Remembering the 1914 Christmas Truce

[John]

Remembering the 1914 Christmas Truce

An almost-forgotten event in an almost-forgotten war.

** Remembering the 1914 Christmas Truce
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 25#e101225

[jmm1184]

You mentioned Germany was in a generational awakening era during WWI, however I had always thought that Germany was in a generational unraveling era during WWI, with the awakening fizzling out in the 1900's decade or around 1910. When was Germany's generational awakening climax?

[John]

> You mentioned Germany was in a generational awakening era during
> WWI, however I had always thought that Germany was in a
> generational unraveling era during WWI, with the awakening
> fizzling out in the 1900's decade or around 1910. When was
> Germany's generational awakening climax?

You're right - Germany was in an Unraveling era. I probably should
have been more precise, but I think of the Awakening and Unraveling
eras as a continuum that changes gradually over a 40 year period,
rather than as periods with a sharp distinction.

An awakening climax can certainly occur duing an Unraveling era,
and Germany's Awakening climax was indeed its capitulation in
World War I.

John

[JR]

Not sure why you (and others - I've heard this before) feel the need to minimize the responsibility of the German government for WWI. They started it, they escalated it repeatedly, and they lost it.

The US declared war in April 1917 (not 1918) due to Germany's resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare and due to the revelation of the Zimmerman Telegram, in which Germany proposed to Mexico that it would assist in regaining territory lost in the Mexican-American War if Mexico would attack the US.

Britain entered the war two days after Germany's deliberate, long-planned, and massive violation of Belgian neutrality, intended to outflank French defenses. Britain and Prussia, among others, were guarantors of Belgian neutrality, and also Britain obviously could not tolerate Germany naval bases in Belgium. This was a serious crime that Germany seemed to think was of no consequence whatsoever, and they acted shocked when Belgium resisted and Britain declared war.

The war initially started, as you say, as an escalation from the assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne by a Serbian terrorist. However, the German government avidly encouraged Austria to push a harsh and totally unacceptable ultimatum on Serbia in the hopes of provoking a war that would draw in Russia. They believed that a war was inevitable, wanted it sooner rather than later, and thought they would win quickly. They knew that their rigid plans for war against Russia would require them to invade France immediately, and they knew that their plans against France required invading Belgium. The Germans got cold feet at the last moment and tried to slow down, but by then the Austrians were fired up and anyway it was too late: the troops were at the frontier, the trains were rolling, and they couldn't stop.

At the time of the Armistice in November 1918, the last German offensive in France had completely failed and the German armies there were in orderly but rapid retreat. Turkey and Austria had surrendered a week or two earlier. The German General Staff had known that the war was lost since Bulgaria surrendered in September. The actual trigger of the final collapse was the mutiny by sailors of the High Seas Fleet, who refused an order to go on a hopeless suicide mission against the British who had kept them bottled up in port since 1916. So it was a clear military defeat. The German generals, of course, took no responsibility and blamed it on the civilians. The real cause of the defeat was hubris and aggression that raised a host of enemies against Germany.

[JULLIEN]

Dear John,

One of the most remarkable occurrences in modern warfare occurred just a few months after World War I had begun. On December 24, 1914, the German and British soldiers laid down their arms, crossed into the "No Man's Land" separating their trenches. They sang Christmas carols, played games, and shared jokes and beer with one another. They also used the time to bury [and not buy]their dead.
Have you seen the movie released in 2005 "Joyeux Noël (Merry Christmas)" ? I believe it's this movie who made average people aware of this historical fact.


To this day, many historians still consider America's entry in WW I to have been unwise.
Not from a French point of view nor (in the long term) a American one. After Brest-Litovsk treaty Germany had a numerical superiority on France and Britain. From March 1918 to July 1818 five German offensives put us on the edge of defeat. It was the American expeditionary force sent in France which restored the balance and allowed the final victory. A French defeat would have been a disaster for civilization. Germany at the time had a constitutional monarchy but one which was a concession to the rising tide of democracy ... no more rising after an allied defeat. After the victory of prussianism Germany would have been the first power in Europe. And so she would have been far stronger for WW2. For the generational dynamics would have continued their inexorable turn and a far more confident and powerful Germany would still have been eager to dominate the world in the 1930's-1940's.


