Even the Right thinks something is Wrong

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

Theodore Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star, 149
May 7, 1918

The following is an article I read a few months ago, which. Light appears even from within the castle of corruption! Some Republicans IN THE WHITE HOUSE are now resisting their tyrant king. There is a stirring in the nation as if from a mass of hypnotized peopole coming to. As time goes on it is becoming more and more apparent that this self-proclaimed "compassionate conservative" of a president has a much darker side, and a very different agenda than his pre-written, planned and patterned rhetoric suggests. A few party-line loyalists are waking up to this fact, returning to their founding conservative beliefs, and remembering their first and greatest nemisis: BIG GOVERNMENT! They realise this man Bush is truly a wolf in sheeps clothing. They are realising just how serious he was when quoted to say:


"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck-of-a lot easier, just as long as I'm the dictator."
---Washington, DC, Dec 18, 2000, during his first trip to Washington as President-Elect


The Moderate Independant, a source of news in great brittain produced a wonderful article which reads, in part:

The term "conservative" is used by commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to describe themselves. It is used by Bush supporters to define themselves. But what really is conservatism? and why are so many true conservatives disgusted by this new breed of Bush/Limbaugh Republicans?
.......................
The old conservative ideal was that of the wise father figure who was charged with the power in society and would do the right thing for his national family. This did not mean gutting infrastructure and slashing and burning the nation to disfunctionality. It meant to act as the wise moderator, balancing the "family's" needs with the means of the nation. Yes, conservatives were the moderators, not the extremists. They were not radicals who sought to take the nation and launch it this way or that. Exactly the opposite, they sought to "conserve" the traditional institutions and social structure. Actions should be taken to fix things as needed, but minimally. Don't create drastic new programs, but don't drastically trash the existing ones either. Just because a family's (i.e. nation's) financial situation goes down a bit, you don't stop feeding the baby and let the roof leak through. Now the feminist era, the free-love era, many of these social upheavals did not sit well with these old, wise father type conservatives. They wanted to maintain the traditional "family values" (beginning to sound familiar?) and social order. Insert Rush Limbaugh and the elder Bush. They proclaimed the Republicans the party of "family values." They took on the "femi-Nazis" who threatened the traditional patriarchal structure. They took on gays, free-lovers, all non-traditional social types. And in doing so, they appealed to the many conservatives who were out there feeling voiceless, frustrated, and unrepresented (much as many liberals and moderates do today.) So, now you have all these traditional-minded, mainly white male conservatives with someone out there giving voice to the thoughts that had been labeled unspeakable. Hearing Rush and Bush, Sr. must have been like being able to exhale for the first time after decades of being forced to hold their breath. However, this being the common ground, the direction Limbaugh, Hannity, Bush, Jr., et. al have attempted to steer these true conservatives does not sit well with those who truly are conservatives - especially those old and wise enough to know what conservatism is (i.e. the patriarchs of the conservative movement.) Yes, they are spoken for socially, but then there was a bait and switch, and politically, they are being misrepresented and their movement hijacked by leaders who are, "appall"ingly, according to true conservatives like the gentleman above, "mortgaging social infrastructure trying to balance annual budgets." Until now, the idea of accepting some coldness towards the family's needs in return for regaining their voice and power was enough to get these conservatives to play along. But now, President Bush and his brand of neo-conservative has taken the coldness or their slash and burn social agenda so far that these good patriarchs are now having to distance themselves, step away from the Limabugh's, Hannity's, and Bushes and ask themselves what sort of good father would let their house and family be so trashed in the name of "balanc(ing) annual budgets," especially when it is clear the only reason annual budgets are so unbalanced is because of overly excessive tax cutting. A paternalist wouldn't care more about corporate profit than his child getting asthma or wife getting emphysema. A paternalist wouldn't agree to a war for oil. A paternalist wouldn't thrash the school system for tax cuts for the wealthy. When this new breed of Limbaugh conservative came on the scene, as we said, the conservatives were ecstatic to finally have a voice. So in droves they helped create "The Republican Revolution" that propelled Gingrich and company to power in 1994. It didn't take long though for true conservatives to see that this new breed of fake conservative was just a wolf in conservative clothing. Gingrich's name became anathema to good American conservatives and the Republicans not only stopped gaining, but lost seats in each of the next two elections. Betrayed, the true conservatives were then left with a choice between a heartless, greed-driven Republican Party and a Democratic Party that fully embraced the American brand of table-turning feminism, that had been emasculated by the "femi-Nazis." The question for good conservatives became what would happen first, would the Republicans get a heart or would the Democrats get balls. Well, the Democrats weren't about to have any candidate who stood up and said, "Let men be men and women be women," or, "American 'feminism' is very anti-feminine; why can't men be men and women be women while we all have equal rights and protections?" It wasn't about to happen, and, in fact, didn't. On the other side of things, the new-Limbaugh breed of Republicans found their solution. Having found their following the first time by lying upon lying upon lying, pretending to be good conservatives when they were truly just hateful greed-mongers playing on conservative disaffection with the social upheaval of the 60's and 70's, the Limbaugh conservatives once again found their lie line. The conservatives were upset with them because they had no heart? Ok, let's say we have a heart. And so, deciding to simply pay dishonest lip service to their base's true concerns, they started calling themselves "compassionate conservatives." And it worked well enough to get the base to trust them once again. The Bush/Limbaugh Republicans rejoiced, thinking they had found their solution. Simply tell the people you are kind, and it calms their concerns, tell the people you are compassionate, that you are doing the right thing, and it allows them to feel better. Once in office, President Bush continued in this vein. The question wasn't what would the best policy be, it was (and is,) "What do the people want to hear?" He won't change his forest bill that opens things up to industry, he will simply give it a name that will calm the good conservatives of his base who demand their government has a heart. He will call it the "Healthy Forests" bill. He will call his air quality rollback the "Clear Skies" act. Only one problem. Conservatives are not stupid - in fact, they are very vigilant in keeping an eye on their government, which they have a predisposition not to trust. And so, the conservatives are falling off in droves and droves, recognizing that President Bush is in no way a true conservative, in no way is he a compassionate paternalist like real conservatives are. They see this new breed of conservative as greedy, destructive wolves once again in conservative clothing.


