Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Of War, Peace and the Christmas Truce
This has been a year of war, not peace, when a president elected to end conflicts instead expanded the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. So as it closes we would do well to recall an old warrior who came to see the futility of fighting. British veteran Harry Patch was the last survivor of World War I's brutal trench warfare.
Patch, who died in July at age 111, fought for a year with the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry before returning home to work as a plumber, raise a family and disappear into relative obscurity.
A modest man who had refused to speak of his experience in the trenches until it was pointed out that he was among the last survivors of "the war to end all wars," the aging vet finally told his tale to the BBC. What he described was the "calculated and condoned slaughter of human beings" on the Western Front. "Too many died," declared Patch. "War isn't worth one life."
In an autobiography published two years before his death, "The Last Fighting Tommy," Patch bemoaned: "(The) politicians who took us to war should have been given the guns and told to settle their differences themselves, instead of organizing nothing better than legalized mass murder."
The veteran's passing in July brought many tributes. Yet it would seem that the finest memorial to Patch and others who recognized the futility of the First World War in particular, and of wars in general, was erected when the veteran still lived.
On Nov. 11, 2008 - the 90th anniversary of that 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month when World War I ended - there was dedicated in Frélinghien, France, a memorial to the most remarkable event not merely of that particular conflict but perhaps of all conflicts.
The memorial recalls a soccer game played on Christmas Day 1914 between men from the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers and the 134th Saxon Infantry Regiment. The Saxons won, 2-1.
Then the two teams partook of plum pudding proffered by the Welshmen and a barrel of beer rolled onto the field by the Saxons. They sang a few carols and hung candles from a bush in the rough fashion of a Christmas tree.
Those who know their military history will recognize that what was remarkable about the game was that it involved soldiers in the service of the British king and German kaiser who, only hours before, had been battling one another - and who, in short order, would be battling once again.
They were participants in an event that was almost lost to history: the Christmas Truce of 1914.
The British and German governments denied that the truce even took place. War historians neglected this chapter in the story of "the war to end all wars." But those who participated in that soccer game and sang those carols remembered.
The last to recall the truce was Alfred Anderson, who died in 2005 at 109. In his final years, new generations turned to Anderson for confirmation of what was called "a short peace in a terrible war."
That peace, which was initiated not by presidents or prime ministers but by the soldiers themselves, serves to this day as a reminder that war is seldom so necessary - or so unstoppable - as politicians would have us believe.
So it comes as no surprise that the Christmas Truce of 1914 is a bit of history that many in power have neglected.
But Anderson's long survival, and his clear memory, made it impossible to write this chapter out of history.
On Dec. 25, 1914, Anderson was an 18-year-old soldier serving with the 5th Battalion, Black Watch, of the British Army, one of the first to engage in the bloody trench warfare, which was the ugliest manifestation of fighting that claimed 16 million lives. But on that day, there was no violence.
Rather, Anderson recalled in an interview on the 90th anniversary of the truce, "there was a dead silence that morning, right across the land as far as you could see. We shouted ‘Merry Christmas,' even though nobody felt merry."
The calls of "Merry Christmas" from the Brits were answered by Germans singing: "Stille Nacht. Heilige Nacht. Alles Schlaft, einsam wacht."
The Brits responded by singing "Silent Night" in English. Then, from the trenches opposite them, climbed a German soldier who held a small tree lit with candles and shouted in broken English, "Merry Christmas. We not shoot. You not shoot."
Thus began the Christmas Truce. Soldiers of both armies - more than a million in all - climbed from the trenches along the Western Front to exchange cigarettes and military badges. To play soccer, they used the helmets they had taken off as goalposts. And they did not rush to again take up arms. Along some stretches of the front, the truce lasted into January of 1915.
Finally, distant commanders forced the fighting to begin anew.
