For me, this
was a bit of a light bulb moment. I knew of course that soldiers in the
trenches were not constantly fighting, and that there was evidence from other
conflicts, touched on at the end of this book, that a surprisingly large
proportion of soldiers would avoid killing one another when they could. But the
nature of trench warfare, when troops were in close proximity – certainly in
hearing range in many cases – to their enemy for long periods of time – meant that
they would slowly begin to recognise their opponents as people rather than abstract
entities. Once that happen – these are people that eat, sing, hate the rain, etc.,
like us – then killing them becomes harder. Peace kept breaking out despite all
the efforts of the war machine to stop it. In 1917 there were extensive
mutinies in the French army across the whole of their front – mutinies which
the Germans opposing them at the time were blithely unaware of. As the author
points out, this was no doubt because these fronts were largely applying the
live and let live principle at the time – if you don’t attack me I won’t attack
you.
The context
of the war is important here, and it is something Ashworth doesn’t really
mention. The belief that a continental war was coming had been around for
decades, fuelling spending on the Royal Navy for example, but in many scenarios
the Germans, with our shared Royal family, were on the same side as the UK.
France was to many our traditional enemy; we had never fought the Germans in a
war, whereas we had hardly stopped fighting the French over centuries. So there
was no inherent hostility towards the Germans. The media tried to stoke it up
of course, and atrocity stories played a part, but the evidence presented in
this book suggests that many soldiers in the trenches were quite happy to consider
not killing Germans if the reciprocal could be ensured. When higher commands
ordered activity, Ashworth argues and demonstrates that firing to miss was
common-place.
I have
mentioned one omission from this study, the context of the war, but there are a
couple of other factors which are not given any focus. I think the conflict in
the trenches was – to an extent – seasonal. The weather dictated the extent and
nature of the conflict, and this is supported by the casualty figures I have
seen elsewhere. Ashworth identifies many different features which meant “live
and let live” was more or less likely to occur, but doesn’t mention these
practical considerations of weather and season. A minor point I suppose.
I also
mentioned earlier that this book was published in 1980, 35 years ago. The
relevance of this is that the author was able to interview and correspond with
survivors on the Great War, an opportunity that would not exist today. I wonder
if he realised at the time how precious this opportunity was. Diaries, letters
and journal can tell us a lot, but I don’t think they could ever be a
substitute for the oral history of survivors.
No comments:
Post a Comment