Christmas in the Trenches: The 1914 Christmas Truces and the Development of Twentieth Century Warfare

History Major Seminar Thesis Jeanie Gordon Professor Laura Beers 27 April 2011

Abstract:

History has been fraught with reports of soldiers fraternising with enemy troops during wartime. Soldiers shouted to each other and exchanged vodka during the Crimean War (1853-1856) 1 and allowed the enemy to forage for food unimpeded during the American Civil War 2. This paper will work to determine why the tradition of temporary cease-fires, particularly during the holiday season, ended after the Christmas of 1914. In the nearly one hundred years since this critical date, the truce has captured the imagination of millions of people for its symbolism as the turning point of the war and the positive images it proposes of humanity. Previously, soldiers, officers, journalists, and citizens believed that the war would be over by Christmas. Instead, the continued conflict after the holiday season signalled the end of the warfare of gentlemen and the beginning of modern warfare.

The principal aim of this paper is to determine why Christmas 1914 became a symbolic turning point in military history. It will examine diary entries of soldiers, newspaper articles of the time, soldiers’ letters to home, as well as secondary source material to achieve this goal.

1 ‘Incidents of the Crimean War.’ New York Times . April 1883. Accessed 30 November 2010. 2 Ralph Lowell Eckert. John Brown Gordon: Soldier, Southerner, American. (Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge: 1989). Pg. 111.

2 Introduction:

Warfare before the twentieth century is characterised by the existence of informal truces between warring troops. War was fought in the open air, facing down the enemy, with swords and relatively weak guns that forced soldiers to fight within fairly close proximity to one another.

Reports from the Crimean War describe British, French, and Russian soldiers gathered around campfires and exchanging vodka, and during the American Civil War, the two sides occasionally met to trade tobacco, coffee, and newspapers. Meanwhile Sundays during the Boer Wars were set aside to be a day of peace, and troops would play football and cricket.3 According to

historians Malcolm Brown and Shirley Seaton, authors of Christmas Truce , a collection of

primary source documents from the Christmas Truce, ‘it is rare for a conflict at close quarters to

continue very long without some generous gesture between enemies or an upsurge of the “live

and let live” spirit.’ 4

As World War I progressed, however, these feelings of closeness and connections between men degraded as trench warfare developed as the main mechanism of the day. The trenches were barely large enough to hold a man standing upright and were often bogged down by rain and the resultant mud. Any body part seen above the edge of the trench was immediately used as target practice for the opposing soldiers, so men spent much of their time crouched down low over their guns, preparing for the sudden onslaught of fire that characterised much of the fighting. 5

The trench lifestyle was exacerbated by the development of new technologies, including the use of gases and tanks. These new fighting machines made war that much more dangerous

3 Linden Bradfield Webster. ‘Linden Bradfield Webster’s Reminisces of the Siege of Mafeking.’ Journal of Military History . Vol. 1 No. 7. 1970. 4 Malcolm Brown and Shirley Seaton. Christmas Truce. (New York, Leo Cooper: 1984). Introduction, xi. 5 Bruce Bairnsfather. Bullets and Billets . (New York, The Knickerbocker Press: 1917). 76.

3 and immediate. Just fifty years before, getting shot was not a death sentence, and soldiers were actually more likely to die from the resultant wound getting infected than from the shot itself.

During World War I, the development of improved rifles and the growth of the machine gun, powerful tanks, and poison gases meant the threat of death became increasingly personal and immediate. The attitudes in the trenches started trending towards the kill-or-be-killed mantra that heretofore had only been considered in hand-to-hand combat.

As men became more and more engaged with trench life, weaponry became more

advanced, and as the war dragged on, most feelings of sympathy or commonality between

soldiers disappeared. Men were now literally fighting for their lives, and could see no benefit in

being kind to the men working so vehemently to kill them. Before the war completely evolved

into the beginning of what is now known as modern (or total) warfare, however, there was one

last day of hope and promise. Each of the soldiers examined, and a number of historians

referenced, asserted that Christmas 1914 had the potential to end the war. 6 Men had already engaged in a popular mass uprising to celebrate the holiday the best way they could while on the front. It would, some suggest, have taken a small spark to cause the further uprising that would end the war. Bruce Bairnsfather, a Lieutenant with the Royal Warwickshire Regiment, in his book on the First World War, recalls imagining that on such a day as Christmas, when the weather finally took a turn for the better, the war could be over. According to Bairnsfather, ‘it was just the sort of day for Peace to be declared.’7 Other accounts of the truce indicate the feeling expressed by Bairnsfather was reflected up and down the Western Front. However, this war-ending catalyst never came, and the war quickly reverted to the deadly nature that came to be synonymous with the Great War.

6 Stanley Weintraub. ‘The Christmas Truce.’ In Cowley, Robert. The Great War . (New York: Random House, 2003). 64. 7 Bairnsfather, 74.

4 The Christmas truces of 1914 are a unique piece of history. Few events or time periods have been identified as turning points for the progression of society, the economy, or war. The truces could have led to a large-scale uprising to end the war, or they could have ended with the return to war. If the war ended in 1914, World War II would not have developed out of the

Versailles Treaty and the resultant economic and social discontent in Germany, and millions of lives may have been saved. Additionally, rapid advances in war technology during World War I and World War I would not have been made, and modern technology may snot have yet reached its current levels. The lost generation of soldiers who did not come home would still be alive, and European societies would not have had to deal with reconstruction and the economic challenges it contained. On a more speculative level, if World War I never gave rise to World

War II, globalisation may have progressed at a slower rate, and the atomic bomb may not have caused panic through the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The Russian Revolution may have been stalled, and the Cold War may not have taken over the second half of the twentieth century.

However, for reasons to be discussed in this paper, the war resumed, and the future of modern warfare was resumed and the twentieth century continued on its destructive path.

Interestingly, for an event that could have had massive implications for the progression of warfare and modern society, there is little scholarship directly examining the implications of the

Christmas truces on the Western Front of 1914. For most people, the truces are simply a lovely story of peace and goodwill between men during a dark and dangerous time. In truth, however, they are much more than nice stories to describe in children’s books, or to create movies and songs about.8 The truces represent a turning point in history, when the world had the option to

8 The two best known children’s books for the subject are Truce by Jim Murphy, published in 2009, and Christmas in the Trenches written by John McCutcheon and illustrated by Henri Sorenson in 2006. Joyeux Noel , released in 2005 and starring Diane Kruger is a well known movie on the subject, and the well-known Belleau Wood by Garth Brooks is the best known song.

5 continue the way it had been progressing under Napoleon and Bismarck in the nineteenth century, in gentlemen’s warfare and colonialism, or change directions and pave the way for world leaders such as Stalin, Kennedy, Mao Zedong, and Nixon.

The significance of studying the reasons and mechanisms behind the Christmas truces

cannot be understated when working to realise how wars would develop in the future.

Understanding both the mechanics of the developing conflict and the mindsets of the soldiers on

the front lines during the holidays and truces, can help future historians develop research on the

expansion of warfare, and how the individual soldiers played a role in that progression. It could

possibly help historians gain a different perspective on the mindset of modern day soldiers as

they head to war. The research can also, of course, provide more background to people working

to keep the memory of the truce alive for future generations, in the hope that, even if war will

likely never return to the time of chivalry, the concept of goodwill towards all men will be

maintained in warfare and the general public.

6 Historiography:

World War I is one of the most studied events in history. Consequently, the first

Christmas during the war is one of the most frequently examined holidays; it is an anomaly in an otherwise brutal war. Yet it was not an irregularity for wartime at all. Instead, there have been recorded incidents of spontaneous, temporary ceasefires throughout military history. Before

World War I, soldiers were occasionally found sitting across the campfire from each other and sharing rations. After the Great War, no one would have considered a truce, even at Christmas, for the rest of the twentieth century, nor will one likely be considered for the foreseeable future.

Yet even as the truces are part of one of the most frequently studied wartime holidays, they are very understudied as a component of World War I. The Christmas Truce, as the truces came to be collectively known, has been overshadowed by the developments of technology, trenches, and distinctive battles such as that seen at Ypres and the Somme. Those historians who have begun to delve into these topics see that these developments all play heavily into the truces and add to their intrigue. Generally, historians focus on two main points regarding the truces: why they were able to develop, and how they have continued to inspire people since their conclusion. The proportion of Regulars on the front was decreasing as thousands of people were killed in the line of duty and volunteers were enlisted to replace them. As a result, around

Christmas 1914, there was a heavy mixture of professional soldiers and volunteers. Both groups were in involved in the truces, but there is some debate as to whether the Regulars or the volunteers were the main protagonists of the truce. However, it appears that there is consensus on the completion of the truce being the result of officers’ commands and a changing out of which troops were on the front.

7 Stanley Weintraub is perhaps the most widely read historian on the truce. He has produced the pre-eminent work on the truces, Silent Night: The Story of the World War I

Christmas Truce, and has been a contributor to many other compilations on the subject.

Weintraub is a supporter of those historians who view war as little more than governmental politics ‘conducted by persuasive force.’ 9 He views the truce as the reflection of the popular will

of the soldiers, and asserts that the truce was akin to ‘spontaneous movements that topple tyrants

and autocrats.’ 10 He believes that the truce was special not because of its particular brand of symbolism, but because of the shear scale of it, and because unlike the documented truces before, the 1914 Christmas truces had a greater ‘potential for changing things.’ 11 The extreme size of the truces was dangerous to the hierarchy of the armed forces in Britain and Germany, and could have easily have turned into a mutiny. Many of Weintraub’s stories of the truce were characterised by stories of near revolts by soldiers versus the High Command, which preferred continued conflict to ceasefires with the enemy. Meanwhile, The French and Belgian troops were less inclined to engage in peaceful relations with their opponents, so their size was much less influential. Additionally, the tensions that existed between the Allies meant that they were unlikely to join up with the British if there came the opportunity to revolt against the war.