George W Bush, leader of the Nuclear supersized western free world, now has a 29% overall job approval rating. Some people might consider this poor public image to be merely a 6th year slump. But I am among those who see's this slump as much more than that. Some of us believe that George W Bush was in fact a co-conspirator in the 9-11 attacks, and feel that a 29% backing in the polls is like cornering a very rabid and dangerous dog. They would say that the disapproval rating might entice him into trying yet again try to heroicly rise out of the ashes of a terrorist attack. If the conspiracy theorists are correct, and Neoconservatives are responsible for 9-11, than this administration will do whatever it takes to stay in office. For darkness despises the light, and sin clings to shadows. As long as this administration is under the disguise of doing "what is best for the nation" they will continue to attack in a stealthy and subtle manner. 9-11 launched these men into the power they now have. But now there is a threat of of Neocons losing that power, and it is well within reason that they would consider, plan and execute an event which will lead to the death of thousands more. Predicitons include a nuclear strike to be blamed on Iran. They will kill more of us, because they aren't really guarding us. They are as the false shepherds who did not enter the white house through the gate of the popular vote. They see us as something to be taken, used, disposed of. They do not care for the American people, and exposing them for the wolves they are might incite a confrontation, but much better a confrontation with a visible enemy than to be robbed raped and murdered by a professing friend. George Bush calling himself a "compassionate conservative" is a joke if it is taken lightly, or the most serious and telling in a long string of well documented lies.

Wolf at the door.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world that he doesn't exist. The second greatest trick he pulled was to lure his enemies into doing his bidding while thinking that they were serving God. It's the classic bait and switch. The devil did it in Jerusalem, when he convinced the Jewish religious leaders into condemning their own messiah to death. He did it to the Catholic church, through bribery, envy and pride he transformed the church from it's roots of service, humility and love to something completely different; something fierce and sinister. But never before has the devil been as successful at this maneuver as he has been in the rise of the religious right.

