You think you know the story. You have read the articles about the \u201cChristmas truce\u201d in 1914. You have seen the movie \u201cJoyeux No\u00ebl\u201d that tells the tale about a spontaneous \u201ctruce\u201d for Christmas between a British unit and a German unit facing each other along a trench line in Belgium. You think you know \u2013 but you do not know the full story until you read \u201cA Christmas Truce\u201d by Robert Graves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Robert Graves tells the story using two characters who were actually in the British unit together who remember vividly the Christmas truce of 1914 and they share this story with the grandson of one of them. As the story moves forward, we learn there was actually a second Christmas truce the very next year, at the same place, between the same opposing units, but this second truce was very different from the first.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The story opens on a small sector of trench line with two units facing each other across No-Mans-Land. On the east side of the trench line is a German unit from Saxony stationed near a town called \u201cHully\u201d. On the west side is a British unit from 1st Battalion, North Wessex Regiment. The first truce, in 1914, was spontaneous; the Germans hung lanterns along their trench line and started singing and calling out to the British side. The men of the Wessex Battalion did not know what to make of it. After a time, the officer of the British side, took a white flag and met the German commander in the center of no-mans-land and agreed to call a truce until sundown on the 26th. Warily, both sides came out of their trenches and in a few short hours, food was exchanged, a vigorous soccer game was taking place, gear, cigarettes and other items were traded between warring sides, one German had circus experience and performed on a trestle table set up between the two lines. The soldiers of both sides came to see each other not as adversaries, but men, struggling to stay alive in the hell of the Great War. But it does not end there, the officers of both sides determine that they have the same truce for the next Christmas as they were both convinced that the war would go on-and-on with no movement on either side. Christmas 1916 rolls around and both officers have been promoted owing to their efforts in the bloodshed of battle in the intervening year. As the predicted, little change in the geography had taken place despite pitched battles (and artillery duels) and the Saxons and Wessex men still faced each other across the same no-mans-land, albeit much more heavily fortified than the year previous. In contravention of strict orders on both sides that no fraternization take place between forces during Christmas, the two officers had made a promise to a truce the previous year and once again, warily, the officers met in no-mans-land to conduct a Christmas truce. But the times had changed. New men were to be found on both sides who did not know about the previous year\u2019s festivities and after a hard year of fighting, were less likely to look favorably on a truce. The officers decide to a truce, understanding the risks to their careers, and the men of both sides come out of the trench lines for a Christmas respite. The feeling was not the same as the year previous, but the men let loose anyway, glad to have a few hours where death was not hanging over them. On the British side, a mistake was made by a new British soldier who shot at the German officer and the truth was shattered. More than that, when news of this local-truce reached the headquarters on both sides, the officers were punished. Nowhere before had I heard of a second Christmas truce or its disastrous consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is so much in this story that strikes me. The story I thought I knew gave me hope, that in the midst of all the death and destruction. A common humanity could be found. The full story as told by Peter Graves leaves me feeling bereft. The story I thought I knew is a stark illustration of shared humanity prevailing over the dehumanizing effects of war, even if only for a brief and unsanctioned moment. The account of the second truce begins in hope for that shared humanity once again surfacing, but is shattered by the disconnect between soldiers and their leaders, and by that not just their local officers, but those behind them working at the nexus of the military and the political. Specifically:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 The large gap between the reality of the front-line soldiers and the political and military leadership who engineered the conflict<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Soldiers questioning enmity. The intense patriotic campaigns leading up to the war had portrayed the Germans as monsters and enemies, but face-to-face contact revealed they were just ordinary men, just like themselves. When the British commander, Captain Pomeroy toasted \u201cwives and sweethearts\u201d that fit for everyone, regardless what flag you served.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Humanity over ideology. While commanders feared the truce would damage the martial spirit, the soldiers saw a chance to reclaim a small measure of peace during a holiday season they were forced to spend, once again, away from their loved ones.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What really stuck me about the second Christmas truce was how Graves portrayed the fragility and impermanence of the truce. Unlike the first truce in 1914 that I was familiar with, the second truce really made the reader feel the very temporary pause in a brutal war, not a permanent end to hostilities. Specifically:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Unofficial and short-lived. The truce was a grassroots movement from the soldiers, not an official ceasefire. Many officers and high command disapproved, and in some areas of the front, fighting continued uninterrupted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Return to war. In the story by Graves, the peaceful interlude was abruptly ended on the 26th (Boxing Day) by formal salutes and a signal to resume fighting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Lessons never learned. As the two older men speaking to the grandson tell, attempts were made by some to have the war ended with a more permanent truce, but the truce was ultimately viewed by pragmatists as a fleeting moment rather than a turning point. As the war progressed and became even more bitter, future truces were stamped out by commanders at every level and on both sides.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Not necessarily germane to the ideas of shared humanity and the horror of war, I found the vocabulary of this story to be made so authentic by the use of period-British terms that reflect the colonial heritage of the British forces. So many terms from India; amachoor, nappooed, bundooks, shindy; and from the Arabic, Imshi, and coshed. The use here serves to remind the reader that the British military had such extensive experience in colonial military operations that their lexicon was littered with these words, used by the men without a thought of how they reflected the colonial efforts of Britian during the 17th to 19th centuries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
You think you know the story. You have read the articles about the \u201cChristmas truce\u201d in 1914. You have seen the movie \u201cJoyeux No\u00ebl\u201d that tells the tale about a spontaneous \u201ctruce\u201d for Christmas between a British unit and a … Continue reading