Thus it has ever been with war. As Harry Patch, whose service came after the Christmas Truce, noted in his autobiography, the politicians who send young men (and now young women) to fight and die rarely know and even more rarely recall the dark truths of the wars they begin.
But in this holiday season, as Christians mark the birth of the Nazarene known as the Prince of Peace, we might pause to recognize the wisdom of the old soldiers like Alfred Anderson, who celebrated "a short peace in a terrible war," and Harry Patch, who concluded that war itself "isn't worth one life."
- Posted in


20 Comments so far
Show All"...participants in an event that was almost lost to history: the Christmas Truce of 1914.."
As a Brit, I do want to say that the story of the 1914 Christmas truce is very well known here - well enough for a comedy website to put up an item last week claiming that the descendants of one of the Germans involved admitted that they were offside when they scored that winning goal.
That is not to say that the thrust of John Nichols' article is in any way false. Indeed, I am delighted to see this bit of history given attention over on your side of the Pond. That distant holocaust is now slipping out of living memory - it's up to us now to learn and apply its terrible lessons.
"the Germans ... were offside when they scored that winning goal."
LOL!
actually both teams were "offside".
the lesson of sport is blind loyalty.
us versus them.
This article by John Nichols recalls the words of a person who was much more deserving of a peace prize than Barack Obama.
"The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and all to lose-especially their lives."
"They have always taught and trained you to believe it to be your patriotic duty to go to war and to have yourselves slaughtered at their command. But in all the history of the world, you, the people, have never had a voice in declaring war, and strange as it certainly appears, no war by any nation in any age has ever been declared by the people."
The above two quotes were stated by one of the greatest Americans this country has ever produced and that would be the former American labor and political leader Eugene Victor Debs.
Also, to follow up on Mr. Nichols' recommendation that we pause to think about the consequences of war, a good start would be to read the work of the trench poets that came from those who lived through the horrors of The Great War. An excellent book that recounts the works of these people as well as prose is Minds at War: Poetry and Experience of the First World War which is edited by David Roberts and features works and comments of that time by such people as Siegfried Sassoon, Thomas Hardy, Bertrand Russell, Rupert Brooke, H.G. Wells, Arnold Bennett, George Bernard Shaw, Wilfred Owen, John McCrae [who wrote In Flanders Fields], the American Alan Seeger and his most famous poem Rendezvous with Death, Robert Graves, et al. The book explores the reasons why countries sent so many people to a hellish existence in the trenches of Europe during that time period. Yet no lesson appears to have been learned today as our government continued to send its young into battle to die for a less than noble cause.
Eugene V. Debs was a great and decent man.
We need a President (and other politicians) like him. And we don't have many decent politicians. My statement is blunt and derogatory, but it IS true.
Politicians like Dennis Kucinich are few. God, how I wish he had won in 2008. Then American would be on the upswing instead of sliding to our downfall.
Why is it that so many Americans are afraid of this, afraid of that, and practically idolize the (current) military, when it SHOULD be considered about on par with someone cleaning out sewage pipes? All of our current military volunteered for our current wars which are both illegal and are both despicable. Rather than enlist, these guys should have protested STRONGLY to Bush/Cheney/Obama to get the hell out and to stop bullying other countries.
And to stop being such cowards. Look to the citizens of many other countries, such as Denmark, who don't spend huge amounts of money on the military AND are STILL not particularly scared of terrorists.
(When one is LOGICAL and looks at the numbers, terrorists are WAY down the list of hazards that Americans face. The fact is, most Americans are cowards.)
Also, in your list, Wilfred Owen's poem of World War I is one of my favorite poems about any subject.
Thank you for the recommendation of "Minds at War". I don't have the room or money to buy all those books, so the compilation of some of my favorite poets and authors is very welcome. Joe
The phrase 'Christmas truce' reminded me of another Christmas season without any sort of truce.
I rode the subways in New York City then, 1972, while half way round the world the U.S. intensified its bombing of North Vietnam over the holiday season.