World War II was a generational crisis war for Western Europe, but World War I was a non-crisis war.
You told me once people had a debate on this forum about if WWI was a generational crisis or not for France. Of course we can ask "If people are more willing to compromise in a awakening or a unraveling era why was not WW1 ended by a peace compromise ?". Answers are quiet simple according to me. Until August 1918 Germans believed to be on the edge of victory. We can make a comparison. In 1945 war continued even when the war was obviously lost for Germany and Hitler killed himself when the Russians soldiers were closer than 800 meters of his bunker. In 1918 Ludendorff told the truth to his government and suggested to make peace rapidly in order to be able to make later a war of revenge. French (and Belgians for themselves) united for fighting because France and Belgium were obviously in danger : they were invaded. I believe l'Union sacrée is a very good example of awakening climax (we can make comparisons with the generational crisis of 1870 and 1940 when political bickering made Germans victories a lot easier) ... and a prelude to the unraveling era of the 1920's-1930's.

[jmm1184]

If an awakening and unraveling are in the same continuum, is there a way to distinguish an awakening from an unraveling? When reading The Fourth Turning and Generations I always understood an awakening to end when the era of spiritual fervor or unrest came to an end, such as in 1980 when Reagan came to power and the country began to "settle down" with the baby boomers, though some unrest continued until the early 80s recession came to an end, or in the 1900s decade when the progressive movement came to an end as the high levels of unrest began to simmer down or channel themselves into less violent means of reform in the progressive movement.
Moreover if an awakening climax can occur in an unraveling shouldn't it be named something different? It seems a little odd that the climax of one era would occur in another. I very much would like clarity on this issue as I'm afraid I'm misunderstanding the nature of awakenings and unravelings.

[John]

> Not sure why you (and others - I've heard this before) feel the
> need to minimize the responsibility of the German government for
> WWI. They started it, they escalated it repeatedly, and they lost
> it.

Back in 1969, I was having a conversation with a professor of history.
He was arguing to me that the Vietnam war was started by the United
States with the intention of annexing Vietnam in order to make it
U.S. territory.

He said that he could point to documents and individuals in the
Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson administration to prove his point. He
said that he could show that the policy of annexing Vietnam began in
the Eisenhower administration, and was carried forward by Kennedy and
Johnson.

At times like this, I like to use the phrase "looking for reasons."
This history professor was looking for reasons to blame the United
States for the Vietnam war, and he was able to find some reasons.


Now, turning to WW I, here's one author's summary of the causes:

> Conclusion: This article has not by any means encompassed all of
> the suggested contributory factors that led inexorably to world
> war.

> It has however attempted to pull together the main strands:
> Austro-Hungarian determination to impose its will upon the
> Balkans; a German desire for greater power and international
> influence, which sparked a naval arms race with Britain, who
> responded by building new and greater warships, the Dreadnought; a
> French desire for revenge against Germany following disastrous
> defeat in 1871; Russia's anxiety to restore some semblance of
> national prestige after almost a decade of civil strife and a
> battering at the hands of the Japanese military in 1905.

> http://www.firstworldwar.com/origins/causes.htm

This is the conclusion of a lengthy article describing all the various
suggested causes for WW I.

And if you're "looking for reasons" to blame Germany for WW I, you can
certainly find them. But if you're looking for reasons to blame
Russia, France or Britain for causing WW I, then you can find those as
well.

That is, there were individual politicians in each of these countries
who wanted war, just as there were individuals in the Eisenhower
administration who wanted to invade Vietnam. But that doesn't prove
that it was American policy to invade Vietnam.

If you want to prove that Germany caused WW I, you have to do a lot
more than list a bunch of reasons. At the very least, you have to do
some kind of comparative argument, showing that the Germans were
significantly more at fault than the other countries. In fact, you'd
really have to do a lot more than that -- you'd have to show that
Germany, and only Germany, was determined to start WW I, irrespective
of the wishes and actions of anyone else.