Weintraub believes that the nature of war, and the necessity to complete it, combined with the less than enthusiastic response of the French and Belgians to the truces, was the main reasons they did not end in a mass uprising.

Weintraub is distinctive for his work as an American. As a nation outside the for the first half of the war, many American attitudes varied in relation to that first Christmas, and a large

9 Stanley Weintraub. Silent Night: The Story of the World War I Christmas Truce . (New York. The Free Press. 2001). xvii. 10 Ibid, xvii. 11 Ibid, xvii.

8 proportion were in favour of an armistice. Weintraub describes this inter-continental history more than many of his contemporaries. His method of history is another distinguishing feature of his writing. He makes arguments very subtly, choosing to tell the story of the truce more than craft overt arguments out of it. This methodology engages the reader’s imagination while enveloping him/her in a critical evaluation of the truces themselves.

The other major contributor to histories on on the Christmas truces is Malcolm Brown.

He is the author of The Imperial War Museum Book of 1914: The Men Who Went to War 12 and co-author of The Christmas Truce 13 along with Shirley Seaton. One of his major assertions is that there was a division between the German lines as to who was involved in the truce. He makes a clear distinction between the Saxons, who ‘object to be[ing] called Germans’ and the Prussians, who more often than not were more keen to fight than their compatriots. 14 According to Brown,

the end of the truce was often due to Saxon regiments being switched with Prussians while the

French, or other non-accepting regiments, replaced British troops.

Brown clearly believes that the 1914 Christmas truces continue to inspire people’s

imaginations because of their very existence and the mythology that surrounds them: that of

ordinary soldiers standing up against the high command and refusing to fight during Christmas.

He also argues that this legend is incorrect, even heresy, and that the captains and lieutenants in

the trenches were often supportive of a truce at Christmas, although he acknowledges that the

highest levels of command were distinctly unpleased with the popular uprisings across the

Western Front. Brown indicates that although many stories coming from the front imply that it

was the incoming replacement armies that encouraged the truce, and that the Regulars were

12 Malcolm Brown. ‘A Strange Kind of Christmas.’ The Imperial War Museum Book of 1914: The Men Who Went to War. (London. Pan Grand Strategy Series). 13 Malcolm Brown and Shirley Seaton. Christmas Truce. (New York, Leo Cooper: 1984). 14 Brown, 269.

9 keener to fight, this was clearly not true across the lines, as many Regulars went into No Man’s

Land, and many volunteers were keen to pick off some German targets. Either way, there was a clear division between the troops: it was not a common inclination amongst all soldiers to get out of the trenches and fraternise with the enemy. Conversely, there was not a division between the ordinary soldiers, and their entrenched commanders, who were just as likely to desire a reprieve from the killing as their men. Brown utilises the most primary source documents of any other authors currently incorporated into this body of research.

Robert Cowley, editor of The Great War makes a critical point for the focus of this study that World War I can be considered ‘the true turning point of the twenty-first century.’ 15 It felled dynasties and empires, made the United States a world power, and made World War II possible.

Essentially he argues that it ‘created the modern world.’ 16 He postulates that there has been too much sentimentality involved in writing the history of the Great War. He uses statistics that emphasise the scope of the deaths rather than the social histories that he argues so often pervade histories of World War I. His compilation of historians has one entry from Stanley Weintraub, and follows Weintraub’s beliefs that the war was unnatural, that humans are inherently decent, and that the Christmas truces were essentially inevitable. Cowley himself does not delve into the intricacies of the truces, but he does make it clear that he supports Weintraub’s perceptions of the events of that fateful year. 17

Modris Eksteins, a French historian and author of Rites of Spring is another valuable resource for this paper. Eksteins dedicates a chapter of his book to discussing the Christmas truces, and provides some critical examinations of the nature of warfare and the front at the time.

He believes that the German reverence for the holiday season, combined with the British need

15 Robert Cowley, ed. The Great War . (New York, Random House: 2003). xiii. 16 Ibid, xiii. 17 Ibid, xiii.

10 for continued tradition, and the technical realities of the war at the time worked in tandem to create to appropriate atmosphere for the truces. His confidence that the division between those entrenched and those at Headquarters was critical in the development of the truces is echoed through other historians’ works as well. 18

One of the only researchers to delve deeply into the German mind-set during the truces is

Michael Jürgs, a German journalist and historian. His work, Der kleine Frieden im Großen

Krieg: Westfront 1914 , utilizes first person accounts from Germans on the frontline, and is

dedicated solely to examining the German reaction to the winter of 1914. He argues that the

Germans instigated the truces for a number of reasons, including the horrendous conditions of

the war. The language and cultural commonalities between the two sides also helped to develop

the fraternization amongst the enemies. In addition, Jürgs asserts that the mindset of the soldiers

at the beginning of World War I was characterised by the perception that the war was against the

figureheads of state, such as kings and queens, rather than against the opposing populace. 19

A final researcher providing integral research for this paper is Joseph Perry, whose thesis

on the development of Christmas in Germany provides important information on the Christmas

truce and the German psychology towards the holiday. Perry believes that the truce came about

because of the critical importance of Christmas to the German tradition. A sense of pride in

being nationally and culturally German encouraged the celebration and made the German troops

in particularly desirous to avoid around the holiday season. Perry argues that Christmas helped to

create an image of a ‘model national community’ focused on ideals of ‘wholesome domesticity,

18 Modris Eksteins. Rites of Spring . (Massachusetts, Modris Eksteins: 1989). 19 Michael Jürgs. Der kleine Frieden im Großen Krieg: Westfront 1914: als Deutsche, Franzosen und Briten gemeinsam Weihnachten feierten. (München, Goldmann:2005) Roughly translates to ‘Such fraternisation had never been in the history of wars.’ A native-speaking German student currently residing in Germany who lived in America for a year to perfect his English language skills translated his work into English. 19

11 family piety, humanitarian inclusion, and bourgeois morality.’ 20 Such model national community does not engage in murder on Christmas. The truce for the Germans was a natural progression for the holiday, and indeed a majority of accounts indicate that the German troops were the ones to instigate relations with their opponents.

Additional resources utilised for this study include primary source documents, such as letters and diaries from the front or newspapers reports of the truces, as well as additional secondary sources, including soldiers’ reflections twenty years on and modern newspaper articles. Some statistics and information will also be utilised for the purpose of this article.

The main questions addressed by historians researching the Christmas Truce of 1914 and its components include why the truce has had such a lasting impact on society and how it was able to happen. Not all historians address both questions, and there is much variation amongst the various sides of the questions. There are few historians who engage with the Christmas truces in depth, but those who do look to bring the history to life for their intended audiences.

20 Joseph B. Perry. The Private Life of the Nation: Christmas and the Invention of Modern Germany . (PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2001). 7

12 Background

Since the fist instigation of warfare soldiers have engaged in truces and armistices outside of official cease-fires and resolutions. Many historians, including Major Kevin W. Carter, in his article in the Military Law Review published in 1986, believe that ‘the term fraternisation is a fairly recent one, but the custom it embodies is…at least centuries old.’ 21 Reports on fraternisation between troops were produced in earnest beginning in the mid-1800s. Thirty years after the conclusion of the Crimean War, the New York Times described how the French and

Russians would signal to each other using handkerchiefs tied to bayonets, and ‘a Russian sentry would leave a bottle vodka, or brandy, at the end of his beat’ for the French soldiers to obtain in exchange for loaves of bread. As the war developed, ‘a management of short armistices under flags of truce was reduced to a perfect system of friendly regularity’ between staff officers, who would meet in the middle of the lines. When the officers had completed their meetings and returned to their soldiers, ‘the flags of truce were lowered, and firing was resumed in the batteries with as much virulence as ever.’ Reportedly the exchange was considered favourable to both sides until commanding officers at Headquarters learned of it and ‘suppressed it peremptorily.’ 22

In the introduction to their book on the Christmas Truce, Malcolm Brown and Shirley

Seaton detail numerous additional truces during major conflicts in the Western World. In the

Napoleonic Wars, the Duke of Wellington reportedly had to make ‘it punishable by death to strike up friendly relations with the enemy,’ and soldiers during the Boer War reported friendly games of football (or soccer) breaking out along the lines. 23 Similar stories of association

21 Major Kevin W. Carter. ‘Fraternization.’ Military Law Review. Volume 113, Summer 1986. 61-136. 62. 22 ‘Incidents of the Crimean War.’ New York Times . April 1883. 23 Brown and Seaton, x-xi.