I was bitter beyond describing; and a few years later the architect of that rain of terror, Henry Kissinger, was given the Nobel Peace Prize.
Lest we forget recent History.
Sadam, the man who calmly went to the gallows, pre USA invasion, Challenged Bush to settle the dispute man to man in Solo Combat.
Of course chicken hawk Bush refused.
Also I have heard of a spiritual vision in the sky during the Christmas truce.
"Everyone but Christians understands that Jesus was nonviolent."-Gandhi
It is Failures of Intelligence that has reaped the Militarization of Christianity
"The Crusade for a Christian Military: Jesus Killed Mohammed" by Jeff Sharlet in HARPER'S May 2009 edition is a chilling clarion call regarding the entrenchment of Christian fundamentalism in the USA military beginning during the Cold War that accelerated during the Vietnam era which has wrecked havoc on the very soul of our nation.
Fundamentalist [referred to as evangelical by Sharlet] Chaplains began to join the military in droves as they aligned themselves with the Industrial Military Complex in opposition with Catholics and mainline moderate Protestant denominations such as Methodists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians who were of one voice speaking out against American terrorism in Vietnam and for following in the ways of the nonviolent Jesus.
“Starting in 1987, Protestant denominations were lumped together simply as “Protestant”; moreover, the Pentagon began accrediting hundreds of evangelical and Pentecostal “endorsing agencies,” allowing graduates of fundamentalist Bible colleges—which often train clergy to view those from other faiths as enemies of Christ—to fill up nearly the entire allotment for Protestant chaplains. Today, more than two thirds of the military’s 2,900 active-duty chaplains are affiliated with evangelical or Pentecostal denominations." [1]
"For decades, the military built a sense of solidarity out of a singular purpose, the Cold War struggle between free markets and state-planned economies—the shining city on a hill versus the evil empire…meshed neatly with ideologies [that connected] nationalism and fundamentalism…Communism…the dark alternative should we fail to unite. Fundamentalism thrived…a neat, black-and-white [theology and] a foreign policy. The end of the Cold War deprived militant evangelicals of that clarity [and] the emergence of “radical Islam” [became] the object of a new Cold War." [Ibid]
The roots of American evangelism sprang from the original altar call for Christians to stand up against slavery. What has been passing for Christianity in our military today is the antithesis of what Jesus was all about.
The rest:
http://wearewideawake.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1267&Itemid=219
Sioux Rose
EILLEEN: Very important post. Too many don't realize what this "Christianizing" of the military really means. In my view it is not just an oxymoron, it is THE oxymoron, for inciting the idea that any god wants persons to kill persons is hardly any mark of allegiance to Christ, prince of peace, or any genuine spiritual Cause. In fact, it's a grotesque and lethal blasphemy. The only god such an ethos serves is the one the Romans related to war and killing, Mars. And in America, it's Mars that rules, not Jesus.
Court: Mars'Hall
Most Americans do not despise violence and war.
Therefore, most Americans are mentally sick and twisted as regards the military.
I can only sigh, and hope, that more Americans will soon look at life and humanity and war the way that Harry Patch did.
Today, we have no military draft and we are fighting in two wars which are illegal and rotten.
Therefore, no one (who is decent and has an above mentally-retarded I.Q.) should be enlisting in the military.
If no one enlisted in the military and when a draft was started, no one reported for military service, our government servants (our politician-employees) would get the picture quickly that the American population was pissed at them for their illegal and indecent bullying of other countries and for their cowardly feelings about numerous "boogymen" around every corner.
Americans need to look to the citizens of countries such as Denmark (who has a military budget a teeny-tiny fraction of ours) and learn about how to NOT be cowards and bullies.
Two thousand years ago, there was lively debate about who Jesus was, and why he came.
Churches before Emperor Constantine legitimized Christianity were hot beds of individuality and not the institutions that have become big business today.
