- This topic has 3 voices and 7 replies.
-
Posts
-
Here is an interesting take on the pause in fighting which happened at some (undetermined) location during WWI:
As Christmas Day drew near during that first year of the war, German forces crouched or sat in their trenches facing British forces doing the same in their trenches a few yards, and in some cases a few hundred yards, away. … With German guns facing British trenches and British guns facing German trenches, an onlooker might not be faulted for thinking the only thing these forces had in common was a desire to kill one another. But that false paradigm was shattered on one of the winter nights leading up to Christmas, as British forces heard not the sound of gunfire, but the words of “Silent Night” (“Stille Nacht”) rise from the trenches opposite them.Thereafter, signboards in English were held up by the Germans, informing the British forces that they wanted a truce to celebrate Christmas. Nothing elaborate mind you, rather, simple messages that conveyed the Germans’ promise not to shoot if the British would promise the same. It was Christmas Eve when a German soldier emerged from his country’s trenches and began to walk toward the trenches opposite him: a brave gesture meant to solidify the start of a truce for soldiers in that that area on Christmas morning. He was met by a British soldier and then both returned to their respective trenches to wait out the night.When Christmas morning broke, no shots were fired, no hostilities exchanged. Rather, on the land that that lay between the German and British trenches—“no man’s land”—the soldiers met and sang carols and exchanged gifts (cigarettes, sweets, etc.), and even engaged in sports (soccer). Although they were enemies on the battlefield, they shared a common denominator which greater than their aggression, and that denominator was their faith, which was intrinsic to their Western heritage.
Faithless Christmas: West Lost Ties That Bind
The blog goes on to say that the kind of ties that united enemies in 1914 would not be permitted nowadays. The Christian culture which once united Europe (and the rest of the West) has been replaced by a sanitized, politically-correct value system. How times have changed.
The facts in the story are straight. The reasons behind the unofficial truce are pure hyperbole. Fact is that several people were court-martialed over the truce and it was not repeated in during the rest of the war. Faith had nothing, or very little , to do with the truce. If a common faith is all it takes to bring peace then please explain the bloody history of European warfare from the last 1700 years since Christianity became the dominant European religion?
I thought that one of the larger ideas of the story was that at the level of the individual soldier, faith was a common factor and bringer of peace. It was only at the level of the state where the disputes over borders, power, etc. resided.
People die for -isms no less than for religious faith, for in the end an -ism replaces/becomes a religion often manifested by “cult of the personality.”
One of the dirty little secrets the humanists and post-modern don't want you to know is that yes the individual does subsume themselves within the group whether that group be the squad/section/platoon in combat or a bunch of dope smoking hippies. Don't be fooled into thinking that just because a group is composed of individuals that the group, whether self picked or not does not have a mind of its own as well.Yes, the individual may long for peace but that same individual also wants to win the war and enthusiastically pulls the trigger in service of that goal.Ask yourself this: If the urge for peace, or even a one day truce was so strong that prohibitions regarding one were ignored in 1914, why were they not ignored later in the war? Remember, most of the soldiers on the front in 1914 were still professionals and long service reservists for the most part, not conscripts as came to make up the majority of the soldiers in all combatant armies after the spring of 1915.
Yes, the individual may long for peace but that same individual also wants to win the war and enthusiastically pulls the trigger in service of that goal. Ask yourself this: If the urge for peace, or even a one day truce was so strong that prohibitions regarding one were ignored in 1914, why were they not ignored later in the war? Remember, most of the soldiers on the front in 1914 were still professionals and long service reservists for the most part, not conscripts as came to make up the majority of the soldiers in all combatant armies after the spring of 1915.
I think that the answer to your question may simply be that it was suited to that occasion; that is, the set of circumstances that the individual soldiers were facing at that moment in time, together with the set of values held onto by either side and emphasized on Christmas 1914, gave rise to the truce. I am not sure why this story should give rise to cynicism.
I will reply that I am not being cynical, only realistic. The Christmas lets all give each other a hug meme is unrealistsic. That supposes at a minimum that for one day guys that were enthusiastically trying to kill each other could turn that resentment off in the spirit of harmony. I am sure some people can do that, most cannot. Emotons are powerful things and those surrounding life and death are the most powerful of all.
I guess I did not interpret it to be like that. I do believe that despite the corrupt nature of man that there are times of goodness and beauty even in times of utter strife. I would not expect this event to be typical by any means, but rather something extraordinary. And for that, it offers all of humanity a glimmer of hope about the human condition even beyond the moment and the battlefield in which it happened. I would hardly recommend that soldiers try doing something such as this, but the fact that it did happen makes it all the more compelling of a story.
I think it is a compelling story as well. What the history books generally don't say is that the Christmas truce of 1914 was isolated. Not only did it only happen that once, it only happened at a few places on the Front as well. To read contemporary accounts you get the impression that it was a general thing and it was not.
