if the false truce had lasted....

by **edmundomcpot** on Tue Nov 28, 2006 4:58 pm

would world war 1 of finished there or would the generals forced the soldiers to go to war?

by **Skittlesandmnms** on Tue Nov 28, 2006 5:06 pm

I'm not quite sure. I do know that if it had lasted, the developments of planes and tanks would be a hell of a lot different.

by **steve monkey** on Tue Nov 28, 2006 5:08 pm

By 'false truce' are you referring to the unofficial and very temporary truce of Christmas 1914? If so, the fighting was always going to recommence. Military discipline on all sides was very strong at that stage of the war and would have withstood any attempted mutiny or insurrection. Only by 1917 was a more radical mood spreading throughout the combatant nations.
Hope this is what you're referring to.

by **edmundomcpot** on Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:12 pm

steve monkey wrote:By 'false truce' are you referring to the unofficial and very temporary truce of Christmas 1914? If so, the fighting was always going to recommence. Military discipline on all sides was very strong at that stage of the war and would have withstood any attempted mutiny or insurrection. Only by 1917 was a more radical mood spreading throughout the combatant nations.
Hope this is what you're referring to.

thats exactly what i was on about.. i was wondering because the soldeirs probably made a few friends and would of been reluctant to kill their new friends the day after they met them

by **vtmarik** on Tue Nov 28, 2006 7:00 pm

edmundomcpot wrote:
steve monkey wrote:By 'false truce' are you referring to the unofficial and very temporary truce of Christmas 1914? If so, the fighting was always going to recommence. Military discipline on all sides was very strong at that stage of the war and would have withstood any attempted mutiny or insurrection. Only by 1917 was a more radical mood spreading throughout the combatant nations.
Hope this is what you're referring to.

thats exactly what i was on about.. i was wondering because the soldeirs probably made a few friends and would of been reluctant to kill their new friends the day after they met them

That's why it was eliminated as a practice by WWII. Generals don't want their soldiers becoming friends with the enemy, because then the war can't continue.

by **strike wolf** on Tue Nov 28, 2006 7:02 pm

Is this the whole not fighting on holidays thing?

by **MeDeFe** on Wed Nov 29, 2006 2:40 am

Yeah in 1895 soldiers unions finally achieved that they would not have to fight for more than 10 hours/day, have 30 days of paid holidays/year that they could take any time they wanted and certain holidays would be so called "no-fight-times". These were mainly christian holidays because of the cultural environment where the negotiations took place.

by **notyou2** on Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:30 pm

MeDeFe wrote:Yeah in 1895 soldiers unions finally achieved that they would not have to fight for more than 10 hours/day, have 30 days of paid holidays/year that they could take any time they wanted and certain holidays would be so called "no-fight-times". These were mainly christian holidays because of the cultural environment where the negotiations took place.

Don't forget the disability insurance that they were now able to purchase through their union halls, and the retirement plan.

if the false truce had lasted....

if the false truce had lasted....

Re:

Who is online