Jesus said The PEACEMAKERS are the children of God-NOT those that bomb, torture or occupy others-and that he came that we would have life to the full; abundant life [John 10:10]
And THAT takes deep thought and wrestling with The Divine.
"To think deeply in our culture is to grow angry and to anger others; and if you cannot tolerate this anger, you are wasting the time you spend thinking deeply. One of the rewards to deep thought is the hot glow of anger at discovering a wrong, but if anger is taboo, thought will starve to death."-Jules Henry
The first mention of Israel in the Bible is in Genesis 32, when Jacob wrestled, struggled and then clung to the Divine being and was then renamed Israel.
Jesus was never a Christian.
In fact the term 'Christian' was not even coined until the days of Paul, about 3 decades after Jesus walked the earth as a man.
Jesus was a social justice, radical revolutionary Palestinian devout Jewish road warrior who rose up and challenged the job security of the Temple authorities by teaching the people they did NOT need to pay the priests for ritual baths or sacrificing livestock to be OK with God; for God already LOVED them just as they were: sinners, poor, diseased, outcasts, widows, orphans, refugees and prisoners all living under Roman Military Occupation.
What got Jesus crucified was disturbing the status quo of the Roman Occupying Forces of his time, by teaching the subversive concept that Caesar only had power because God allowed it and that God preferred the humble sinner, the poor, diseased, outcasts, widows, orphans, refugees and prisoners all living under Roman Occupation above the elite and arrogant.
The early followers and lovers of Jesus were called members of THE WAY-being THE WAY he taught one should be:
Nonviolent, a Peacemaker and one who did the will of the Father.
"What does God require? He has told you o'man! Be just, be merciful, and walk humbly with your Lord." -Micah 6:8
The rest:
http://wearewideawake.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=825&Itemid=195
Not once did Jesus speak out against the roman occupation of Judea. You are correct though about speaking out against the church leaders of his day. You must remember that the Roman govenor of Judea wanted to release Jesus and it was the Temple priests that insisted Jesus must crusified.
"Not once did Jesus speak out against the roman occupation of Judea."
We don't really know whether Jesus, if he existed, ever did speak out against Roman occupation. The Gospels were written between 60 years (Mark) and 100 years (John) after Jesus' death. Various Epistles were written earlier. But all New Testament texts must be read in the political/historical contexts in which they were written and the varied, complex purposes for which they were written.
I have been wondering about why Jesus became "necessary" in the first century after he lived. What I mean is - there have always been good people speaking about peace and the poor, but they are routinely ignored or kept at the margins. What drove that first popularizing impulse that ultimately led to the development of the idea of Christianity. (Of course once it got into the hands of priests and institutions, it became a self-perpetuating matter of control and careerism, which are familiar to us and easier to grasp.)
So what is the political / historical / psychological context that led to the writing and popularization as exemplified by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Why did people pay attention? Why did people accept the claim of a virgin birth, which would rarely have prevented a stoning in those days? What was it that made large numbers of people accept the idea that he was the son of God, an idea that is normally dismissed as presumptuous or delusional?
Joe
I wish this were posted at a "better time".Tony
MEMORIES
Have the memories of times past come to the fore bringing feeling of joy for things done for others or the giving that, a one or more, may have a portion to lessen their worries.
It is not ever a thing given but what of a smile, a hug a helping with a bag or crossing a street; are not these the gifts of self to another?
Would these giving of self be in the spirit of the times; as the celebration of the birth of the Christ? Did he not give of himself that we might be with him and the Creator?
See the world as you would like it to be whether it live on the land, fly in the sky, swim or walk in the waters of the earth and leave what is seen for future memories.
Cherish the memory of a child in swaddling clothes born in a manger among the animals and yet lacked for naught for did not the Creator watch him that none should bother?
Take an imaginary box and wrap it with your ups and downs and say and know that this is the memories of your life and smile or cry but yet know, yes know, that for all of it you are better.
