The 1914 Christmas truce, when enemy soldiers met, fraternized, and even played football in No Man’s Land during the first year of the First World War, is commonly perceived as a manifestation of the anger that soldiers felt toward the meaningless war that they had been tricked into fighting. Contemporaneous sources, however, show that the truce was not an act of defiance; rather, it arose from the professionalism of the soldiers involved, the conditions of static trench warfare, foul weather on the Western Front, the absence of major battles, and memories of traditional celebrations of Christ ... More

The 1914 Christmas truce, when enemy soldiers met, fraternized, and even played football in No Man’s Land during the first year of the First World War, is commonly perceived as a manifestation of the anger that soldiers felt toward the meaningless war that they had been tricked into fighting. Contemporaneous sources, however, show that the truce was not an act of defiance; rather, it arose from the professionalism of the soldiers involved, the conditions of static trench warfare, foul weather on the Western Front, the absence of major battles, and memories of traditional celebrations of Christmas. The truce, in short, was caused by rain, mud, curiosity, lack of personal animosity toward the enemy, and homesickness, rather than by frustration and rebellion. No soldiers were punished for their participation in the 1914 truce, and no troops refused to fire on their enemies afterward. Newspapers published accounts of the armistice openly, and many regimental histories later featured the event prominently. An examination of references to the truce over the past century reveals the myths that have defined it and contrasts those myths with the words and actions of participants in the armistice. By examining the support the soldiers felt for the war, as well as their willingness to return to fighting after Christmas 1914 ended, the book argues that the Christmas truce, which would seem to confirm the dominant view of the First World War, instead challenges the war’s popular narrative.