Christmas
of 1914 had been envisioned, as the war was getting under way, much differently
as it had turned out. Victorious armies were
predicted to have been in occupation of Paris or Berlin by year’s end. Many may be familiar with the term “Over by
Christmas” which was touted by both sides as the war began in the summer of
1914. The common interpretation of this
phrase is either one of arrogance and ignorance or a naive sentimentality. That, though, is a conceit of hindsight. The underlying meaning in place at the time
was that a quick victory was essential. The
material, human and financial cost of a protracted war against industrial
nations was predicted to be so prohibitive that either a nation’s population or
its financers would withdraw support for the war if those costs proved too
high. The one problem with waging the
First World War as a quick and limited campaign was that everybody had the same
idea at the same time, and neither side had a clear advantage. In terms of military strength, the Entente had
a 1.28:1 (man to man) advantage over the Central Powers. While this advantage might seem clear, they
are by a far margin away from being the military ideal of tactical advantage
which is, even today, 3:1.[1]
Now,
a vast network of trenches stretched for miles on end, forbidding any attempt
at advancing and dislodging defenders on either side. The forbearance of a long war and its
prohibitive cost, in lives and wealth, could not be enough to leave it without
conclusion. Too much had been sacrificed
so far that anything less than a total victory would be satisfactory. A long, grim sequence of several years was
now due to play out.
Very
little good is seen to have come as a result of the First World War. A century later, the common perception based
upon a general notion of the futility of the years of near stalemate is that
this war, more so than others in recent memory, was wasteful and cruelly inconclusive. This view may not take into account the large
impact that such an event must have upon humanity; but it is the popular
notion. Which is why, perhaps that tiny
instances which inspire a feeling of sentimentality within such a dark episode
can grow into the stuff of legend.
For
an event with such anecdotal provenance as what became known as the “Christmas
Truce,” it is remarkably odd that neither Sir Basil Liddell Hart nor Sir John
Keegan, in their respective books on the First World War make any mention of
holiday related fraternization. Such
things did occur, and there is plenty of evidence of there being “a strange,
spontaneous eruption of fellow feeling.” [2] G
J Meyer describes the event as it is understood to happen: “On Christmas morning, in their trenches
opposite the British near Ypres, German troops began singing carols and
displaying bits of evergreen....The Tommies too began to sing....Step by step
this led to a gathering in no-man’s-land of soldiers from both sides, to
exchanges of food and cigarettes, even to games of soccer.”[3]
Such informal arrangements at other
times were not uncommon, and usually had a humanitarian purpose- such as the
evacuation of wounded or the burial of dead.
“Reciprocal
periods of 'quiet time' emerged when soldiers tacitly agreed not to shoot at
each other. Between battles and out of boredom, soldiers began to banter, even
barter for cigarettes, between opposite sides. Informal truces were also agreed
and used as an opportunity to recover wounded soldiers, bury the dead and shore
up damaged trenches. In many ways, for the last of the professional soldiers,
this was all part of the etiquette of war.”[4]
That certainly would have been part of the purpose behind localised
truces. In his book “The Truce: The Day
the War Stopped” Chris Baker describes burials taking place, sometimes in a
cooperative effort between sides, that there were exchanges of personal items,
but only half, by his estimate, of British units at the front had any notion of
these events. Even during this period of
relative quiet, Baker notes that 81 British soldiers died on Christmas day,
some even at the places where the truces were in effect.[5]
These incidences were
rather isolated, mainly in the British area of Ypres, as there was fighting in
other places along the line. French
offensives in Artois had ended on the 24th, and another had begun in
Champagne on the 20th.[6]
Even some British units experienced “considerable
activity: 2nd Grenadier Guards suffer losses in a day of heavy fighting. As
night fell, things grew quiet as men fell back to their trenches to take
whatever Christmas meal that had been provided for them.”[7]
Nor was it all fun and games in the areas gone quiet “a virtual truce at
Christmas 1914 helped the British even more than the Germans to improve their
defenses.”[8]
The nature of the ground the British occupied at Ypres being unsuitable for
defensive works as it was low-lying waterlogged clay meant that any chance to
make improvements during a lull in fighting would have been seized.
