“A TRUCE FOR MODERN TIMES”

by J. Bauer

     The first Christmas in World War I during 1914 has taken on a legendary tone to many. In the middle of No Man's Land, located in the trenches and the mud of Ypres, Belgium, an impromptu truce was held between British and German troops. This brief respite from war lasted less than a week, but the mysticism of it has lasted to this day, even with all the wars that have followed it.

     One reason for its legend has to do with the miraculous nature with how men who were shooting at each other hours earlier were able to lay down arms and play soccer with each other the next day. It leads to many understandable questions: what might have happened if the truce had extended to such a point that the war halted? If people were able to forget about war for a holiday, why couldn't they continue it for the long run and end hostilities altogether?

     The reasons for the resumption for war are just as numerous as the reasons for deciding a peace: the English and the Germans wanted to prove they were superior culturally to the other, so war had to be fought. Or, having a truce well up amongst the soldiers might lead to the kind of populist revolution that was taking place in Russia, so the people had to be put in their place and remember who the enemy was. There are also the realities that the truce was not terribly widespread (the French troops are mostly absent from its ranks), and considering that the troops were generally stalemated in the positions they were holding, there wasn't much opportunity to pass the good will past the limited areas that they were stationed. Also, holiday truces were not unheard of, and to some, this truce was just one of many that were like it in the past. To many others, the truce was the only way that the respective sides could collect their dead from the killing fields, for to stand up in the trenches would lead to nearly certain death.

     Most of the magic comes from eyewitnesses such as Briton Bruce Bairnsfather, who claimed that the truce began when a Boche (German) stood up and began singing Christmas carols, and then the two sides, who were not stationed far from each other, began trading songs. This eventually led to German soldiers crossing the way with tannenbaums (Christmas trees), hitherto never part of the English Christmas. And so, with this common denominator of a Christian holiday, the truce ensued.

     Can a truce like this exist again in modern times? Could hostilities be put aside to remind ourselves of common humanity? In the Ramadan holiday of the past year, a great many terrorist attacks took place in the name of "jihad", which incidentally, means "struggle", not "holy war". On the same vein, the Bush administration would find it to be disastrous to pull troops out of Iraq, considering how much infrastructure needs to be restored. But then again, the infrastructure was decimated because of war, and the troops who are there are more trying to contain escalation of war rather than keeping a peace. It is because was is declared at all that these chain of events are deemed necessary. A Palestinian terrorist detonates a bomb in a Haifa cafe because the Israeli army destroyed his compound; the Israeli army deemed the attack cafe bomber's compound necessary because a suspected terrorist was hiding there. Now that this cafe bomber has become an additional terrorist, the Israeli army finds it necessary to attack another compound, and then a Palestinian feels that he is justified in blowing up a disco in Tel Aviv because his compound has just been bombed.

     This is the unfortunate string that follows the justification of war: until someone desists in his position, rotative attacks continue indefinitely with justification on each respective side. Perhaps a group feels that to concede means giving up his identity, territory or freedom; surrender somehow implies that the other person is somehow superior to him, and not only does cessation of fighting mean ending hostilities, it means being assimilated to the lifestyle of the so-called "conquerer". This would be a defensive position in warfare. The offensive position would actually believe themselves to be superior in some way, culturally, morally, or otherwise; and will stop at nothing in order to "purify" the "enemy", in order that the "right way" might prevail. This was a major reason of why the Christmas truce was squelched, and never to be repeated again: who was better, Saxons or Anglo-Saxons?

     If survival is intended as a goal, and one way of life is considered "better" than another, then war on different levels is inevitable, whether it is to stamp out a particular ethnic group, religion, or clothing fashion that is no longer "vogue". If men are considered "better" than women for being bigger and stronger, or if women are considered "better" than men because their ability to give birth makes them more attuned to their intuition, then the "war between the sexes" will continue indefinitely. This mentality goes for disagreements on anything, whether between nations or board members for a sixteen person charity group.

     The ultimate step in calling a truce is to believe that one has the right to his own identity, but yet does not have to fight another to be able to prove it. He is willing, like the legendary German soldier bearing the Tannenbaum, to literally stand up and be himself, but refuse to engage in any conflict to prove his point. His personal survival is not as important as the dignity to maintain his identity. A truce for modern times is not so different as it was in the early part of the century: one has to be willing to accept consequences for not taking up arms. If this seems too daunting, perhaps he should consider if he can accept the consequences for taking up the call to fight.