13 amongst soldiers were reported during the American Civil War. Ralph Lowell Eckert, in his book on John Brown Gordon, describes a scene in of comradeship between a Union and a

Confederate soldier. A Confederate soldier on a recognisance mission was allowed to continue foraging in the woods by lying to a Union soldier, claiming that they were gathering corn along the line. The Union soldier is said to have told his counterpart ‘go ahead and get your corn. I’ll not shoot at you while you are drawing your rations.’ When the Confederate army was about to shell the woods and attack at night, the soldier, ‘unwilling to abuse the magnanimity of his generous counterpart’ called out to the Yankee, ‘Wake up; we are going to shell the woods. Look out; we are coming.’ 24

One final report of truces between enemy combatants in the half-century before World

War I comes from The Times description of the development of war and truces in an article on

the Franco-Prussian War:

‘It is true, hopes are expressed that during the suspension of arms efforts would be made to prevent a renewal of the struggle; but, to say nothing of the fact that both parties seem committed to an irretrievable course, every incident in the quarrel has a fatal tendency to envenom its character. It began with a mere dispute among politicians, and the difficulty of settling it arose from the apprehended fraternisation of the combatants. Now, those same combatants give ‘not quarter.’ They have become ‘brigands’ and ‘assassins’ in each other’s eyes; and their mutual hostility exceeds all the hatred and contempt evinced by the French against the Prussians, or by the Prussians against the French.’ 25

This descriptive article demonstrates that the realities that were to develop during the First World

War had historical precedents in the decades preceding the war: fraternisation between enemy

24 Eckert, 111. 25 The Times , Saturday, May 06, 1871; pg. 9.

14 combatants turned rapidly towards intense hatred and contempt for each other. Given that this animosity was able to simmer and develop due to the Treaty of Frankfurt allocating the lands of

Alsace and Lorraine to Germany and ending the Second French Empire in favour of the French

Third Republic, it is somewhat surprising that the two sides would agree to additional fraternisation in 1914.

In regards to the possible impacts of the truces, Stanley Weintraub states that nothing

‘had ever occurred on the scale of, or with the duration, or with the potential for changing things, as when the shooting suddenly stopped on Christmas Eve, 1914.’ 26 Brown and Seaton echo this statement in their introduction 27 , and Michael Jürgs states that ‘such fraternisation has not taken place in war history.’28 When considering the war, it is common to simply examine the shear size of the conflict and the number of combatants involved. However, these figures cannot combine fully to create the reality of the Christmas truces of 1914. Instead, before undertaking a complete examination of the full development of the truce, a contextual understanding of the nature of society and the war itself, as well as into the background and experiences of the combatants, must be briefly conducted.

The years leading up to World War I were characterised by increasing entanglements between European powers. Progressively, leaderships were involving their nations in secret alliances and treaties that would lead the region and world to war. The Triple Alliance between

Italy, Austria-Hungary, and Germany was unofficially finalised in 1882. The Franco-Russian

Alliance of 1892, the Entente Cordial between France and England (signed in 1904), and the

Anglo-Russian Entente (signed in 1907), combined to form the Triple Entente. Numerous

26 Weintraub, xvii. 27 Brown and Seaton, xi 28 Jürgs, 51. Translated from the original German: ‘Solche Verbrüderungen hatte es noch nie gegeben in der Geschichte der Kriege’

15 Reinsurance Treaties between the powers were made and broken, with Russia adding a promise of military aid to Serbia to further complicate international relations. Many of these agreements were at least partially secret, and as relations between nations became more strained few citizens realised the global movement towards mass war. Largely, individual soldiers at the turn of the twentieth century had little or no disagreement with citizens of other nations. 29

Although Germany did not have a recent history of physical antagonism towards Great

Britain, it certainly did with the French. The Franco-Prussian War led to intense detestation

between French and Prussian bureaucrats, citizens, and soldiers. The French loss of Alsace-

Lorraine and the humiliation the French army received at the hands of the Germans were to hold

a major cloud over their relations for decades. Yet even this intense hatred could not overcome

the desire for peace on Christmas Day. The decades between 1840 and 1914 were characterised

by an intense increase in transportation and the movement of people. 30 In addition, although those officers and soldiers who had strong historical loyalty to the army from long services in it may have felt strongly about the Franco-Prussian War, it had been decades since the embarrassment. Likely the time between these wars served to dampen spirits of overt hostility and hatred in both the citizenry and the armed forces. This distance may have allowed for soldiers to view each other with more humanity than in prior decades. In addition, most of the reports of fraternisation came from Saxon, not Prussian regiments, people the French may not have developed strong antagonism towards, considering their lack of recent conflicts against the

Saxon province. The strength of Saxon (and Prussian) cultural pride also ensured they were not considered similar to each other at this early stage in the war. While the latent feelings of anger towards the other side likely flared up again as France lost ground to the Germans throughout the

29 Jürgs, 20. 30 Jose C Moya and Adam McKeown. ‘World Migration in the Long Twentieth Century.’ Michael Adas, ed. Essays on the Twentieth Century. Michael Adas, ed. (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2010). 9-52. 10

16 early stages of the war, it was not to be so during that Christmas. Instead, they only lessened the feelings of solidarity and holiday cheer, as there were fewer episodes of physical greeting between the two groups.

The unique condition of the Christmas Truce is reflected in the German situation. World

War I broke out just over forty years after the unification of Germany, at a time when Saxon and

Prussian pride still ran high. Multiple first person accounts report Saxons talking against their

Prussian counterparts, including a Bavarian who told an English subaltern to give the Prussians

‘hell; we hate them.’ 31 Most reports of the truce include mention of Saxons instigating contact, and stories of accidental shots fired were usually blamed on the Prussians.

As was previously touched upon, European society also saw a large increase in immigration and emigration in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. With an

‘industrialisation induced trend,’ the century from 1820 to the start of World War I saw the emigration of 55 million Europeans from their home nations. 32 Although there had always been

migration amongst the European continent (particularly amongst the royal families), the two

decades preceding the outbreak of war saw large increases in migration throughout Europe

(Appendix A). The portion of the Austro-Hungarian Empire comprised mainly of those of

Hungarian ancestry saw a 945% increase in emigration rates from 1865-1884 to 1885-1913. The

Austrian portion of the empire was second in average rates at 430%. France saw a 31% increase,

while Belgium experienced a 64% increase. Germany and the United Kingdom go against this

trend, experiencing decreases of 59% and 7%, respectively. 33 However, Germany’s emigration rates had previously increased to a high of 3.23 migrants per 1,000 citizens from 1880-1889

31 Quoted in Weintraub, 91 32 Timothy Hatton and Jeffrey Williamson. The Age of Mass Migration. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). 7- 10. 33 David Khoudour-Casteras. ‘Welfare State and Labour Mobility.’ The Journal of Economic History , Vol 68, No 1 (March 2008). 211-243. 215.

17 before falling again (Appendix B). It is very difficult to measure intra-European migration at this time, but it can be inferred from anecdotal evidence that, in addition to a high number of

Europeans immigrating to America, there was a decent amount of intra-continental migration and cultural exchanges developing at this time. 34

Although World War I and the implications thereof impacted the entire European

continent, this study will focus largely on British and German experiences, as they were the

major sides involved in the truces of 1914. In the years preceding the outbreak of war, there was

a significant amount of cross-Channel travel, particularly amongst Germans going to England to

work. The increase in the development of travel also made it more likely that citizens of Great

Britain, France, or Germany would travel to each other’s lands and have encountered a number

of citizens of those nations. In his book on the Christmas Truce, Michael Jürgs states that

The German Emperor and the Prussian military were the enemies, not the German people. Boat trips to Hamburg for 45 Schillings each round trip were still offered in travel agencies on August 8th and days afterwards advertisements in newspapers still promoted the music summer 1915 in Dresden. 35 In fact, Jürgs’ entire thesis is based upon his assertion that the truces were only possible because of the large number of German soldiers who had lived and worked in England and had left behind friends and occasionally family to fight in the fields in France and Belgium. Although there was likely reciprocal travel for work purposes, it is not nearly as widely reported or studied, and so will not aid in the examination of social interactions and relations that may have influenced the troops’ decisions to fraternise. Either way, Germans who travelled to the UK for work or other purposes were likely able to obtain a passable level of spoken English, and a

34 Evidence found in Hatton and Williamson, and Moya and McKeown. 35 Jürgs, 20. Translated from the original German: ‘Der Kaiser der Deutschen und die preußischen Militärs galten als Feind, aber nicht das deutsche Volk. Schiffsreisen nach Hamburg, hin und zurück für fünfundvierzig Shilling, waren noch am 8. August im Angebot der Reisebüros, und noch Tage danach Wurde in Zeitungen um Abonnenten für den Musiksommer 1915 in Dresden geworben.’

18 respect and understanding for UK culture. Through this exchange, both sides would have had the opportunity to observe commonalities between the two nations and their cultures, and would likely not forget these similarities simply because they were now fighting each other.

Increased migration, and therefore cultural and social exchange, was not the only variable aspect of European society at the turn of the twentieth century. The end of the nineteenth century was also characterised by the increased militarization of European society. By the beginning of the turn of the century in 1900, ‘the armed forces were regarded…as the embodiment of the nation.’ 36 England and Germany particularly were engaged in a major arms race, exemplified by

the rapid increase of Dreadnought ships purchased by each nation. By the time World War I

broke out, armies across the European continent were arming their individual citizens at a rate

hitherto unseen in history. These citizens often had little to no experience with wartime combat

and did not have any particular disagreements with the men they were going to war against.

The First World War is credited with numerous innovations in warfare, including

chemical and aerial assaults. The first of these major developments was the use of trench

warfare. Soldiers, instead of charging forward and sleeping in the open, instead dug into the

ground to create fronts of trenches that eventually covered the ground from the English Channel

through to Switzerland. Rudolf Binding, a German soldier, described the experience as having

gotten ‘stuck into a gigantic siege on both sides. The whole front is one endless fortified trench.

Neither side has the force to make a decisive push.’ 37 Douglas Herbert Bell, an Englishman at the front, describes wondering when an attack was going to take place:

36 Nigel Harris. The Return of Metropolitan Capital. (London: IB Taurus and Co Ltd: 2003). 75. 37 Rudolf Binding. A Fatalist at War . Translated from German by Ian F.D. Morrow. (London, George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1929). 21.

