On December 24, 1914 an incredible event happened in the trenches of Western Europe. A spontaneous act of peace took place on the western front as German, French, and English troops laid down their arms and made peace. The war that had raged on for the past five months was paused so that the men could meet each other on the field of battle as individuals and join in fellowship on one of the holiest of Christian holidays. The troops sang carols, buried their dead, read psalms, and exchanged gifts. They set aside the differences that their respective countries had and came together as human beings, gentlemen soldiers who gave their enemies respect and cared about the rules of war and combat. This event known now as the Christmas Armistice represents a fundamental change in the dynamics of war.1 It is purely symbolic offering no real change, yet it is a guide post that marks the end of the nineteenth century and its ways of war. As much as the brutality during the later part of the First World War serves to open the next, the Christmas Armistice serves as the end the chapter of warfare being a pursuit of noble gentlemen with chivalric like code.

In order to understand how the Christmas Armistice came to fruition one must understand the conditions in which the troops were fighting. Many new methods of war first saw massive use in World War I, poison gas, machine guns, tanks, and aerial bombing. However, the one most often associated with the horrible impact of the war is the cruel existence of trench warfare. Perhaps this is because although the former were horrible ways to die, trench warfare was a horrible way to survive. Those who did survive it long carried the wounds of shell shock know known as post traumatic stress disorder. So intense was the trench combat of the Great War, that about ten percent of the fighting soldiers were killed2. This is in direct comparison to the four and a half percent who perished during World War II3. Of the British and Dominion troops who served on the Western Front, about twelve percent would not return home, while the total casualties (killed or wounded) lingered at about fifty-six percent4. When one considers the fact that for every front line infantrymen in the trenches there was several support staff that never saw direct combat one sees how few soldiers in the trenches came out unscathed. Death in the trenches came in many forms. Without antibiotics and with medical services best described as primitive, infections of many forms took the lives of men in combat. Small cuts and scrapes often became fatal through infection and gangrene. Germans’ war records show that twelve percent of leg wounds and twenty-three percent of arm wounds ended in death through infection. A wound in the abdomen was a worse prognosis as only one percent survived. The hygiene and sanitary conditions of the trenches were abhorrent. Dysentery, typhus, and cholera all claimed the lives of many soldiers5. Rats thrived in the trench system and as such, soldiers suffered from parasites such as lice and related infections. Poor hygiene also led to fungal conditions, such as trench mouth and trench foot.6 All said trench warfare was a horrible way to survive. The deplorable conditions led to what was almost a trauma bond between two troops on the front, feeling that the enemy had just as horrible existence as they did and looking for ways to improve their lot.7 Sociobiologist Richard Dawkins used cross trench cooperation as an example of an iterated prisoner's dilemma where people on opposite sides cooperate with the hope of reciprocity and/or out of fear of reprisal, in his seminal work the genetics of behavior, The Selfish Gene.8

The Christmas Armistice may have begun as a selfish deed, as a need on such a sentimental day to have a reprieve from the carnage of war. But it became much more than a simple cease fire in many areas the moment men emptied out of the trenches and spent time face to face with the enemy forging lasting bonds of respect. The Christmas Armistice became an event long held in the memory of history. It began primarily along the Ypres salient, but also to a lesser extent along all parts of the western front of the First World War soldiers on both sides of the line. Mainly just the British and the Germans laid down their arms for Christmas, with the truce lasting in some parts of the front until well past New Years and in other parts ending on Christmas day9. In some sections of the front the truce started late on Christmas Eve night. The Germans, who had been sent small Christmas trees, placed trees with candle lights up on the parapets of their trenches which lead to ovations of peace10. In other sections of the front the peace started as the troops sang carols to each other.11 In yet still more parts of the front the truce started with a simple request for a reprieve from fighting in order to bury their dead.12

One particularly lively account is that of C. I. Stockwell, Captain of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers. According to Captain Stockwell, the truce started in his sector after lunch on Christmas day. The fog had lifted and the Fusiliers were shocked to find the German parapets lined with unarmed soldiers. When the Germans saw their English counterparts they shouted to them, “Don't shoot. We don't want to fight today. We will send you some beer." Next by Captain Stockwell’s account the Germans rolled out a cask of beer. With his men excited, he called for his counterpart on the German side of the lines to meet him in no man’s land. The two captains discussed how both were under orders not to fraternize on Christmas day and for there to be no more informal truces. However, both came to the agreement to hold fire until the following morning. The German captain then called for one of his troops and he brought out a few glasses and some bottles of beer. The two officers shared a drink and saluted. The British troops brought the Germans some plum pudding as a thank you for the keg of beer. The next morning, after both sides had kept their word, the two commanding officers again saluted and fired shots in the air symbolizing the return to combat.13

