Christmas Truce ends WWI

[acgoldis]

Is it possible for the Christmas Truce to gain enough momentum for it to end the war?

I can see it happening later in the war (maybe if they first try it in 1916) when people realize no one is making any progress and consequently settle for a "draw".

The trick is convincing the leaders of the army and belligerent states to stop the war.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Is it possible for the Christmas Truce to gain enough momentum for it to end the war?

I can see it happening later in the war (maybe if they first try it in 1916) when people realize no one is making any progress and consequently settle for a "draw".

The trick is convincing the leaders of the army and belligerent states to stop the war.

It's unlikely they do.

 

[modelcitizen]

Someone on the ground would have to organize a big enough mutiny to override all attempts to resume the war.

The impact of such an effort would be difficult to limit, wouldn't it?

Imagine the swiftest possible communications amongst troops across both sides of the trenches, and from there urgent messaging to the families of the fallen and of the mutinous soldiers to riot against the governments from the other end.

Maybe a smart government or two would drop the war effort to stay intact.

Maybe.

This would involve a multinational mutiny, French English German Austro-Hungarian, RUSSIAN, and once it gets moving, a multinational cadre of grunts turned impassioned mutiny leaders is torn between merely going home versus "NEVER NEVER AGAIN WE END IT FOREVER" etc.


Edit 37 minutes later:

Confession: I knew I'd written a thing about this, kind of, like, me ISOT into Hitler circa Christmas 1914,

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/oooh-me-too-gotta-try-hitler-isot.371152/#post-11506463

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Edit 37 minutes later:

Confession: I knew I'd written a thing about this, kind of, like, me ISOT into Hitler circa Christmas 1914,

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...o-gotta-try-hitler-isot.371152/#post-11506463

What is that thread?

 

[Dan]

Is it possible for the Christmas Truce to gain enough momentum for it to end the war?

I can see it happening later in the war (maybe if they first try it in 1916) when people realize no one is making any progress and consequently settle for a "draw".

The trick is convincing the leaders of the army and belligerent states to stop the war.

Without The British and German soldiers essentially mutinying, it's not likely to happen.
However...

It could make an interesting scenario if (for example), the Somme is worse for both sides in 1916 causing a drop in morale, an uptick of Bolshevik type sentiment on the Western front following more senseless butchery by British, French and German generals.
Then have the Truce happen during Christmas 1917 instead and you could end up with a rather sticky situation where there has to be peace on the Western Front to avoid having to admit what's happening and fighting a war within a war.

 

[acgoldis]

Without The British and German soldiers essentially mutinying, it's not likely to happen.
However...

It could make an interesting scenario if (for example), the Somme is worse for both sides in 1916 causing a drop in morale, an uptick of Bolshevik type sentiment on the Western front following more senseless butchery by British, French and German generals.
Then have the Truce happen during Christmas 1917 instead and you could end up with a rather sticky situation where there has to be peace on the Western Front to avoid having to admit what's happening and fighting a war within a war.

Makes me wonder what the terms of the armistice would be and who would get what territory at this point.

An armistice in early 1918 would save several months of butchery. If it's in 1917 after a 1916 Truce things get even more interesting.

 

[Dan]

Makes me wonder what the terms of the armistice would be and who would get what territory at this point.

Without looking too deeply into it, I think best case for Germany/worst case for France would status quo as of January 1st 1914.
I don't see the territorial situation with Germany occupying part of Belgium and France remaining, although while Germany is in France with no threat to Germany proper, I don't see Alsace-Lorraine returning to France without Germany accepting they have been defeated.
There might be some horse trading over German African or Pacific territories, but broadly I would say it would be pretty even.

I think looking at OTL where we saw the rise of extreme nationalism in Germany, I think the most likely spot for that to occur would be France with the fate of Alsace-Lorraine being the cause celebre of the extremists.

That's just my opinion though.

 

[Popcorn]

Can’t remember where I read it or if it was even true, but I think some of the commanders ordered artillery barrages to start right before Christmas and kept it up all day to avoid a repeat of the truce.

 

[Garrison]

Is it possible for the Christmas Truce to gain enough momentum for it to end the war?