I recently hit the road across the southeast, and couldn't help but notice as I drove how many Christian/patriotic bumper stickers there were in traffic, usually slapped on the backs of family-friendly gas guzzling SUVs. I saw Crosses infused with American flags, red white and blue backgrounds for various propaganda mantras like, "God bless America". I saw a Bush Fish, or two, or seven. There was even one car that had a Bush Cheney '04 sticker on one side, and a bright, red WWJD sticker on the other.

In case you were blessed by not being raised within the conservative church, WWJD was a massively successful christian gimick, first born on cheap overpriced bracelets, and marketed to the teenage sheep of the mid-nineties. It stood for the question, "What Would Jesus Do?". Of course, the religious right had no problem with holding up that light of scrutiny to the hell-bound liberal-run society of those days. Preachers from sea to shining sea relished in asking their congregation whether Bill Clinton's particular actions of the moment were what Jesus would do. Of course, the question was never asked when people might have answered, "yes"to it.

Yet interestingly enough, as soon as George W Bush entered office, that whole line of scrutiny was thrown out the window. It was the changing of the guard. Fox news turned from rabid watchdog to gushing lapdog overnight. And so did the church. Led like lambs to the slaughter, drawn to it by their prejudice, self-righteousness and presumption. American congregations were deceived into believing that their christian hope would come from this political system. They saw George W Bush as their ticket to righteous redemption. All the wickedness of America had to be dealt with, or so it was preached to them with ever-increasing intensity throughout the 90's by GOP representatives. Fear has been the determining factor in herding and manipulating this group of sheep into the voting booth. They have been led to graze not on the green pastures of the truth of Jesus Christ and his teachings, but on the crabgrass of hatred, greed, and selfishness. And they have learned how to quench their thirst with the blood of the innocent.

It does not take a saint to see that George W Bush is no real christian. Yet, ironically, a good portion of church-going Americans can't see beyond their hope in his honesty and sincerity. They want him to be one of them. Beginning in the presidential race of 2000 and continuing all throughout the aftermath of 9-11, George W Bush spoke boastfully about restoring decency, integrity, and godliness to America. He also spoke often of the inevitable triumph that the forces of good will have over the forces of evil. He has effectively turned American foreign policy into a dark, violent fairy tale. And it all started with Operation Infinite Justice.
His rhetoric has always been spiritually charged, and so that means he is either truly a man of God, or an outrageous liar. By the church's unquestioning endorsement of George W Bush, and out of their hope that he is who he claims to be, they have been led to believe a lie. The devil has diguised himself as an angel of light and completely manipulated the church, as Paul warned would happen, when he said that the antichrist would blind and deceive many..."if possible, even the very elect". Church-goers that I have spoken with about these matters have called me an alarmist, or conspiracy theorist. They seem to have this unwavering calm about them, despite the atrocities currently being done in the name of God. and they boast in their ignorace, calling it faith. They want to live their American lives to the fullness of it's comfortable splendor. They want to check out and just wait for the rapture, while the world outside burns alive (which in no way resembles a loving attitude to their neighbors)

Jesus spoke clearly about what was really going on in his day, and also in the days before his return. He plainly called Satan the "god of this world". And in the second of three temptations that Christ endured in the wilderness, it is shown that Satan himself has been given personal control over all the kingdoms of this world throughout history. We are warned time and time again to flee the devil, to flee worldliness. Paul said, "Do not conform to the patterns of this world, but be trasformed by the renewing of your minds." Note that we are to be transformed, not to transform. And yet the church is willing to throw all of it's faith on the back of a politician like Bush, who acts in the name of God. They have looked to this man for the transformation of our nation. They have hoped in this man to save them, when only Christ Jesus can. The disasterous, destructive nature of this so-called "born again" president's reign is overlooked and justified by them. All because he boastfully claims to be one of them, one of the sheep.

