http://www.amazon.com/Christmas-Truce-Memory-First-World/dp/0813166152/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1446811643&sr=8-1&keywords=christmas+truce" rel="nofollow - http://www.amazon.com/Christmas-Truce-Memory-First-World/dp/0813166152/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1446811643&sr=8-1&keywords=christmas+truce

 

The book examines the myths that have developed about the Christmas truce and uses them to challenge the conventional narrative of the First World War. No cliff-hanger endings, but if you would like to read an iconoclastic approach to the war, you might enjoy it.

 

And because all roads lead to prog, it even contains a Yes reference as an epigraph:

 

 

 

or maybe that someone will get into the book thanks to the Yes reference?

 

It is available in bookstores and libraries but I have no idea who is stocking it, so you probably can get your local bookstore to order one if you ask nicely.

 

and thanks, everyone. I am pleased and yes, a little bit proud too.

 

you don't actually have to...but I would like it if you would.

 

I second what Rogerthat, said too!! Congrats!!

That's the romanticised version. As I understand it (and I obviously haven't read Terri's book yet), small truces occurred at various times throughout the first 18 or so months of the war, often to allow each side to collect and bury the bodies of the fallen. The 1914 christmas truce was not a single event, but a number of small impromptu truces along the Western Front (and at least one on the Eastern Front between a few Austrian and Russian troops), not all of these involved carol singing and the exchange of gifts. I also understand it that the idea that there were football matches between the two sides is also somewhat romanticised, the conditions in no-man's land would have been far to grim for that, however several soldier's letters tell of friendly kick-a-bouts occurring during the truces, mostly amongst the men on one side though there are a few were opposing sides played together.

 

Much as I hate to disagree with Kati (suppose she stops sending me hugs), Dean is correct.  My book is an attempt to correct the romanticized version of the truce, and then use that to disagree with the conventional narrative of the First World War.  Here's a passage from the book that sums up my argument:

 

 

 

Another reason why we shouldn't regard the truce, and subsequently the whole of the war, with modern sensibilities is it the attitude to the war was very different then. After only five months of fighting, of which only the last two had been in the trenches, the mood was still, [erm], optimistic. Both sides believed the war would be short and at that time trench warfare had only ever been used by one side as a defence against advancement by the other. No one expected it to be a protracted entrenchment by both sides leading to a stalemate of attrition, none had ever experienced war on an industrial scale and no one could know the full horrors that modern trench warfare would bring. There would have been fewer (if any) truces in subsequent years as the realities of the situation became more apparent even without the field orders that expressly forbade fraternisation issued after the 1914 christmas truces.

...okay, so I'm way more interested in this subject that I thought - I've just pre-ordered the book. 

 

Hmm, well, I could disagree with at least some of your statements above, but I'll wait till you read the book and then we can have a debate.  One thing I will say is that I found very few soldiers in the first month of the war who believed it would be a short war, and similarly little evidence for that view in the newspapers.  In fact, those who signed up for the war in the first few months signed up for a duration of three years or until the end of the war, whichever was longer....which means that at least Kitchener figured out it wasn't going to be over quickly.

 

and there were post-1914 fraternizations, which I discuss in chapter 6.  Have fun.

 

Double wow! It also makes a great holiday gift, too!

Then perhaps my understanding that the initial belief in Britain was the war would be "over by christmas" is another extrapolated myth. Of course how quickly that initial expectation may have evaporated is another matter, obviously once christmas came and went so did the expectation. I also believe (until now perhaps) that on the German side they never expected the advancements they had made in the first three months would come to such an abrupt stop and they too expected a short war. 

I know there were post-1914 truces, but believe they were significantly fewer and much less publicised.

However, I am not questioning your research on this, nor your conclusions, I'm just displaying my lack of knowledge.

 

You certainly don't lack knowledge, but I do think your perspective may shift a bit after reading the book.  What I found during the research I completed for the work really did change my mind about a number of things, but at the same time it's worth remembering that you can find support for just about any view you want to take on the war. The question is whether you are cherry-picking to advance a certain argument or whether you are actually going with a "preponderance of the evidence" standard.  There were certainly those who thought the war was going to end quickly, but it appeared from my research that this was a minority view. And you are correct, the post-1914 truces were fewer and less well-publicized.

 

Absolutely, it would make a great Christmas gift for everyone on your list.  And I hope you all have very long lists.

 

You know I'll be ordering it.

 

 

-- Dorothy Parker

 

-- Groucho Marx

 

-- Samuel Johnson

 

-- Antoine de Rivarol

 

-- William Shakespeare

 

-- Lytton Strachey

 

-- Alfred, Lord Tennyson

 

-- H.G. Wells

 

-- Virginia Wolfe

 

 

 

 

I'll add my belated congratulations to the list!

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/10/book-review-the-christmas-truce-myth-memory-and-th/" rel="nofollow - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/10/book-review-the-christmas-truce-myth-memory-and-th/

 

is there an emoticon for rolling around in the floor laughing?

You're such a fascist, Terri!

 

Outed by the Washington Times...oh, the humiliation!

 

I had to break it to my publishers that they really shouldn't use that quote

And the type of thing that's right up my alley. I'll be sure to give it a read