4 ms·

Interesting article. I for one would not be coming out of my trench to fraternize with the enemy.

by humbleMouse 11y ago

msie 11y ago
Spend several years in a trench and you might change your mind.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Someone 11y ago
  Possibly, but at Christmas 2014, the war was 5 months old, and trench warfare had been going on for around 3 months, tops. For example, the first battle of the Marne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_the_Marne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_the_Marne) in early September saw significant manoeuvring, and was followed by “the race to the sea”, which lasted till mid-October (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_Sea)
mikeash 11y ago
They're just dumb slobs, just like you. Both of you are being commanded to go off and die for your country by people very unlikely ever to be at risk themselves. You have far more common with the dumb slobs in the opposing trench than you'll ever have in common with the people who caused you to be in yours.
- jtheory 11y ago
  Yes, this. "The enemy" was just the men previously living normal lives and working normal jobs the previous year, just like you were, before they were bundled off to fight for their country. War is incredibly destructive to the frontline soldiers in so many ways even beyond killing them -- psychological ruin, destruction of land, homes, livelihoods, infrastructure.... It's something that soldiers can be very gung-ho about -- in the abstract. In non-desperate times, normal adults do not resolve conflicts by fighting to the death; when people do kill in anger, it's usually a matter of rash action, deeply regretted afterward. Imagine a regular working class man in Germany, told "there's a family that lives a few hundred kilometers that way -- shall we go kill them, and take over their house & land?" What do you think he'd say? But at a macro scale, it's somehow legitimized. And the soldiers are told whatever they need to be told to transform them from humans to game pieces -- we're under attack, or threatened, or disrespected, or we need to revenge some past wrong... Keep it abstract - here's your gun! On the other side, micro-scale again, imagine hearing that a man and a few friends have the idea that you've harmed them somehow, and are coming to aggressively confront you. Should you... hide in the woods with a gun and shoot them on sight? Or assume it's a misunderstanding, and try to find a way to communicate and resolve it peacefully? At human scale, it's obvious; violent death is awful, and completely final. We take it seriously. The Christmas Truce is about some of the poor "regular folk" removing their blinders for a few days, and the tragedy of it is that the juggernaut didn't even really stumble; the soldiers that we're "weakened" by fraternization with the enemy -- e.g., doing what humans naturally do to resolve conflict -- were quickly shuffled out of the way (or in later cases, court-martialed), and the war went on. And there is no Christmas Truce story in WWII.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Nor were there really any subsequent Christmas Truces in WWI. Quoth Wikipedia: "In December 1915, there were explicit orders by the Allied commanders to forestall any repeat of the previous Christmas truce. Individual units were encouraged to mount raids and harass the enemy line, whilst communicating with the enemy was discouraged by artillery barrages along the front line throughout the day. The prohibition was not completely effective, however, and a small number of brief truces occurred." It amazes me that the people in charge were so threatened by this truce that they did their best to ensure it couldn't happen again.
  - rawTruthHurts 11y ago
    Well, for WWI there was a lot of volunteering.
Spooky23 11y ago
Why not? Being in the trench in the first place was certain death.
clock_tower 11y ago
But the enemy in this war was fellow Europeans, sharing the same civilization, the same laws of war, more or less the same religion and outlook on life. "Fraternizing with the enemy" is only a problem if you're a stuffy old archvillain like Haig or Ludendorff -- or if you're fighting against an enemy with whom you really don't have very much in common. (The Iraqi insurgents, for example, liked to wear plainclothes in battle, set up mortar plates in schools and hospitals, and fight while waving white flags.)
- vlehto 11y ago
  Then again both sides have their regular share of psychopaths. If you have that 1/20 bad luck, the enemy guard might shoot you just to see your intestines spread on the snow. And at the end of the day he is war hero, you are corpse. So the guys who really did it were either very empathetic, daft or had a death wish. I'm going to go with empathy, but would not have joined them.
- licoricetic 11y ago
  Do you think they really liked to do all that?
  - clock_tower 11y ago
    If it let them win? Yes. Read _The Prince of the Marshes_, and read up on the nature of shame cultures.

