The
Christmas Truce
by
Laurence
M. Vance
by Laurence M. Vance
Most
American families have some traditions they observe every Christmas,
even
Jewish families. It might be decorating a tree, singing Christmas
carols, shopping for bargains on Christmas Eve, attending church
services, reading the biblical account of the birth of Christ, taking
the kids to see the grandparents, driving around and looking at
Christmas lights, eating at a particular restaurant, or watching
It’s
a Wonderful Life, Miracle
on 34th Street, or A
Christmas Carol.
As
fine as these things are, there is another tradition worth observing
this Christmas and every Christmas: reading Silent
Night (The Free Press, 2001). Not only is "Silent Night"
the name of a Christmas
carol, it is also the title of the book by historian Stanley
Weintraub that tells the story of the World War I Christmas truce.
What
makes the World War I Christmas truce even more relevant this Christmas
is that we are once again at war on Christmas and it is the 90th
anniversary of the famous truce.
The
Christmas of 1914 was the first Christmas of the "war to end
all wars." The war would drag on through three more. The German,
French, Belgium, and British troops engaged in killing each other
did not just all of a sudden lay down their arms because it was
Christmas. According to Weintraub, neither side had been "firing
at mealtimes" and "friendly banter echoed across the lines."
The soldiers in their trenches were sometimes so close to each other
that "they would throw newspapers, weighted with a stone, across
to each other, and sometimes a ration tin." In early December,
a British general issued an order that forbade fraternization because
"it discourages initiative in commanders, and destroys the
offensive spirit in all ranks."
Yet,
less than a week before Christmas, a British lieutenant wrote to
his mother:
Some
Germans came out and held up their hands and began to take in
some of their wounded and so we ourselves immediately got out
of our trenches and began bringing in our wounded also. The Germans
then beckoned to us and a lot of us went over and talked to them
and they helped us to bury our dead. This lasted the whole morning
and I talked to several of them and I must say they seemed extraordinarily
fine men. . . . It seemed too ironical for words. There, the night
before we had been having a terrific battle and the morning after,
there we were smoking their cigarettes and they smoking ours.
Brief
and localized pre-holiday truces were springing up, usually initiated
by the Germans. As Christmas Day approached, some German troops
put up small Christmas trees on the parapets of their trenches.
On Christmas Eve they began to sing Stille Nacht ("Silent
Night"). Placards with Christmas greetings were set up by both
sides. On Christmas Day, both sides buried their dead who had been
lying in "No Man’s Land." They chatted, exchanged souvenirs,
shook hands, ate and drank together, played football, had joint
religious services, and smoked each other’s tobacco. They also took
pictures.
No
one knows for certain where and how the truce officially began.
What is known is that men from both sides up and down the front
agreed on informal truces for Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. A
Bavarian captain recalled that he shouted to his enemies that: "we
didn’t wish to shoot and that we [should] make a Christmas truce.
I said I would come from my side and we could speak with each other.
First there was silence, then I shouted once more, invited them,
and the British shouted ‘No shooting!’ Then a man came out of the[ir]
trenches and I on my side did the same and so we came together and
we shook hands a bit cautiously!"
An
English captain wrote to his wife:
I
was in my dugout reading a paper and the mail was being dished
out. It was reported that the Germans had lighted their trenches
up all along the front. We had been calling to one another for
some time Xmas wishes and other things. I went out and they shouted
"no shooting" and then somehow the scene became a peaceful
one. All our men got out of the trenches and sat on the parapet,
the Germans did the same, and they talked to one another in English
and broken English. I got on top of the trench and talked German
and asked them to sing a German Volkslied, which they did,
then our men sang quite well and each side clapped and cheered
the other.
A
Scottish corporal relates his experiences:
We
shook hands, wished each other a Merry Xmas, and were soon conversing
as if we had known each other for years. We were in front of their
wire entanglements and surrounded by Germans Fritz and
I in the center talking, and Fritz occasionally translating to
his friends what I was saying. We stood inside the circle like
street-corner orators. Soon most of our company . . . hearing
that I and some others had gone out, followed us; they called
me "Fergie" in the Regiment, and to find out where I
was in the darkness they kept calling out "Fergie."
The Germans, thinking it was an English greeting, answered "Fergie."
What a sight little groups of Germans and British extending
almost the length of our front! Out of the darkness we could hear
laughter and see lighted matches. . . . Where they couldn’t talk
the language they were making themselves understood by signs,
and everyone seemed to be getting on nicely. Here we were laughing
and chatting to men whom only a few hours before we were trying
to kill!
That
last sentence alone shows the utter folly of war. It also shows
that left to themselves, men would not naturally engage in such
a senseless war like World War I. It takes the state to get men
to hate and kill other men that have never aggressed against them
and that they don’t even know.
After
a silent night and a day, the war continued the commanders
saw to it. A British general who visited the front was aghast that
"sufficient attention" was not being paid to fighting
the Germans. In a memorandum to his commanders he stated:
I
would add that, on my return, I was shown a report from one section
of how, on Christmas Day, a friendly gathering had taken place
of Germans and British on the neutral ground between the two lines,
recounting that many officers had taken part in it. This is not
only illustrative of the apathetic state we are gradually sinking
into, apart also from illustrating that any orders I issue on
the subject are useless, for I have issued the strictest orders
that on no account is intercourse to be allowed between the opposing
troops. To finish this war quickly, we must keep up the fighting
spirit and do all we can to discourage friendly intercourse. I
am calling for particulars as to names of officers and units who
took part in this Christmas gathering, with a view to disciplinary
action.
Weintraub
closes the book with a chapter entitled "What If ?"
But amid all that the author proposes that might or might not have
been, one statement stands out: "The butchery in which hundreds
of thousands of bodies were ground into the mud of the Western Front,
leaving not an identifiable bone, would not have happened. The more
than six thousand deaths every day over forty-six further months
of war would not have occurred."
And
now, ninety years later, we are again engaged in a war. The casualties
may be less, but the state’s lies about the war have increased.
The
president maintains that the United States and the world are
safer now than before the September 11th attacks. But
does the rest of the world real feel safer? The situation described
by Lew Rockwell just after Christmas two years ago has not changed:
"The US remains the only government in human history to have
dropped nuclear weapons on people, it has far more weapons than
anyone else, and remains the only country that reserves to itself
the right of first strike."
Instead
of invading
the world, the United States should declare a truce with the
world. No more threats. No more bombs. No more troops or bases on
foreign soil. No more spies. No more trade sanctions. No more embargoes.
No more foreign aid bribes. No more foreign entanglements. No more
simultaneously playing the world’s bully and policeman. In a word:
non-interventionism; that is, the principles of our Founding Fathers.
What is wrong with "peace, commerce, and honest friendship
with all nations"? What is wrong with avoiding "entangling
alliances"? What is wrong with "having as little political
connection as possible" with foreign nations? What is wrong
with not going abroad "seeking monsters to destroy"? Can
anyone honestly say that Bush’s principles are better than Jefferson’s
principles?
Over
1,300 U.S. soldiers won’t be celebrating Christmas this year
or any year. They died in vain for an unconstitutional, immoral,
senseless war while in the service of a reckless, imperial presidency.
They will forever have a silent night.
December
25, 2004
Laurence
M. Vance [send him mail]
is a freelance writer and an adjunct instructor in accounting and
economics at Pensacola Junior College in Pensacola, FL. His new
book is Christianity
and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State. Visit
his website.
Copyright
© 2004 LewRockwell.com
Laurence
M. Vance Archives
|