19 ‘I innocently asked a Regular, “When do we attack?” His answer was full of amazement, mingled with scorn, and horror at the bare idea of such a thing. It appears that in this war both sides spend much of their time sitting in wet ditches waiting for the other fellow to begin.’ 38

Bruce Bairnsfather, an English soldier most famous for his cartoon depictions of trench warfare

and the World War I experience, describes his first encounters with the trenches:

Here I was, in this horrible clay cavity, somewhere in Belgium, miles and miles from home. Cold, wet through, and covered with mud. This was the first day; and, so far as I could see, the future contained nothing but repetitions of the same thing, or worse. 39

Trenches went from being a wartime oddity to being commonly referred to along the front and at home as a single entity: ‘The Trenches.’ When winter started to make its way towards the front lines, life got harder and harder for the troops. Although the soldiers may have been from the wintry Highlands of Scotland or experienced war in

Russia, they were ill-prepared to cope with living in trenches that caught water and froze it around and within their boots. It was a surreal experience that ‘came as a shock and felt like an aberration.’ 40 Private Mervyn Reeves of the Honourable Artillery Company wrote that ‘this life is awful and I cannot think in this weather that the trench fighting can possibly continue long.’ 41 Brigadier General Frederick Heyworth, Commander of the 20 th

Brigade, echoed this sentiment, stating that ‘I have never seen men in such a state of mud

38 Bell, Douglas Herbert. A Soldier’s Diary of the Great War. (London: Faber and Gwyer, 1929). 64. 39 Bairnsfather, 24 40 Quoted in Brown, 257. 41 Ibid, 257.

20 and so tired. I am afraid they will not be much good anyway at present.’ 42 First-hand

accounts of life in the trenches provide researchers with a solid understanding as to the

mindsets of the soldiers engaged in fighting along the Western front. By the time

Christmas arrived, with no signs of the war ending, soldiers were exhausted, frozen, and

missing home. In many cases, they had little contact with their enemies, as exemplified

by Douglas Herbert Bell , who described having only seen two Germans since leaving

England months earlier, one of whom was dead. 43 Over time, many began to grow disillusioned with their own participation in the war. Rudolf Binding described feelings

‘of superfluity, of uselessness, of dullness’ and the sense that everyone on the front lines

‘can be dispensed with.’ 44 Each day, the soldiers hoped for ‘something a little human and out of the ordinary routine.’ 45

Soldiers’ struggles to physically and mentally survive trench warfare were compounded by the fact that the war was already characterised as one of the most deadly in history. French deaths in the first five months reached as high as 300,000 – approximately a quarter of all deaths experienced by that nation during the war. The Germans lost 265,000 in the same time, and the first six weeks of the war saw deaths on the Eastern front number three quarters of a million. The

Battle of Ypres resulted in the destruction of the British regular army and forced a move towards conscription. 46 Although conscription had not been undertaken by Christmas 1914, the number of volunteers entering the front was significant. Four days before Christmas, Captain Bryden

McKinnel of the 10 th Scottish Battalion, King’s Liverpool Regiment, described what many on

42 Ibid, 259. 43 Bell, 72. 44 Binding, 32. 45 Bairnsfather, 73 46 Cowley, 37-40.

21 the front were experiencing, that ‘casualties were very heavy,’ with entire units being lost at battle. 47 Binding described the dead ‘left lying on their stretchers in the ditches.’ 48 The large

numbers of dead eventually shifted the balance of power along the Western front from hardened

Regulars to young, naïve Volunteers eager to fight for their country, but not accustomed to

having to kill anyone.

By the time winter was crossing the fields of Western Europe, both sides were fairly

dedicated to staying entrenched in their positions. Reports of terrible conditions abounded. On 27

November, as Christmas was less than a month away, Rudolf Binding summarised the status of

the war in a diary entry:

We have now been stuck in the same spot for five weeks. For five weeks the newspapers have been saying that Ypres is to be the decision of this phase of the war, at least. This may have been right a few weeks ago-but a decision depends also on the time taken to affect it. Now, this part of the Front is losing the character of a decisive sector. The action here as a whole is no success as far as Ypres is concerned. What we have gained in ground and the enemy’s losses, however great, can only be called a success by a man who does not see both sides. For, apart from the fact that our losses have probably balanced those of the enemy, no one can possibly estimate at present what this breathing space of five weeks may mean from France and England. We may be stuck for good and all. 49

By the time Christmas rolled around, the troops were ‘shaking down for the long haul.’ 50

47 Lyn Macdonald, ed. 1914 to 1918: Voices and Images of the Great War .(London: Michael Joseph, 1988). 44. 48 Binding, 17. 49 Ibid, 29-30. 50 Brown, 225.

22 The Truce

Of the accounts coming out of the trenches regarding Christmas 1914, no two are the same. Various soldiers in different regiments facing distinctive groups of Germans, French,

Belgians, and Brits all had vastly different experiences and reflections about their time on the front lines that day. The information on the truces found in this section will work to be a composite of these stories, and will attempt to discuss as many different experiences as possible, to give as full a view of the truces as is feasible.

The build-up to the Christmas season in 1914 was very tense. A number of groups and international personalities were calling for a cessation of hostilities for the duration of the

Christmas holidays (with some pushing for a continued halt in fighting through the New Year celebrations). Pope Benedict XV called for all combatants ‘to cease the clang of arms while

Christendom celebrates the Feast of the World’s Redemption’ and to do so ‘in the name of

Divinity.’ 51 A main obstacle to achieving this goal, however, was that Russian Orthodox

Christmas was to take place on 7 January, more than two weeks after the Roman Catholic

Church’s Christmas celebrations. This extended period would have pleased pacifists, and likely soldiers who would be receiving a welcome break from war, but the leadership of the armed forces would certainly not accept it. The Pope’s call for an official cessation of hostilities likely failed due to the geographical and religious divide between the fronts.

American pacifists, meanwhile, were searching for any end to the hostilities and death that already characterised the wartime experience. However, beyond calling for a brief respite from war, there was no physical action taken by American groups to bring about the truces. In the end, the Americans were forced to echo the opinion of the New American Republic , an

51 Brown, 263.

23 American weekly, that ‘if men must hate, it is perhaps just as were that they make no Christmas

Truce.’ 52

The Germans at home were also hoping for some Christmas softening of war. An article in the Glasgow Herald of 23 December reported that ‘the German newspapers deeply deplore the carrying on of hostilities, during the Christmas festival.’ 53 The research conducted by Joseph

Perry for his dissertation at the University of Illinois echoes this cultural opposition to war at

Christmas. According to Perry, Christmas for the Germans represented ideals of ‘wholesome

domesticity, family piety, humanitarian inclusion, and bourgeois morality that defined the

sentimental culture of the middle-class family.’ 54 Although the Nazi propaganda machine of the

1930s and early 1940s would later corrupt Christmas, during 1914 it was still largely a familial tradition, tying people together. The German people largely did not want to miss the Christmas holiday and continue warfare.

As the holiday approached, it seemed that the calls for a truce at Christmas had failed.

Lord Loch, a staff officer at the front, wrote to his wife on 13 December that both sides ‘are out for war and this cannot be mixed up with “Peace on Earth” “good will towards men.’ According to Loch, the best way to end the war would be to ‘make war with guns with heart and soul regardless’ of the Christmas holiday. 55 The Glasgow Herald echoed Loch’s sentiments, arguing that ‘the struggle to beat down the enemies of the fatherland’ was of such great importance that it overshadowed the Christmas tradition. 56

52 Weintraub, xvi. 53 Quoted in Macdonald, 46. 54 Perry, 8. 55 Brown, 263. 56 Quoted in Macdonald, 46.

24 Of course, as history has demonstrated, the apparent failure of the Christmas truce was simply an administrative one. Up and down the Western front, men put down their arms and engaged in a cessation of hostilities in recognition of the holiday. As Englishman A.D. ‘Mickey’

Chater relates, ‘this extraordinary truce has been quite impromptu.’ 57 The soldiers were able to

talk through their shared knowledge of English, German, and/or French. When the soldiers

encountered a seemingly insurmountable language barrier, they utilised pantomiming words as a

mode of communication. Before discussing the positive relations experienced on the front,

however, it is important to remember that most of these communications were tinged with

suspicion. Some soldiers reported feelings of distrust towards their opponents, particularly as the

leadership of both sides was warning of possible attacks by the opposition on Christmas. Captain

Hobbs reported that he ‘warned my sentries to be extra on the look out because I don’t trust ‘em

a yard’ 58 while Gunner Herbert Smith, 5 th Battery, Royal Field Artillery, believed that the

Germans ‘are working up a big scheme so that they can give us a doing.’ 59 Stanley Weintraub described how soldiers concealed weapons and used the truce to scope out the other side and their defences. 60

Reports from the front line largely indicate that it was soldiers coming from the German, and particularly the Saxon, trenches who instigated the Christmas truces of 1914. Lance

Corporal Cooper of the 2 nd Northamptons, in a letter published in The Bedfordshire Times and

Independent , wrote that he ‘was never more surprised’ than when he awoke to see Germans ‘all

57 AD Chater. ‘Letter to Mother of 25-27 December 1914.’ Letter. Imperial War Museum Files , 1697 87/56/1 . 2. 58 Captain Reginald Hobbs. Quoted in ‘Here we are Xmas Day in the trenches, of course it’s rather difficult to realize that it is Christmas.’ Western Mail , Cardiff. 2007, 14. 59 Quoted in Macdonald, 47. 60 Weintraub, 95.