I can see it happening later in the war (maybe if they first try it in 1916) when people realize no one is making any progress and consequently settle for a "draw".

The trick is convincing the leaders of the army and belligerent states to stop the war.

Sorry but no, the Christmas truce is one of those wildly overblown bits of history. A few local outbreaks of a truce are not the basis for ending the war and I seriously doubt any of the belligerents are interested. The idea that you can have a 'draw' when Belgium and Northern France have been trashed. If the Germans simply march home without any reparations or conditions that's a win for them. Also where do you get the idea that no one was making any progress? That's rather like assuming that because Nazi Germany was occupying France throughout 1942 that the British and Americans would have been inclined to make peace. Just because the frontlines aren't moving doesn't mean that things aren't happening away from the battlefront that will change the status quo. It took a long time to build a British Army, with the necessary tactics and weapons, that could successfully take the fight to the Germans but that was slowly and painfully moving forward during 1916 and 1917 for that matter.

Makes me wonder what the terms of the armistice would be and who would get what territory at this point.

An armistice in early 1918 would save several months of butchery. If it's in 1917 after a 1916 Truce things get even more interesting.

The only thing an armistice in Spring 1918 means is the Entente doesn't win the war, which I suspect is your preferred option. Using terms like butchery smacks of someone whose read more war poets and less real history about 1914-18.

 

[Beaufortq]

I think the potential for christmas truces to turn into a somewhat white peace is there. It's just that the HQs also noticed this and therefore forbid them in the following years.

And in 1914 there's not enough will for peace for it to spiral already.

A first Christmas truce in 1916 would be different than one in 1914 but I don't think it's feasible to start one after two years of trench warfare.

 

[DougM]

The only thing I can think of is if the truces were more widespread and the high command tried to forcefully suppress them and ends up sparking a major mutiny that results in the people back home basically forcing the government to change and to come to terms.
Not very likely but theoretically possible but takes some big changes

 

[Albidoom]

A first Christmas truce in 1916 would be different than one in 1914 but I don't think it's feasible to start one after two years of trench warfare.

Indeed. OTL after the Christmas truce in 1914 there was indeed also some sort of Christmas truce in 1915 but already much smaller in scope than what it had been a year earlier, but by December 1916 the fighting had taken that much of a toll that the soldiers were now to embittered to contemplate such ad-hoc cease fires anymore.

 

[Dude-a-Buck]

Here's a video on the subject.

 

[modelcitizen]

What is that thread?

Just me screwing around with becoming Hitler at age eleven and replacing tragic horrors with different kinds of havoc. It didn't go that far.

 

[Jellico]

The only thing I can think of is if the truces were more widespread and the high command tried to forcefully suppress them and ends up sparking a major mutiny that results in the people back home basically forcing the government to change and to come to terms.
Not very likely but theoretically possible but takes some big changes

Can you imagine the propaganda effort by all sides to make sure a Christmas truce never ever ever ever... ever happens again. The Edwardian age wasn't exactly subtle with its nationalism to start with.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

IIRC for Christmas 1915 the British artillery had orders to fire on any impromptu truces, and heavy punishment was mooted for any units that stopped fighting. Imagine the panic when Lord Cavan, commanding the Guards' Division, received messages that his mean were fraternising with the enemy! Not sure the reports were true but GHQ "asked" him to investigate.

The 1914 truce was not widespread, only a few locations were reported, and AFAIK there were no reports of French & German troops fraternising. So even stretching credulity to the limit, only the British would withdraw from the war, and that is very, very, very, very unlikely.

 

[kham_coc]

IIRC for Christmas 1915 the British artillery had orders to fire on any impromptu truces, and heavy punishment was mooted for any units that stopped fighting.

As unlikely as the Christmas truce lasting is, that would be one way that it could - If those orders are met with mutinies that could spread it.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

As unlikely as the Christmas truce lasting is, that would be one way that it could - If those orders are met with mutinies that could spread it.

After the year the BEF had in 1915, I suspect a truce was very unlikely. Too many comrades were dead or missing. Loos was the icing on that very sour cake.