Interesting article. I for one would not be coming out of my trench to fraternize with the enemy.

msie 11y ago

Spend several years in a trench and you might change your mind.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Someone 11y ago
Possibly, but at Christmas 2014, the war was 5 months old, and trench warfare had been going on for around 3 months, tops. For example, the first battle of the Marne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_the_Marne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_the_Marne) in early September saw significant manoeuvring, and was followed by “the race to the sea”, which lasted till mid-October (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_Sea)

mikeash 11y ago

They're just dumb slobs, just like you. Both of you are being commanded to go off and die for your country by people very unlikely ever to be at risk themselves. You have far more common with the dumb slobs in the opposing trench than you'll ever have in common with the people who caused you to be in yours.

jtheory 11y ago
Yes, this. "The enemy" was just the men previously living normal lives and working normal jobs the previous year, just like you were, before they were bundled off to fight for their country. War is incredibly destructive to the frontline soldiers in so many ways even beyond killing them -- psychological ruin, destruction of land, homes, livelihoods, infrastructure.... It's something that soldiers can be very gung-ho about -- in the abstract. In non-desperate times, normal adults do not resolve conflicts by fighting to the death; when people do kill in anger, it's usually a matter of rash action, deeply regretted afterward. Imagine a regular working class man in Germany, told "there's a family that lives a few hundred kilometers that way -- shall we go kill them, and take over their house & land?" What do you think he'd say? But at a macro scale, it's somehow legitimized. And the soldiers are told whatever they need to be told to transform them from humans to game pieces -- we're under attack, or threatened, or disrespected, or we need to revenge some past wrong... Keep it abstract - here's your gun! On the other side, micro-scale again, imagine hearing that a man and a few friends have the idea that you've harmed them somehow, and are coming to aggressively confront you. Should you... hide in the woods with a gun and shoot them on sight? Or assume it's a misunderstanding, and try to find a way to communicate and resolve it peacefully? At human scale, it's obvious; violent death is awful, and completely final. We take it seriously. The Christmas Truce is about some of the poor "regular folk" removing their blinders for a few days, and the tragedy of it is that the juggernaut didn't even really stumble; the soldiers that we're "weakened" by fraternization with the enemy -- e.g., doing what humans naturally do to resolve conflict -- were quickly shuffled out of the way (or in later cases, court-martialed), and the war went on. And there is no Christmas Truce story in WWII.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Nor were there really any subsequent Christmas Truces in WWI. Quoth Wikipedia: "In December 1915, there were explicit orders by the Allied commanders to forestall any repeat of the previous Christmas truce. Individual units were encouraged to mount raids and harass the enemy line, whilst communicating with the enemy was discouraged by artillery barrages along the front line throughout the day. The prohibition was not completely effective, however, and a small number of brief truces occurred." It amazes me that the people in charge were so threatened by this truce that they did their best to ensure it couldn't happen again.
- rawTruthHurts 11y ago
  Well, for WWI there was a lot of volunteering.

Spooky23 11y ago

Why not? Being in the trench in the first place was certain death.

clock_tower 11y ago

But the enemy in this war was fellow Europeans, sharing the same civilization, the same laws of war, more or less the same religion and outlook on life. "Fraternizing with the enemy" is only a problem if you're a stuffy old archvillain like Haig or Ludendorff -- or if you're fighting against an enemy with whom you really don't have very much in common. (The Iraqi insurgents, for example, liked to wear plainclothes in battle, set up mortar plates in schools and hospitals, and fight while waving white flags.)

vlehto 11y ago
Then again both sides have their regular share of psychopaths. If you have that 1/20 bad luck, the enemy guard might shoot you just to see your intestines spread on the snow. And at the end of the day he is war hero, you are corpse. So the guys who really did it were either very empathetic, daft or had a death wish. I'm going to go with empathy, but would not have joined them.
licoricetic 11y ago
Do you think they really liked to do all that?
- clock_tower 11y ago
  If it let them win? Yes. Read _The Prince of the Marshes_, and read up on the nature of shame cultures.