25 sitting on top of the trenches waving their hands and singing to us.’ 61 Captain Hobbs’ letter describes how the Germans ‘got out of their trenches and came towards ours.’ 62 However, in some sections the Allies, particularly the English, were reported to be the instigators of the truce.

Major Thomas, an instructor at the Infantry School at Dresden and a German officer in a trench opposite Englishman Edward Hulse at Christmas that year, writes that ‘the initiative was not taken by us, but by the Englishmen.’ 63 Michael Jürgs, the German historian, tells of another

German soldier, infantryman Josef Wenzl of the 16 th Beyerischen Reserveinfanterieregiment,

who described the British waving and then getting out of their trenches without German

overtures. In the end, Josef Wenzl, the infantryman described by Jürgs, concludes that

‘Christmas 1914 will be unforgettable’ for the rest of history. 64

Once the truce was begun, soldiers from different parts of the line experienced varied

activities during the truce. One of the most famous stories is that of a football (soccer) match

between a German and an English squadron, which was supposedly won by the Germans at a

final score of 3-2. Stanley Weintraub found the only official record of such a game, in the reports

of the 133 rd Saxon Regiment. 65 However, letters home reveal a more widespread practice. Gustav

Riebensahm of the 2 nd Westphalian Regiment, reported that ‘the English are extraordinarily grateful for the ceasefire, so they can play football again,’ 66 while Lieutenant Johannes Nieman

61 Quoted in Alan Cleaver and Lesley Park, ed. Not a Shot was fired: Letters from the Christmas Truce of 1914. (London: 2006). 2 62 Hobbs, 14. 63 Major Thomas, ‘Christmas Peace 1914: At the Flanders Front.’ Letter. Imperial War Museum Files. 2621 86/30/1. 1. 64 Jürgs, 87. 65 Weintraub, 96. 66 Spartacus Educational. ‘Christmas Truce.’ http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWchristmas.htm . 1.

26 of the 133 rd Royal Saxon Regiment tells how ‘us Germans really roared when a gust of wind revealed that the Scots wore no drawers under their kilts.’ 67

Despite the reports of opposing sides meeting no-mans-land to play a bit of kickabout,

the frequency of these games is logistically questionable. The land between the trenches was

often torn up from gunfire and shrapnel and covered by bodies lying in no-man's land or flung

onto barbed wire. The chance that games were played in this treacherous zone is highly unlikely.

However, enough letters home reported matches of football in some manner that they must have

some basis in reality. Jürgs recognises this issue, and suggests that the games could have

occurred at a different area along the line, although he does not detail where this may have

occurred. 68 Weintraub, meanwhile, suggests that the matches were more often intra-platoon matches rather than games played against the enemy. Playing against your own squadron would allow the regiments to play behind their trenches, where the land may have been less cluttered and dangerous. 69

Of course, the reports of football matches did not come out of every regiment. Most

soldiers did not report participating in matches. Instead, they met with their enemies in no-mans-

land and traded a variety of goods while attempting to engage in conversation with them. The

most commonly described items soldiers traded included things that could be used as souvenirs

when the war was concluded, including parts of uniforms, like buttons and caps, and other items

soldiers may have cravings for, such as food, alcohol, cigarettes, and cigars. The Guardian published a letter from a soldier in 1914 who ‘exchanged one of my balaclavas for a hat,’ as well

67 Quoted in Macdonald, 47. 68 Jürgs, 51. 69 Weintraub, 96.

27 as buttons, and ‘smokes etc.’ 70 Bruce Bairnsfather recalls trading ‘Maconochies and a tin of

Capstan’ for ‘a few German cigars and cigarettes.’ 71 Mickey Chater’s letter to his mother describes trading ‘cigarettes and autographs, and some people took photos.’ 72

The number of soldiers detailing burial sessions with the other side rivals the proportion of troops recalling stories of talking and trading with the enemy. In many sections, large charges by both sides had led to dozens of men dying in the middle of the trenches. Their bodies continued to lie there, either on the ground or caught in barbed wire, frozen by the rain and freezing temperatures already experienced that winter. The Christmas truces gave both sides the opportunity to give these men proper burials, either jointly in no-mans-land, or behind their respective trenches. Douglas Herbert Bell describes carrying ‘over some German dead and help[ing] to bury them.’ 73 Captain Reginald Hobbs of the 2 nd Battalion, Monmouthshire

Regiment, described a scene in which ‘about 100 Germans had got out of their trenches in front

of my company. I suppose they knew we wouldn’t fire at them and were burying their dead.’ 74

Captain RJ Armes of the 1 st Northern Staffordshires emphasised that the main cause of the truce at his section of the truce was the opportunity to bury the dead. 75 Malcolm Brown and Shirley

Seaton support the historical development of truces for this purpose, describing how ‘armistices,

properly agreed, for the burial of the dead had long been part of the accepted military code.’ 76

The burial of soldiers was not the only example of the importance of respecting the dead

in the instigation of the Christmas truce. A Mr. J.A. Farrell in The Boston Chronicle published a

70 Maev Kennedy. ‘Carols, pudding, and football: a letter from the trenches on Christmas day in 1914.’ The Guardian . 2006. Pg 7. 71 Bairnsfather, 73. Maconochies were a meat and vegetable ration for soldiers on the front line, also seen during the Boer War, and Capstans were tins of tobacco. 72 Chater, 4. 73 Bell, 80. 74 Hobbs, 14. 75 Brown and Seaton, 79. 76 Ibid, 53.

28 particularly poignant example of the cultural deference for the dead at the holiday season. Mr

Farrell described how

A German officer also asked permission to visit the grave of a brother officer

which was situated well within our lines and on the outskirts of a town now in

our possession. Permission was given and the officer was led blindfolded

through our lines to the graveside. 77

Beyond these experiences, the encounters of the soldier in the trench were even more

varied. Robert Hamilton and Bell both report having little to do during the truce. 78 A Mayport private, quoted in The Whitehaven News , reports that the English sang the German national anthem while the Germans responded with a rendition of God Save the King .79 Lance Corporal

Henderson of the Royal Engineers told his family that the Germans had raised a board over their lines reading ‘CONCERT OVER HERE TONIGHT. ALL BRITISH TROOPS WELCOME.’ 80

When viewed through the eyes of the different soldiers, it becomes clear that there is no one fully

encompassing experience of the truces.

The High Command of the armed forces of the opponents was not involved in the truce

on the ground. According Major Thomas, ‘there was no time for making enquiries of the

superior department’ before agreeing to the truce with the English. 81 It was up to the individual

units to decide whether to become involved in the truce or not. Officers on the front line,

including captains and majors, were the ones who decided whether or not to punish their soldiers

for fraternising with the enemy, and often instigated the truce themselves. A commanding officer

77 Cleaver, 21. 78 Andrew Hamilton and Alan Reed, ed. Meet at Dawn, Unarmed. (Warwick, Dene House Publishing: 2009). 116. And Bell, 80. 79 Cleaver, 4. 80 Ibid, 8. 81 Thomas, 3.

29 in Robert Graves’ unit went so far as to threaten to shoot anyone who broke the truce ‘because

I’ve given that German officer my word.’ 82 However, once word reached the leaders of the

armed forces, they immediately ordered the cessation of the truce. Mickey Chater describes how

the ‘High Command soon told us we must get on with the war.’ 83 The orders were occasionally

accepted as one of the necessities of war, as Brigadier CAF Drummond details with his

recollections that ‘of course the war was becoming a farce.’ 84 However, there was a significant amount of backlash from soldiers who initially refused to restart the war on their fronts. Stanley

Weintraub recounts how, on Boxing Day, the XIX Saxon Corps almost mutinied, until the military leadership threatened to shoot the soldiers in an attempt to force them back into the melée. Reportedly, the soldiers ‘spent that day and the next wasting ammunition in trying to shoot the stars down from the sky.’ 85

In some parts of the line where a truce was honoured, it was a very temporary one, lasting only from Christmas Eve night through Christmas Day. In other parts, it would last through New

Years Day. As had been detailed, the leadership of the armed forces largely brought about the end of the truce. However, in some cases, it was an errant shot that concluded the peace. Major

Thomas determined that his section of the front line’s truce was ended by a shot from the

‘English background,’ which killed a sentry. 86 Other truces along the line were ended by a shot from a neighbouring line that had not participated in the truce. 87 With the end of the truce, warfare in a classical sense was symbolically over. Through the rest of the 20 th century, war

82 Robert Graves. ‘Christmas Truce,’ in The Penguin Book of First World War Stories , ed. Barbara Korte. (London: Penguin, 2007). 314. 83 Chater, 1. 84 CAF Drummond. ‘Memories of World War I.’ Transcribed. Imperial War Museum Files . 1694 87/56/1. 3. 85 Weintraub in Cowley, 50-64. 62. 86 Thomas, 3. 87 Drummond, 3.

30 would continue to develop in severity and scale, leaving little room for truces and moments of peace and security along their front lines.

The Composition of Wars Since World War I

As Robert Cowley exemplifies, many historians argue that World War I stands as the

turning point for the twentieth century. The year 1914 is the symbolic end of the ‘long 19 th century’, which began in 1789 with the French Revolution 88 . Historians Svetlana Palmer and

Sarah Wallis look at 1914 as a world of ‘mixture of the old and the new,’ with the introduction

cars, the growth of electricity, anaesthetics, and military technology such as artillery, poison gas,

aeroplanes, and tanks. The start to the century saw the first real intertwining of the state and the

war machine through jobs, troops, and mass armaments. 89 Cowley seconds this viewpoint. For

him World War I ‘demolished dynasties and empires,’ brought America fully onto the world

stage, and set up World War II. Essentially, ‘it created the modern world – and that greatest of

growth industries, violent death.’ 90 The wars since the first Great War have epitomised this statement. Wars have been of an increasingly global nature, involving more countries with decreasing physical and cultural proximity, with technological advancements increasing at a rapid pace.

