5 ms·

Christmas truces were absolutely a thing, but they came about through the action of troops on the ground -- and the commanding officers absolutely hated them.

short_sells_poo 2y ago
I'm not condoning it at all, but I think it's easy to understand why commanding officers didn't like their troops fraternizing with the enemy. If GI John and Soldat Hans share a coffee and a cigarette together, and perhaps even a pleasant chat, they will quickly come to realize that both of them are human beings, with human feelings, a family worrying about them, children possibly, hopes and dreams, and so on. And once you are acutely aware that your enemy is just like you, only perhaps speaks a different language, you are much-much less inclined to shoot them and stop being an efficient soldier. I've never been in a war, and hope I never live to see myself in one, but the only way I can see one human viciously trying to kill another is by not thinking of their enemy as a human being, but rather just a thing.
- cperciva 2y ago
  Absolutely. They were described as "disastrous to morale" and units which had engaged in Christmas truces would routinely be moved to other parts of the front in order to avoid the issues you mention.
- wizzwizz4 2y ago
  > you are much-much less inclined to shoot them and stop being an efficient soldier. But you also take the other side's soldiers out, in the same way. Why wouldn't commanding officers like that?
  - short_sells_poo 2y ago
    I'm not a military thinker, so I might well be off on this, but I'd say because that would usually results in a draw, whereas the commanding officers generally want to win so that they can achieve the overall plan set out by strategic command - and want to achieve a crushing victory from which the opponent cannot recover from. I guess an army on the retreat who would favor an instant draw would favor the fraternizing, but generally by that point the winning army - including the soldiers - are not amenable to stop their advance and play a friendly game of football.
  - cperciva 2y ago
    The morale of your troops is known. The morale of the opposing troops is suspected but not certain. WW1 ended because the influenza epidemic was devastating the troops on both sides but neither side knew for certain how hard it was hitting the other side.
    - wizzwizz4 2y ago
      Ah, yes. Spanish flu: so-named because (neutral) Spain was one of the few countries not lying about whether they had it.

short_sells_poo 2y ago

I'm not condoning it at all, but I think it's easy to understand why commanding officers didn't like their troops fraternizing with the enemy. If GI John and Soldat Hans share a coffee and a cigarette together, and perhaps even a pleasant chat, they will quickly come to realize that both of them are human beings, with human feelings, a family worrying about them, children possibly, hopes and dreams, and so on. And once you are acutely aware that your enemy is just like you, only perhaps speaks a different language, you are much-much less inclined to shoot them and stop being an efficient soldier. I've never been in a war, and hope I never live to see myself in one, but the only way I can see one human viciously trying to kill another is by not thinking of their enemy as a human being, but rather just a thing.

cperciva 2y ago
Absolutely. They were described as "disastrous to morale" and units which had engaged in Christmas truces would routinely be moved to other parts of the front in order to avoid the issues you mention.
wizzwizz4 2y ago
> you are much-much less inclined to shoot them and stop being an efficient soldier. But you also take the other side's soldiers out, in the same way. Why wouldn't commanding officers like that?
- short_sells_poo 2y ago
  I'm not a military thinker, so I might well be off on this, but I'd say because that would usually results in a draw, whereas the commanding officers generally want to win so that they can achieve the overall plan set out by strategic command - and want to achieve a crushing victory from which the opponent cannot recover from. I guess an army on the retreat who would favor an instant draw would favor the fraternizing, but generally by that point the winning army - including the soldiers - are not amenable to stop their advance and play a friendly game of football.
- cperciva 2y ago
  The morale of your troops is known. The morale of the opposing troops is suspected but not certain. WW1 ended because the influenza epidemic was devastating the troops on both sides but neither side knew for certain how hard it was hitting the other side.
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    Ah, yes. Spanish flu: so-named because (neutral) Spain was one of the few countries not lying about whether they had it.