course needed, that's a given. Stopping soliders from using a clever ruse in the middle of a fight because it's unpleaseant is... well, daft!
The question is when a clever ruse is just clever, and when it becomes nasty, unacceptably so. And basically violating Christmas, which is supposed to be a break from it all, where all sides remember their homes and families is IMHO a little bit on the nasty side.

That being said, I have my own views on how war should be conducted, and generally people call me an idealist when I say that a civilian on either side should be valued higher than the life of a soldier...

The question is when a clever ruse is just clever, and when it becomes nasty, unacceptably so. And basically violating Christmas, which is supposed to be a break from it all, where all sides remember their homes and families is IMHO a little bit on the nasty side.

That being said, I have my own views on how war should be conducted, and generally people call me an idealist when I say that a civilian on either side should be valued higher than the life of a soldier...

Oh, I dunno... I think a civilian 'ranks', as it were, above a soldier of either side too - a very chivalric idea, to be sure, but not neccessarily a bad one, surely :)

'Nasty' tricks, strategems, and ruses... I'm afraid you need them. No one ever said fighting for your life was nice. It's the one occupation in human endeavour where winning really _is_ the most important thing - if you don't take every advantage where you can, you get yourself and your men killed. I was only ever an aircrew cadet in the RAF, but if my lot'd been called up, I wouldn't have worried about doing 'nasty' tricks on the battlefield in order to win and lessen my chances of being killed.

You have to commend the first couple guys on either side for having the courage to get up out of the trenches and expose themselves to hostile fire. You also have to commend the mass of men than ignored their officers and kept the whole episode from collapsing immediately.

As an officer, I would have felt duty bound to take any means to prevent the fraternization between forces, had I gotten those orders from my superiors. I've heard that the land-lines phones were quite unreliable in those days and the wires that connected the field telephones were quite easily broken.

You have to commend the first couple guys on either side for having the courage to get up out of the trenches and expose themselves to hostile fire. You also have to commend the mass of men than ignored their officers and kept the whole episode from collapsing immediately.

As an officer, I would have felt duty bound to take any means to prevent the fraternization between forces, had I gotten those orders from my superiors. I've heard that the land-lines phones were quite unreliable in those days and the wires that connected the field telephones were quite easily broken.

Seconded. It was a beautiful, brave moment. Not wise, and perhaps literally miraculous for not goinig horribly wrong, but still wonderful :)