The major wars involving the Western world since World War I have crossed distinct continental and cultural boundaries. World War II, instigated within the lifetime of many combatants of the Great War, engaged nations across the globe. The USSR, USA, British

Empire, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan may have comprised the major powers, but Australia,

China, South Africa, Nepal, Yugoslavia, Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Serbia, Denmark,

88 The term was defined by British historian Eric Hobsbawm, in his three books, The Age of Revolution: Europe, 1789-1848, The Age of Capital: 1848-1875, and The Age of Empire: 1875-1914 . 89 Svetlana Palmer and Sarah Wallis, ed. Intimate Voices from the First World War. (New York, William Morrow: 2003). 43. 90 Cowley, xiii.

31 Spain, Japan, Italy, Iran, Thailand, Croatia, and others made contributions to the war effort on both sides as well. The United States, and eventually the USSR, was fighting throughout Europe and into Asia. The involvement of states beyond the Western European frontier likely decreased the cultural overlaps seen amongst the combatants that helped lead to the 1914 Christmas truces.

In his research on the Siege of Stalingrad, historian Anthony Beevor describes the realities of Christmas in the conflicts since 1914. His presentation of the letters written home by the troops best exemplifies the psychological division between the two sides. According to

Beevor, ‘German letters tended to be sentimental, aching for home and family, [while] the

Russian letters that have survived clearly reveal in exorable logic that the Motherland took priority.’ 91 Despite this division, Soviet soldiers allegedly attempted a truce envoy that

Christmas, although the true nature of that visit was likely as a reconnaissance mission (as soon as they returned to their lines, on Soviet soldier immediately went to work describing the

German camp, despite having been blindfolded). The German soldiers who met their Soviet counterparts reportedly state that ‘when a war of two world outlooks is going on, it is impossible to persuade enemy soldiers by throwing words across the front lines.’ 92 This statement best

demonstrates the growing division in ideology and culture between two groups developing

throughout the twentieth century. Confirming this belief is John Dower’s work on Cultures of

War . In his research, Dower quotes Joseph Grew, Ambassador to Japan 1932-1942, who wrote

that ‘Japanese sanity cannot be measured by American standards of logic.’ 93 The cultural and

political conflicts that are seen in modern warfare are more exacerbated than those found along

91 Antony Beevor. Stalingrad . (New York, Penguin: 1998). 314. 92 Ibid, 330. 93 John W. Dower. Cultures of War: Pearl Harbor/Hiroshima/9-11/Iraq . (New York, Norton: 2010). 111.

32 the Western front in World War I. The lack of truce on the Eastern Front during the Great War reflects this likelihood.

Wars in the twentieth century also involved much higher death tolls than had been seen in previous conflicts. World War II killed between 40 and 70 million men and women, the Korean

War killed up to 4.5 million, and the war in Vietnam saw the deaths of two and a half million people 94 . The Iran-Iraq War killed as many as one and a half million on both sides and in

Kuwait. Of these numbers, a large proportion is civilian.95

The large death tolls are likely due to the improved technology of the combatants. World

War I introduced the tank and the airplane to modern warfare, and they have been developed

significantly since. The use of the airplane in war led to the increasing bombings of cities in an

attempt to stop the war production machine, and eventually to dishearten the public into

pressuring the army to capitulate. Additionally, increased range and accuracy of guns means that

wars have moved further and further away from face-to-face warfare. Guerrilla warfare, in which

the enemy combatants blend in with the community around them, has also grown more common,

as was particularly evident during the Vietnam War, and has been seen again most recently in the

conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

94 Leitenberg, Milton. ‘Deaths in Wars and Conflicts in the 20 th Century.’ Cornell University Peace Studies Program . August 2006. 9 14 and 77 http://www.cissm.umd.edu/papers/files/deathswarsconflictsjune52006.pdf 95 Hardy, Roger. ‘The Iran-Iraq war: 25 years on.’ BBC. 22 September 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4260420.stm

33 Analysis

Although fraternisations and truces along wartime frontiers are well documented throughout history, there was no reason to think that there was going to be a truce for the holiday season in 1914. In fact, as has been demonstrated, there was cause to believe that the war would continue as brutally and deadly as before, as calls from American pacifists and the Pope for a

Christmas cessation of hostilities were rejected. The reasons why the truces developed along the

Western Front are multiple and varied, and depend as much on historically entrenched ideologies and current psychological realities.

One of the reasons for the successful instigation of truces across France and Belgium was the psychological makeup of the two sides, particularly that of the German soldiers. Stories of the truces indicate that German, and particularly Saxon, regiments instigated a majority, with troops reaching out to their British, French, and Belgian counterparts. For the German soldiers far away from home, the still developing war machine could not corrupt their Christmas celebrations that year. The holiday was too deeply embedded in their psyches. Joseph Perry asserts that the special holiday was a historically powerful symbol ‘in which the intimate practices of private celebration generated enduring notions of national identity.’ 96 It was intrinsically connected with the ‘cultural foundations of the German community,’ 97 and helped to

create a ‘model national community’ 98 both at home and on the front. The unity of the home and the trenches on the Christmas holiday was especially important to maintaining the spirits of the soldiers on the field of battle. Michael Jürgs takes care to emphasise this idea of the potent

96 Perry, iii. 97 Ibid, 1. 98 Ibid, 8.

34 German Christmas spirit. He believes that many soldiers’ inclinations towards peace were the result of the memory of their childhood. 99

This German Christmas spirit was a major influence on the instigation of the truces of

1914. The soldiers were not ready to relinquish the values they had grown up with, and were unwilling to sacrifice this sacred day for yet another period of death and destruction. 100

According to Perry, most historians ‘agree that the religious belief of troops at the front depended less on formal observances and more on elements of folk belief and superstition.’ 101

This spirit was infectious, and it seems likely that the positive animation of Christmas in the

German soldiers influenced those opposite to engage in the truce alongside them.

Although the cultural significance of Christmas to the Allies is often glossed over, it

seems likely that their shared experiences at home with their families contributed to their

willingness to accept such a truce. The value the British saw in ‘the fraternisation as a matter of

time-honoured courtesies’ indicates that history and traditions would have been meaningful to

the soldiers at the front. 102 Despite the violence that surrounded them at every moment, soldiers, both Regulars and Volunteers, felt the need to acknowledge customs and encourage the continued existence respect and honour. Christmas 1914 was, according to Eksteins, ‘the last expression of the 19 th -century world of manners and morals, where the opponent was a

gentleman.’ 103 The Christmas season was a time for all combatants on the Western Front to

reflect on their families and friends at home, and to remember the ‘fundamental decency’ of

99 Jürgs 33. Translated from the original German: Bei manchen ist es die Erinnerung an die eigene Kindheit, die den Anstob gab’ 100 Weintraub in Cowley, 50. 101 Perry, 114. 102 Eksteins, 120. 103 David Brown. ‘Remembering a Victory for Human Kindness; WWI’s Puzzling, Poignant Christmas Truce.’ Washington Post . 25 December 2004. Style, C01.

35 humans. 104 Letters from soldiers at the front reported missing their families at Christmastime,

and it seems that taking a day of peace to remember the humanity of the troops and respecting

the community value that the holiday had would have had great appeal for them. In the end, the

truces were mainly a ‘spontaneous, unled cry for sanity before the advent of industrialised

war.’ 105

The most representative statements regarding the sentiments of the soldiers on that fateful day largely come from British soldiers. Second Lieutenant Cyril Drummond portrays the overtly emotional and excited view of the holiday with the exclamation that ‘Christmas comes but once a year!’ 106 Meanwhile, Bell and Bairnsfather demonstrate a more common and resigned view of the truce. For Bell, the truce was merely ‘so mutually pleasant and convenient that neither side...fires a shot.’ 107 Bairnsfather describes ‘an invisible, intangible feeling extending across the frozen swamp between the two lines, which said “This is Christmas Eve for both of us – something in common.’ 108 The stress Bairnsfather places on this statement demonstrates the relief the common soldier experienced with the cessation of hostilities, rather than the overwhelming excitement for the holiday shown by Drummond’s exclamation. These beliefs echoed by Bell and Bairnsfather represent a second reason that the truce was able to come to fruition in a time when violence and antagonism were thought to be more prevalent than peace and goodwill.

104 Weintraub in Cowley, 50. 105 Brown ‘Remembering a Victory’, C01 106 Macdonald, 50. 107 Bell, 81. 108 Bairnsfather, 70.