This decade so far has seen amazing destruction brought about by wars and weather. We are on the brink of collapse in many areas, and yet it seems that the face of this living nightmare is something most people refuse to recognize. Why? several reasons. Number one involves a veil of "strong delusion" spoken of in 2 Thesselonians 2:9-12, Number two involves the corporate media and other disinformation sources which demonstrate to, and reinforce in the masses a carefree attitude towards these troubling days. We don't know what to do. Experts and politicians are always telling us that they know what to do...and yet it always seems as if nothing good is ever done.

But for us to take personal responsibility and learn what to do would cost us the comfortable, carefree lives our masters are offering us in exchange for our souls. And rather than pay up front, most people will choose to take the easy way out. They will wait for someone else to take the lead and guide us all out of this social mess that we have made.

The simple truth is that most people would rather follow than lead...and the deeper truth is that many of those who are leading us now are promoting a very sinister agenda. It's our job as God's creation and American citizens to care about and to be aware of our surroundings. But the enemy of mankind has always wanted us to fall asleep on the job. Only in a society with ipods could we dance our way to Armageddon.

And Bush instigated our unrepentent, self-centered oblivion by calling upon our patriotic duty to go shopping in the aftermath of tragedy. It's a mob mentality, the rule of the majority; a buzzing frothing frenzy of mindless reinforcement... Civilized people are completely imprisoned without acknowledging it. Lies have become our bread and water. We are saturated with the lying wonder that is the status quo. So much so, that we have completely forgotten the solid, reinforcing nature of the truth. We lie to ourselves, as well as each other, and we lie to the one because we lie to the other. We reinforce each other's delusion by our respective paths of selfish oblivion. If no one said a thing we would never recognize the danger we are in.

I am very grateful that there are many other "freedom fighters" out there. Glad that I am but one of many who sees what's wrong in this. But considering the staggeringly centralized organization of the opposition, we need all the voices we can get right about now. Christ always seemed to say it best, and this is no exception to that rule, "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Pray that God would send more laborers to tend the feild".

Peace on Earth & Good Will To All Men

Blogger's disclaimer:This is an incredible true story I stumbled across Christmas night on snopes.com
This is an article cut and pasted from another site Copyright be damned, I cut and pasted it in it's entirety because the implications of this story are too hard cutting to disregard.
In March of next year, a french film entitled Joyeux Noel will be released to the general public. I only hope it will reach American theaters. This true story is exactly the standard of human decency we need to remember in the barrage of "Support our troops" yellow ribbon bumper stickers. This is the Christian spirit that is the answer to the 700 club and their murderous prayer campaign "Operation Prayer Sheild"
The proof is in the Christmas pudding. A little bit late to be posting this now, I realise, but better late than never. As John Lennon said "All that we're saying, is give peace a chance!!"
Young Brother.



The Christmas Truce

You are standing up to your knees in the slime of a waterlogged trench. It is the evening of 24 December 1914 and you are on the dreaded Western Front.

Stooped over, you wade across to the firing step and take over the watch. Having exchanged pleasantries, your bleary-eyed and mud-spattered colleague shuffles off towards his dug out. Despite the horrors and the hardships, your morale is high and you believe that in the New Year the nation's army march towards a glorious victory.

But for now you stamp your feet in a vain attempt to keep warm. All is quiet when jovial voices call out from both friendly and enemy trenches. Then the men from both sides start singing carols and songs. Next come requests not to fire, and soon the unthinkable happens: you start to see the shadowy shapes of soldiers gathering together in no-man's land laughing, joking and sharing gifts.

Many have exchanged cigarettes, the lit ends of which burn brightly in the inky darkness. Plucking up your courage, you haul yourself up and out of the trench and walk towards the foe...

The meeting of enemies as friends in no-man's land was experienced by hundreds, if not thousands, of men on the Western Front during Christmas 1914. Today, 90 years after it occurred, the event is seen as a shining episode of sanity from among the bloody chapters of World War One – a spontaneous effort by the lower ranks to create a peace that could have blossomed were it not for the interference of generals and politicians.