Another often repeated tale of the armistice was of a football (soccer) game in the middle of no man’s land. Accounts differ to the details of the game that lead some scholars to believe it to be apocryphal. However, when one looks at the number of stories of such matches and combines it with a view of how large the scope of the Christmas Armistice was then it appears that one, if not several of such matches, did in fact take place. German Leutnant Johannes Niemann of the 133rd Royal Saxon Regiment wrote a detailed account of his recollection of the events of the Christmas of 1914. The officer told of how he awoke on Christmas morning to tales of his troops and the Scottish Seaforth Highlanders, whom they opposed, fraternizing on the front. He looked through binoculars to see the events unfold himself. He watched as the troops exchanged cigarettes, schnapps, and chocolate with each other. A short while later one of the Scottish troops produced a football (soccer ball) and the troops began to play. The officer commented on how the troops played poorly, but with much enthusiasm. He also told a humorous tale of how the Germans were very surprised to find that the Scottish wore no underwear with their kilts, as revealed by a gust of wind during the course of the game. Leutnant Niemann went on to state that the Germans won the game three to two. The game ended when his superiors heard of the truce and called for the German troops to return to their trenches.14

Both the British and the German high command were hard pressed to reengage the hostilities. Alternate troops, who had not participated in the truce, were shipped in from other units. Units that had been particularly complacent in the truce were outright replaced. The Officer Class bandied about threats of court-martial for those who continued to make unofficial peace with the enemy. The high command needed to threaten court-martial to maintain discipline. When ordered to fire on the British a regiment in the XIX Saxon Corps replied, “we can’t they are good fellows.” The officers replied, “Fire, or we do, and not at the enemy!”15 After the truces of 1914, the British high command ordered slow and continuous artillery barrages, trench raids, and mortar bombardments in order to eliminate downtime and discourage fraternization.16 These methods cost unconsciousable amounts of lives, but were unimaginably effective at reducing the opportunities for fraternization for the remainder of the war. To further discourage another armistice the high command made conspicuous examples of individuals who fraternized or organized truces. Captain Iain Colquhoun of the 1st Scots Guard was court-martialed for organizing a truce in order to bury the dead on Christmas of 1915. This mini-truce was followed by half an hour of fraternization in no-man’s land with a cease fire for the remainder of Christmas Day.17 Captain Colquhoun was merely reprimanded, but the message was crystal clear for British officers who were career-minded. No truces would be tolerated.

The events of the Christmas Armistice are victim to speculation and apocryphal stories, as much as they are the product of scholarly research. Part of this is due to the spontaneous nature of the Armistice. There was no military order demanding the truce, no letter or article suggesting the idea of a truce. Most of the details of the truce have been pieced together from letters from troops who experienced the truce first-hand and a few reports that took place in the wake of the events of Christmas of 1914. There has been few monographs published on the subject and as such many of the details on the events and how they came to pass have been sketchy at best. In order to best explain the process by which the Christmas Armistice came about one must first examine some of the basic facts about the Armistice.

First of all, as stated previously, the Christmas Armistice was entirely spontaneous. The only precursor to the truce was when very early in the war newly installed pontiff, Pope Benedict XV called for the fighting to cease during Christmas.18 This appeal was outright ignored by the governments and militaries on both sides of the hostilities. As far as historical records show, there was no formal planning on the part of any nation’s officer corps, nor amongst the enlisted men to cease open hostilities on Christmas Eve 1914. The spontaneous nature of the truce meant that there could be root cause for the truce; some letters dictate that British troops heard their German counterparts on the other side of no mans land singing Christmas carols and they decided to join in with the singing. Frank Richards, a private in the Royal Welch Fusiliers, stated that in his part of the front both the English and the German made signs wishing their opponents a 'Merry Christmas'.19 These ovations led to some of the men becoming braver and crossing the lines into no man’s land and meeting the opposing side. The reaction of the officer corps ranged from apathy to acceptance to joining in themselves. Accounts from soldiers who were present at the Christmas Armistice often show a certain level of incredulousness at the events as they are unfolding. One solider stated in a letter:

“They finished their carol and we thought that we ought to retaliate in some way, so we sang 'The first Noël', and when we finished that they all began clapping; and then they struck up another favourite of theirs, 'O Tannenbaum'. And so it went on. First the Germans would sing one of their carols and then we would sing one of ours, until when we started up 'O Come All Ye Faithful' the Germans immediately joined in singing the same hymn to the Latin words 'Adeste Fidéles'. And I thought, well, this was really a most extraordinary thing - two nations both singing the same carol in the middle of a war.”20

The next thing to remember about the Christmas truce was that it was not localized or isolated. The truce took place at various sites all along the western front. Troops in all parts of the lines experienced the truce, and no two parts of the front were alike. As such, the truce started in and manifested its self in various ways. The Christmas truce, although possibly most widely spread, was not the first of such minor and unofficial armistices. In fact in the early stages of war such things were very common with both sides brokering periods of down time at breakfast or to bury their dead21. When the upper divisional commanders learned of this fraternization they immediately forbade it. General Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien, commander of the British II Corps, ordered officers under him to, “impress on all subordinate commanders the absolute necessity of encouraging the offensive spirit of the troops, while on the defensive, by every means in their power.” General Smith-Dorrien added, “Friendly intercourse with the enemy, unofficial armistices (e.g. 'we won't fire if you don't' etc.) and the exchange of tobacco and other comforts, however tempting and occasionally amusing they may be, are absolutely prohibited.”22 Obviously by the involvement of so many troops in the Christmas Armistice this order was largely ignored.

The last thing that one need to remember when studying the Christmas Armistice is that it was the first and last of its kind. Although there were minor predecessors and progeny to the Christmas Armistice, including a similar one on the eastern front in 1918 during the Easter season, there has not been an unofficial armistice this big since the 1914 one.23 It is this fact that most marks the events of December 1914 most truly as a defining moment in history. But what led to this form of mass civil disobedience? What would cause troop after troop, including many who were members of the officer class, to ignore the general order of non fraternization? To answer this question one must look at the nature of combat in World War I in general and the method of trench combat in specific.

As stated previously modern military technology and in turn trench warfare altered the face of war permanently. A distinct parallel can be drawn between changes in the nature of combat and the changes in the nature of combatants. Combat prior to world war one was a different beast all together. Prior to world war one armies more or less met each other face to face on the battle field. Wars were fought by lines, rows and columns, and won by cavalry and infantry charges. The Napoleonic tactics of charges to break lines and attempts to out flank the opponent were still the general order of battle. The machine gun and more accurate rifles altered this style of combat permanently. Soon the distance for accurate combat nearly doubled to over a thousand yards and with rapid fire machine guns an entire column of troops could be mowed down before reaching their goal. No longer was the enemy face for face and no longer were they seen as human beings.24 Do not mistake this as a romanticization of a bygone era of warfare. War is, always was, and forever will be a horrible blood thirsty exchange of lives. That loss of life is the very nature of war. However, during the nineteenth century, warfare was often seen as a gentlemanly exercise. Combat was the sport of kings and armies were for the most part entirely professional and a certain amount of professional courtesy on the battlefield was expected when fighting other “civilized” nations. Modern mechanized combat took away the human face of war. The enemy was made out to be inhuman monsters, the Fritz that played football on Christmas morphed into a soulless Hun. Gone forever was the old structure of combat that first sprung up in the renaissance. The ways of Napoleon and of other generals past was long gone. If the innovations that came to fruition in the First World War, machine guns, heavy long range artillery, tanks, air combat, and chemical weapons all served as nails in the coffin of this era of combat, then the Christmas Armistice was without a doubt its wake.

The spirit of the Christmas of 1914 was best summed up in the words of a soldier who experienced that day first hand, “This experience has been the most practical demonstration I have seen of 'Peace on earth and goodwill towards men.”25 This spirit of goodwill is rarely seen on both sides of the front during this day and age. Too often the propaganda of the time paints the enemy as a demon to be slain. This is not to say that this characterization of enemy combatants is always wrong. As war becomes more horrible, those who seek it out for reasons other then self preservation must in turn be more horrible. As the world becomes more united in peace, then those who seek to disturb that peace must be more and more divided in beliefs and ideology. This gulf will end the chance of another Christmas Armistice from ever happening, and it is this gulf that makes the Christmas Armistice a demarcation line in history.