36 To fully appreciate these beliefs, the sentiments of these individual soldiers must be combined with knowledge of the reality of the war. The development of the war before

Christmas 1914 is well displayed by Bairnsfather in his description of ‘wind up’:

A curious thing, this ‘wind up.’ We never knew when it would come on. It is caused entirely by nerves. Perhaps an inquisitive Boche, somewhere a mile or two on the left, had thought he saw someone approaching his barbed wire; a few shots are exchanged - a shout or two, followed by more shots-panic-more shots-panic spreading-then suddenly the whole line of trenches on a front of a couple of miles succumbs to that well known malady, ‘wind up.’109 The horror that accompanied this ‘stuck for good’ mentality on both sides led to a truce that was akin to ‘spontaneous movements that topple tyrants and autocrats.’ 110 Based on these

shared feelings and experiences, it is not completely unsurprising that some sort of reprieve

developed during the holiday season. The practicality of a truce at this time outweighed the

leadership’s demands to continue to fight over the holiday season. The temporary cease-fire

allowed soldiers to clean their boots, to bury their dead, to rebuild their trenches and straighten

out their barbed wire, while also giving them a few moments of psychological reprieve. The

peace was mutually convenient and enjoyable, and few men were willing to break the sudden

peace. 111 Michael Jürgs quotes Lieutenant General Black of the 51 st Reserve Division, who

recalls that the ‘war of position is connected to a certain monotony that can easily lead to

indifference, and finally to the approval of a truce.’ 112

Further practical motives for initiating the truce have been well laid out by Eksteins in his book Rites of Spring . Both sides were experiencing a shortage of supplies and ammunition as a

109 Bairnsfather, 39. 110 Weintraub, xvii. 111 Bell, 81. 112 Jürgs, 40.

37 result of not preparing for a long war. The British were particularly suffering from a lack of men, and most of those on the line were poorly trained. By December, ‘the Old

Contemptibles…constituted little more than a fragile skeleton for the volunteer armies,’ and the new recruits would not arrive until the spring. Additionally, the German offensive, after getting bogged down in the fields of Flanders and other western cities, stalled, and the concerns of

German headquarters shifted towards the Eastern Front and the Russian opposition. 113 During this period, the ‘simple misery of the moment’ infected both sides and created connections between combatants not otherwise seen in wars since then.

These connections ensured that the everyday soldiers had more similarities with each other than with their commanders back at headquarters. 114 Additionally, the common soldier, usually of the working class, had few shared cultural values with the ‘pretentions of bourgeois bohemians’ of the leadership. 115 According the Eksteins, the tactics employed by the leadership on the Western Front ‘caused a good measure of disgruntlement’ between the men and the commanders. 116 These divisions were epitomised in a letter seized by the French from a German

soldier. The letter detailed the fraternisation of the soldiers during Christmas, and also described

French soldiers shooting their ‘own officer because he did not want to surrender in a hopeless

situation, where death would have been the only reward for bravery.’ 117 This division was not simply seen in the Allied camps. Eksteins reports that the reality of the German army was ‘its fragmentation,’ 118 and these class divisions were likely echoed in the English camps. In the end, the division between the officers and the soldiers likely played a major role in the development

113 Eksteins, 100-101. 114 Jürgs, 75. 115 Eksteins, 85. 116 Ibid, 107. 117 Ibid, 108. 118 Ibid, 99.

38 of the truce across the front. Soldiers elected not to follow orders of people removed from the front at Headquarters ordering them into no-mans land to die on top of barbed wire and other dead soldiers.

Leslie Walkinson, reflecting on his time in the trenches, described hating the Germans when they killed any member of their platoon. However, he also depicted his enemies as sympathetic people, as ‘poor so-and-sos, they’re in the same kind of muck as we are.’ 119

According to Brown and Seaton, the proximity of the trenches directly led to these positive relations. As has been described previously, the trenches at this early point in the war were very close in proximity to each other, often less than a football-field’s length away from each other, well within shouting range. This ‘closeness bred curiosity and curiosity was to be a powerful motive in the initiation of the truces to come.’ 120

During the truce both sides worked to bury their dead, either on their individual merits, or

in mass graves alongside their fallen opponents. They also worked to repair the defences of the

trenches, while reinforcing the trenches themselves, which were often flooded and poorly

constructed. Graham Williams, an English soldier at the front line described the necessity of

working on the defences ‘in daylight, uninterrupted by machine gun fire.’ 121 Both sides

recognised the futility of continuing to fight at a time when no one was making any headway,

and there was limited focus from headquarters regarding their current positions. Captain Jack of

the 1 st Cameronians goes so far as to state that the truces ‘seem to suggest that educated men

have no desire to kill one another; and that, were it not for aggressive national policies…war

119 Brown and Seaton, 23. 120 Ibid, 23. 121 Ibid, 168.

39 between civilised peoples would seldom take place.’122 This statement, although fairly prominent

along the front lines, appears grossly overstated. The situation that the soldiers were in a very

unique situation that had the perfect combination of natural events to lead to this cessation of

hostilities. If men really were unlikely to commit to war in civilised war, it would seem an

accurate assumption that the war could have ended that day in 1914. Instead it continued and

opened the world to the development of warfare on a modern and mass scale.

The Christmas truces were truly a unique experience for those along the front lines. Many

soldiers were still engaged in battle throughout the holiday season, whether due to the strength of

the animosity of the opponents or because of a lack of trust. Brown and Seaton, reporting on

British battalions, assert that some troops ignored the initiations by their enemies simply because

they ‘were uncertain as to how to respond.’ 123 Those soldiers who managed to survive through to

December 1915 and beyond would never experience such an occurrence ever again. The

situation had changed too drastically for such mass fraternisation to develop again. By 1915, ‘too

many of ours and theirs had gone west…and, besides, the trenches weren’t flooded like the first

time.’ 124 Robert Graves’ remaining service left him desensitised to the constant death that

surrounded him, a key aspect in the developing sentiment of the Christmas truces. 125

Additionally, ‘warfare had grown impersonal, the desire to wage it quite personal.’ The trenches were far enough away that now ‘no longer did you have to look at the men you killed.’ 126

Eksteins again provides a concise and accurate portrayal of the differences in the psychology of the troops between December 1914 and 1915. He articulates that

122 ‘The truce on Christmas Day in the trenches; “The shots have stopped. The war clock has stopped ticking.’ Hamilton Spectator (Ontario, Canada) December 24, 1994. Saturday Final Edition. Accessed via Interlibrary Loan. 123 Brown and Seaton, 73. 124 Graves, 322. 125 Ibid, 170. 126 ‘The Truce on Christmas Day’

40 ‘There was something in the motivation and sensibility of the frontline soldier in

December 1914 that was to disappear as the war progressed, a set of social values

and a psychological disposition that were to be drastically altered by the course of

the war.’ 127

The progression would continue throughout the war, and would further limit the amount

of fraternisation in the world beyond the Great War. Little research has been done to

discuss the possibility of a truce in modern society. There has been no information

coming out of major Western wars of the twentieth century about another truce, and that

is likely because one in the increasingly global world and inter-cultural warfare would be

near impossible. In 1914, ‘there were defined battlefields and trenches were built on

either side of them’ while in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, there are no such

battlegrounds. In these wars, ‘the front is everywhere.’ 128 Additionally, the common cultural connections seen during World War I on the Western front are largely absent in later twentieth and twenty-first century wars. Religions differ, celebrations and the ceremonies surrounding them no longer coincide, and there is likely a lack of linguistic similarities. This division was seen even in 1914, when the truce was not available on the

Eastern front with the Russians largely because of the conflict of the religions. The

Russian Orthodox Christmas, as has been discussed previously, fell on the 7 th of January

1915, and so would not have enabled a truce of such a magnitude. Compounding this issue, the Russians were also reportedly much more violent than their English and French counterparts as well. Reports from children, such as Piete Kuhr, a 12 year-old girl from the East Prussian town of Schneidemuht, that ‘the Russians mutilate the women and kill

127 Eksteins, 109. 128 ‘A Different World: Wartime Christmas Truce Impossible in Iraq.’ Spokesman Review (Spokane, WA). December 23, 2006. Idaho Edition. B6.

41 them’ demonstrate a horror that would stick with the German soldiers. 129 As news of these atrocities reached them either at home or at the front, the soldiers likely became hardened against their enemies. World War I was one of the first major involvements of civilians in warfare, with the first bomb dropped on London during the 1914 holidays, and the stories of Russian atrocities serve as a good foundation for understanding the changing psychologies that resulted from this transformation. The violence seen on the

Eastern Front, combined with the division of religious holidays, can be used as a comparison to the development of modern warfare. Wars since the winter of 1914-15 likely have not allowed for such truces due to the fundamental discrepancies between the two warring sides and the intense technical development of tactics and machinery over time.

129 Palmer and Wallis, 80.

42 Conclusion

The Christmas truces of 1914 were a remarkable occurrence, unexpected by most people not at the front. To many, it seemed that ‘the Christmas spirit had simply conquered the battlefield.’ 130 While the holiday spirit did play a major role in bringing about the truce, it was not the only means necessary for the instigation of such a miraculous event. The developing nature of warfare, combining the traditional sentiments of a gentleman’s affair as epitomised by the British with the horrors of a clearly industrialising and expanding industry, directly led to the instigation of the soldiers meeting in no-mans land to bury their dead and trade souvenirs. Historians have made mention of both of these aspects in their writings on the truces and World War I in general. Modris Eksteins maintains that the truce proved ‘how resilient certain attitudes and values were.’ 131 Stanley Weintraub, meanwhile, states that ‘as long as the troops in the trenches saw themselves as a sideshow that only put them at risk, they preferred to make life at least marginally bearable.’ 132

Historians’ views are largely backed up by the writings of the soldiers. Bruce

Bairnsfather describes ‘this little episode’ as an ‘invigorating tonic, and a welcome relief to the…monotony of antagonism.’ 133 The truce served to demonstrate the ‘insanity of war’ 134 and to provide one last day of normalcy before the transition to modern warfare truly began in earnest. It was hoped that the truce may serve as a catalyst to end the war,

130 Eksteins, 111. 131 Ibid, 98. 132 Weintraub in Cowley, 63. 133 Bairnsfather, 73. 134 Weintraub, 33. Original quote from Private Carl Muhlegg, who was stationed at Ypernbogen during the Christmas holiday.