The reaction to these
events was certainly mixed. Press
coverage was largely sympathetic, and from their messages does the popular
notion of widespread episodes of goodwill and fraternity develop. Military leaders were more concerned. Regardless of the holiday, this sort of
behaviour could lead to a larger lapse in discipline. “The
London Rifle Brigade's War Diary for 2 January 1915 recorded that ‘informal
truces with the enemy were to cease and any officer or [non-commissioned
officer] found to having initiated one would be tried by Court Martial.’”[9]
Christmas itself
would still be a celebratory occasion, but forward from 1914, that would be
confined to rear areas. “Great efforts were made to provide something special
for Christmas dinner, and if a battalion was in the line for Christmas, then it
was granted an ‘official Christmas’ once it was relieved and in billets.”[10]
This indicates an “all business” approach to the front line, at least from 1915
onward. The men, even at the front did not go without “Throughout the month, 460,000 parcels and 2.5 million letters
were sent to British soldiers in France. King George V sent a card to every
soldier, and his daughter, Princess Mary, lent her name to a fund which sent a
small brass box of gifts, including tobacco or writing sets, to serving
soldiers.”[11]
The Canadian
Expeditionary Force, not yet at the front, faced a dreary, miserable Christmas
at training camps in England. “Heavy
rains began only a week after arrival (in October) and it continued to rain for
89 of the next 123 days, turning the rolling countryside around Salisbury into
a quagmire of mud.”[12]
Living conditions were terrible: “By 17 December
the Engineers and the 2nd and 3rd Infantry Brigades had gone into huts at
Larkhill, between Bulford and Bustard Camp; but Christmas found 11,000 Canadians
still under canvas. From the beginning of the war, the War Office had sought to
solve its accommodation problems by billeting a large part of the ‘New Armies’ recruited
by Lord Kitchener. Now, as the continual
exposure to the wretched weather threatened the health of the Canadians on the
open plain, billets were requisitioned for as many as possible in the adjoining
villages.”[13]
Though, the Official History continues to record “Officers and men did their best to improve conditions.
Welfare agencies helped to ameliorate the lot of the soldier in his off-duty hours.
Welcome parcels of food, knitted goods and tobacco came from the Canadian War Contingent
Association, an organization of Canadians in England and their friends. The Y.M.C.A.
supplied reading material and stationery and operated refreshment centres. The Canadian
Field Comforts Commission, organized from voluntary women workers by two Toronto
ladies, who on the Minister of Militia's authority had proceeded overseas with the
First Contingent, looked after the distribution of gifts received from Canada.”[14]
It may
not have been that masses of men grouped together in a peaceful way on a day
highly prized for the promise of “Peace on Earth” and “goodwill toward men,”
but it should be admirable that these glimpses of humanity’s great desires, no
matter their actual scale, occurred.
While it might do well to be cautious in placing more significance on it
than fact would allow, perhaps it may be more fitting to ask why these small
truces couldn’t have been more common.
[1] Notes from lecture ““Beyond
the Front: The Efforts in Winning Canada’s Total War” MTP 1: The Concept of
“Total War” CJ Harvie
[8] Desmond
Morton & JL Granatstein “Marching to Armageddon”: Canadians and the Great
War 1914-1919, Lester & Orpen Dennys, 1989, pg 54
[12] John
Marteinson “We Stand on Guard”: An Illustrated History of the Canadian Army,
Ovale Publications, 1992 pg 101
[13] Nicholson, G.W.L. “Canadian
Expeditionary Force 1914-1919” Queen’s Printer and Controller of Stationary,
Ottawa, 1962 pg 36