HAPPY HOLIDAYS
To all who reside on this planet we call home and may the New Year bring from any, friend or stranger, a hearty hello and for all this message is: be healthy and happy and thus heavenly!
Sandy and Tony and Betty and Pamela and dogs; Jake and Teeny and Holly and Roxie; woof and Ashley a 19 year old kitty; meow.
Once again the NY Times is pushing us into war--this time with Iran. Here's an excerpt from the op ed, written by the director of the nuclear proliferation prevention program at the U of Texas, Austin--can you believe it! Read it and write to the guy, his faculty, and his superiors!
"Incentives and sanctions will not work, but air strikes could degrade and deter Iran’s bomb program at relatively little cost or risk, and therefore are worth a try. They should be precision attacks, aimed only at nuclear facilities, to remind Iran of the many other valuable sites that could be bombed if it were foolish enough to retaliate.
The final question is, who should launch the air strikes? Israel has shown an eagerness to do so if Iran does not stop enriching uranium, and some hawks in Washington favor letting Israel do the dirty work to avoid fueling anti-Americanism in the Islamic world.
But there are three compelling reasons that the United States itself should carry out the bombings. First, the Pentagon’s weapons are better than Israel’s at destroying buried facilities. Second, unlike Israel’s relatively small air force, the United States military can discourage Iranian retaliation by threatening to expand the bombing campaign. (Yes, Israel could implicitly threaten nuclear counter-retaliation, but Iran might not perceive that as credible.) Finally, because the American military has global reach, air strikes against Iran would be a strong warning to other would-be proliferators.
Negotiation to prevent nuclear proliferation is always preferable to military action. But in the face of failed diplomacy, eschewing force is tantamount to appeasement. We have reached the point where air strikes are the only plausible option with any prospect of preventing Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Postponing military action merely provides Iran a window to expand, disperse and harden its nuclear facilities against attack. The sooner the United States takes action, the better."
Written by Alan J. Kuperman, the director of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Program at the University of Texas at Austin.
For the full article go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/opinion/24kuperman.html?ref=opinion
If this guy is "the director of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Program at the University of Texas at Austin" then I am Marie of Roumania.
This is very serious, since IMHO the NY Times serves as a conduit to soften up liberals for the latest imperialist venture. At least since the Vietnam War era. Even popular war critics like Stewart and Colbert have bought into the idea that Iran poses a nuclear threat.
At the NY Times, accuracy and truthfulness are not prized highly when there is an opportunity to bomb someone. This brief article is full of misleading innuendo and missing context. Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers. There is no credible evidence that Iran is near to any ability to build or deploy nuclear weapons. Iran's great crime is that our oil is under their land and they won't give it to us.
They had the temerity to overthrow our puppet and beacon of democracy, the Shah, who we and the Brits had put there, dammit, to make sure the oil would be ours. Hey, when you destroy an elected democracy, abort the development of enlightened modern, national policies, and install a dictator who lives in luxury and oppresses the average person, you don't really have a right to criticize those who depose him.
So they have a leader who has irritated Jews and others with rash statements about the Holocaust, which is very foolish. This statement has been publicized with the zeal that surrounded Howard Dean's vocal outburst. Although Ahmadinejad is not the main leader of Iran, he has created an impression of a rogue country, which does not match the civilized culture of the general population. This creates an opening for pushing bombing.
The only legitimate question is - will bombing Iran protect the people of the United States or innocent people in Iran and surrounding countries. The answer is NO NO and NO. It is not our job to go around the world willy nilly dispensing bombs on the heads of people.
Joe
There are songs and films about the Christmas truce. One of my favorites is a video with song by John McCutcheon, accompanied by photos gathered as a project by a Mr. Cutler's 6th grade class. What a teacher!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTXhZ4uR6rs&NR=1
Joe
It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas, everywhere we go. Look at Iraq then, look at Gaza now and wonder how we can ever peace somehow.