43 but this poetic conclusion was not to be. Instead it was, as Bairnsfather states, ‘a nice, fine day, that was all.’ 135

The truces were not destined to be repeated in the following years of the war. The

reality of war changed too drastically, and the conditions were so altered from 1914 to

1915 that fraternisation was not possible. By Christmas 1915, soldiers had experienced

the first use of poison gas, Zeppelin bombing raids on Britain, and the use of submarine

warfare, amongst further developments of field technology. 136 Additionally, after word got back to headquarters, both sides issued orders against further fraternisation, occasionally under the punishment of death. 137 The hatred for the other side had reached

a precipice, and any overtures were promptly shot down, often literally. Modern warfare

is too technologically advanced, the enemy too abstract, and the cultures too varied to

engage in fraternisation, even on a more minor scale. The Great War fundamentally

altered the way the enemy was engaged.

135 Bairnsfather, 75. 136 Brown and Seaton, 195. 137 Ibid,197.

44 Appendix A:

Comparison between the European emigration rates: 1865-1913 (per thousand residential pop) Country Average 1865-1884 Average 1885-1913 Total Change (%) Germany 2.47 1.01 -59 Russia 4.30 2.84 -34 Ireland 13.77 9.69 -30 Switzerland 1.92 1.67 -13 UK 6.70 6.23 -7 Norway 6.95 6.52 -6 Denmark 2.49 2.70 8 Sweden 4.67 5.43 16 France 0.14 0.19 31 Netherlands 3.14 5.04 60 Belgium 2.26 3.71 64 Portugal 2.75 5.90 115 Spain 2.26 5.99 165 Italy 3.56 12.25 244 Austria 2.23 11.8 430 Hungary 0.38 3.92 945 Khoudour-Casteras, David. Welfare State and Labour Mobility. The Journal of Economic History , Vol. 68, No 1 (March 2008). 211-243. 215.

Appendix B:

Gross and Net Emigration in Europe, 1880-1913 (per 1,000 population/annum decade averages) 1850-59 1860-69 1870-79 1880-89 1890-99 1900-13 Belgium 1.9 2.22 2.03 2.18 1.96 2.32 Gross 0.66 0.17 0.93 -1.06 -1.80 -2.88 Net Britain 4.38 2.47 3.87 5.71 3.92 7.08 Gross 1.29 1.52 3.23 0.93 3.31 Net France 0.12 0.16 0.29 0.18 0.15 Gross 0.11 0.09 0.19 0.11 0.01 Net Germany 1.80 1.61 1.35 2.91 1.18 0.43 Gross 1.61 1.35 2.89 1.12 -2.45 Net Italy 4.29 6.09 8.65 17.97 Gross 6.78 13.01 Net Spain 3.91 4.62 6.70 Gross 0.98 0.42 2.50 Net Hatton, Timothy and Jeffrey Williamson. ‘The Age of Mass Migration.’ (Oxford University Press, Oxford: 1998). 12.

45 Bibliography:

PRIMARY SOURCES:

Newspapers • ‘Christmas Amenities at the Front,’ The Scotsman , 31 December 1914. • ‘The Counter-Revolution in Spain.’ The (London) Times , Monday, Sep 11, 1843 • ‘Incidents of the Crimean War.’ New York Times . April 1883. Accessed 30 November 2010.

Short Stories • Graves, Robert. ‘Christmas Truce,’ in The Penguin Book of First World War Stories , ed. Barbara Korte. (London: Penguin, 2007).

Compilations • Brown, Malcolm and Shirley Seaton, ed. Christmas Truce . (New York: Leo Cooper, 1984). • Cleaver, Alan and Lesley Part, ed. Not a shot was fired: Letters form the Christmas Truce of 1914 . (London: Alan Cleaver and Lesley Park, 2006). • Hamilton, Andrew and Alan Reed, ed. Meet at Dawn, Unarmed. (Warwick: Dene House Publishing, 2009) • MacDonald, Lyn, ed. 1914 to 1918: Voices and Images of the Great War. (London: Michael Joseph, 1988). • Palmer, Svetlana and Sarah Wallis, ed. Intimate Voices from the First World War. (William Morrow: NY, 2003).

Diaries and Letters • Bairnsfather, Bruce. Bullets and Billets . (New York: GP Putnam’s Sons, 1917). • Bell, Douglas Herbert. A Soldier’s Diary of the Great War . (London: Faber and Gwyer, 1929). • Binding, Rudolf, A Fatalist at War trans. Ian F.D. Morrow. (London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd, 1929) • Chater, AD. ‘Letter to Mother of 25-27 December 1914.’ Imperial War Museum Files , 1697 87/56/1 . • Drummond, CAF. ‘Memories of World War I.’ Transcribed. Imperial War Museum Files . 1694 87/56/1. • Gibbs, Philip. Across the Frontiers . (New York: Doubleday, Doran & Company, Inc., 1938). • Hobbs, Captain Reginald, Quoted in ‘Here we are Xmas Day in the trenches, of course it’s rather difficult to realise that it is Christmas.’ Western Mail . Cardiff, 9 March 2007. • Hulse, Edward. ‘Letter to Uncle Mi, from the Trenches, 2/2/15.’ Imperial War Museum Files . 2621 86/30/1. • Kennedy, Maev. ‘Carols, pudding, and football: a letter from the trenches on Christmas day in 1914.’ The Guardian . 2006.

46 • Lloyd-Burch, David. ‘Letter, Monday, Royal Military College.’ Imperial War Museum Files . 1423 87/26/1. • Spencer, WPB. ‘Letter, Monday, Royal Military College.’ Imperial War Museum Files . 1684 87/56/1. • ‘The truce on Christmas Day in the trenches; “The shots have stopped. The war clock has stopped ticking.’ Hamilton Spectator (Ontario, Canada) December 24, 1994. Saturday Final Edition. • Thomas, Major. ‘Christmas Peace 1914: At the Flanders Front.’ Letter. Imperial War Museum Files . 2621 86/30/1.

SECONDARY SOURCES

Pre-World War I • Carter, Major Kevin W. ‘Fraternization.’ Military Law Review. Volume 113, Summer 1986. 61-136. • Eckert, Ralph Lowell. John Brown Gordon: Soldier, Southerner, American. (Louisiana State University Press: Baton Rouge, 1989). • Hatton, Timothy and Jeffrey Williamson. The Age of Mass Migration. (Oxford University Press, Oxford: 1998). • Khoudour-Casteras, David. ‘Welfare State and Labour Mobility.’ The Journal of Economic History , Vol 68, No 1 (March 2008). 211-243. 215. • Webster, Linden Bradfield. ‘Linden Bradfield Webster’s Reminisces of the Siege of Mafeking.’ Journal of Military History . Vol. 1 No. 7. 1970.

Christmas Truce • Brown, David. ‘Remembering a Victory for Human Kindness; WWI’s Puzzling, Poignant Christmas Truce.’ Washington Post . 25 December 2004. Style, C01. • Brown, Malcolm. ‘A Strange Kind of Christmas’ in The Imperial War Museum Book of 1914: The Men Who Went to War . (London: Pen Grand Strategy Series, 2005). • Jurgs, Michael. Der kleine Frieden im Groben Krieg . (Munich: Goldmann, 2003) • Kennedy, Maev, ‘Carols, pudding and football: a letter from the trenches on Christmas day in 1914’ in The Guardian. 8 November 2006. Guardian Home Pages, 7. • Perry, Joseph B. The Private Life of the Nation: Christmas and the Invention of Modern Germany . (PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2001). • Spartacus Educational. ‘Christmas Truce.’ http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWchristmas.htm . • ‘The truce on Christmas Day in the trenches; “The shots have stopped. The war clock has stopped ticking’ in Hamilton Spectator (Ontario, Canada). 24 December 1994, Saturday Final Edition. • Weintraub, Stanley. Silent Night: The Story of the World War I Christmas Truce . (New York: The Free Press, 2001). • Weintraub, Stanley. ‘The Christmas Truce’ in The Great War , Robert Cowley, ed. (Random House. New York: 2003). 50-64.

47 World War I • Cowley, Robert, ed. The Great War . (New York: Random House, 2003). • Eksteins, Modris. Rites of Spring . (Modris Eksteins: Massachusetts, 1989).

World War II and Beyond • ‘A Different World: Wartime Christmas Truce Impossible in Iraq’ in Spokesman Review (Spokane, WA). 23 December 2006, Idaho Edition, B6. • Beevor, Antony. Stalingrad . (Penguin: New York, 1998). • Brzezinski, Zbigniew. Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty-First Century . (New York: Charles Scribner, 1993). • Dower, John W. Cultures of War: Pearl Harbor/Hiroshima/9-11/Iraq . (New York: Norton, 2010). • Hardy, Roger. ‘The Iran-Iraq war: 25 years on.’ BBC. 22 September 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4260420.stm • Harris, Nigel. ‘The Return of Metropolitan Capital.’ (IB Taurus and Co Ltd, London: 2003). • Leitenberg, Milton. ‘Deaths in Wars and Conflicts in the 20 th Century.’ Cornell University Peace Studies Program. August 2006. 9 14 and 77 http://www.cissm.umd.edu/papers/files/deathswarsconflictsjune52006.pdf • Moya, Jose C and Adam McKeown. ‘World Migration in the Long Twentieth Century.’ Michael Adas, ed. Essays on the Twentieth Century. Michael Adas, ed. (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2010). 9-52.

48