That's something that CAN be shown in the case of Hitler's Germany
into WW II, but I don't see how that can be shown for Germany into WW
I.

There's also a completely different way of looking at it,

Let's suppose that you can prove that Germany was going to invade
France in 1914, no matter what anyone else did. Would that prove that
Germany started WW I?

I would argue not. The most that could be proven is that Germany
intended to score a quick victory over France, and then exit. That
still wouldn't mean that they intended to start WW I. Once again, we
have a contrast to Hitler who, I believe, can be shown to have
intended to start WW II.

Returning to the Vietnam War analogy, you can claim that the U.S.
entered Vietnam to protect South Korea from the north, but you can't
reasonably argue that it was America's intention in 1956 to fight a 20
year war in Vietnam, and end up losing. As another example, you can
prove that the U.S. fought the Gulf war in 1991 with the intention of
expelling Iraq from Kuwait, but you cannot prove that the U.S. fought
the Gulf War with the intention of fighting a 20 year war that would
involve removing Saddam Hussein.

From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, I look at the
situation as following:

The crisis war in eastern Europe, Russia and the Mideast had to
happen. I don't know whether a war between Germany and France had to
happen, but if it did have to happen, then it was because of spillover
from the eastern European war. The interlocking treaties explanation
is as good as any for explaining this spillover effect.

John

[John]

Dear Jullien,

> "To this day, many historians still consider America's entry in WW
> I to have been unwise."

> Not from a French point of view nor (in the long term) a American
> one. After Brest-Litovsk treaty Germany had a numerical
> superiority on France and Britain. From March 1918 to July 1818
> five German offensives put us on the edge of defeat. It was the
> American expeditionary force sent in France which restored the
> balance and allowed the final victory. A French defeat would have
> been a disaster for civilization. Germany at the time had a
> constitutional monarchy but one which was a concession to the
> rising tide of democracy ... no more rising after an allied
> defeat. After the victory of prussianism Germany would have been
> the first power in Europe. And so she would have been far stronger
> for WW2. For the generational dynamics would have continued their
> inexorable turn and a far more confident and powerful Germany
> would still have been eager to dominate the world in the
> 1930's-1940's.

I was, of course, referring to American public opinion, not to French
public opinion. But I have no doubt that many people desired to help
the French, if only because of the help that the French gave us in our
Revolutionary War.

But I wouldn't be so sure about your contrafactual argument. If
Germany had defeated France in WW I, then there would have been no
Versailles humiliation, no hyperinflation, and no blaming the Jews for
all the world's crimes, so things might have been very different.

> "World War II was a generational crisis war for Western Europe,
> but World War I was a non-crisis war."

> You told me once people had a debate on this forum about if WWI
> was a generational crisis or not for France.

You're talking about a very technical point here. WW I was definitely
a non-crisis war for both France and Germany, and was fought as a
non-crisis war. The issue is whether the devastation in parts of
France was so great that it destroyed the existing generational
structure, resulting in a "first turning reset." This would mean that
those regions would return to a Recovery Era after the war, and would
have fought WW II as an Awakening era war. I personally believe that
there's something to this, but the case has not yet been proven.

John

[John]

> If an awakening and unraveling are in the same continuum, is there
> a way to distinguish an awakening from an unraveling?

I wasn't saying that the awakening and unraveling eras are the same
-- they're very different, as you point out. I'm only saying that
there's a continuous change from awakening to unraveling, rather
than an overnight change.

The crisis war climax leads to an overnight change from a Crisis era
(fourth turning) to a Recovery era (first turning). Then, 15-18 years
later, the Prophet generation comes of age, and there's an overnight
change to the Awakening era (second turning). But the change from
second to third turning is continuous, as far as I can tell.

The Awakening climax is, of course, an overnight change, but it
doesn't seem to me to be the same kind of change as a turning change.
This is a concept that can be explored further.

The other overnight change that occurs is the Regeneracy that leads
to the next crisis war.

John