The reality of the Christmas Truce, however, is a slightly less romantic and a more down to earth story. It was an organic affair that in some spots hardly registered a mention and in others left a profound impact upon those who took part.

Many accounts were rushed, confused or contradictory. Others, written long after the event, are weighed down by hindsight. These difficulties aside, the true story is still striking precisely because of its rag-tagged nature: it is more 'human' and therefore all the more potent.

Months beforehand, millions of servicemen, reservists and volunteers from all over the continent had rushed enthusiastically to the banners of war: the atmosphere was one of holiday rather than conflict.

But it was not long before the jovial façade was torn away. Armies equipped with repeating rifles, machine guns and a vast array of artillery tore chunks out of each other, and thousands upon thousands of men perished.


To protect against the threat of this vast firepower, the soldiers were ordered to dig in and prepare for next year's offensives, which most men believed would break the deadlock and deliver victory.

The early trenches were often hasty creations and poorly constructed; if the trench was badly sighted it could become a sniping hot spot. In bad weather (the winter of 1914 was a dire one) the positions could flood and fall in. The soldiers – unequipped to face the rigours of the cold and rain – found themselves wallowing in a freezing mire of mud and the decaying bodies of the fallen.

The man at the Front could not help but have a degree of sympathy for his opponents who were having just as miserable a time as they were.

Another factor that broke down the animosity between the opposing armies were the surroundings. In 1914 the men at the front could still see the vestiges of civilisation. Villages, although badly smashed up, were still standing. Fields, although pitted with shell-holes, had not been turned into muddy lunarscapes.

Thus the other world – the civilian world – and the social mores and manners that went with it was still present at the front. Also lacking was the pain, misery and hatred that years of bloody war build up. Then there was the desire, on all sides, to see the enemy up close – was he really as bad as the politicians, papers and priests were saying?



It was a combination of these factors, and many more minor ones, that made the Christmas Truce of 1914 possible.

On the eve of the Truce, the British Army (still a relatively small presence on the Western Front) was manning a stretch of the line running south from the infamous Ypres salient for 27 miles to the La Bassee Canal.

Along the front the enemy was sometimes no more than 70, 50 or even 30 yards away. Both Tommy and Fritz could quite easily hurl greetings and insults to one another, and, importantly, come to tacit agreements not to fire. Incidents of temporary truces and outright fraternisation were more common at this stage in the war than many people today realise – even units that had just taken part in a series of futile and costly assaults, were still willing to talk and come to arrangements with their opponents.

As Christmas approached the festive mood and the desire for a lull in the fighting increased as parcels packed with goodies from home started to arrive. On top of this came gifts care of the state. Tommy received plum puddings and 'Princess Mary boxes'; a metal case engraved with an outline of George V's daughter and filled with chocolates and butterscotch, cigarettes and tobacco, a picture card of Princess Mary and a facsimile of George V's greeting to the troops. 'May God protect you and bring you safe home,' it said.

Not to be outdone, Fritz received a present from the Kaiser, the Kaiserliche, a large meerschaum pipe for the troops and a box of cigars for NCOs and officers. Towns, villages and cities, and numerous support associations on both sides also flooded the front with gifts of food, warm clothes and letters of thanks.

The Belgians and French also received goods, although not in such an organised fashion as the British or Germans. For these nations the Christmas of 1914 was tinged with sadness – their countries were occupied. It is no wonder that the Truce, although it sprung up in some spots on French and Belgian lines, never really caught hold as it did in the British sector.

With their morale boosted by messages of thanks and their bellies fuller than normal, and with still so much Christmas booty to hand, the season of goodwill entered the trenches. A British Daily Telegraph correspondent wrote that on one part of the line the Germans had managed to slip a chocolate cake into British trenches.
Even more amazingly, it was accompanied with a message asking for a ceasefire later that evening so they could celebrate the festive season and their Captain's birthday. They proposed a concert at 7.30pm when candles, the British were told, would be placed on the parapets of their trenches.

The British accepted the invitation and offered some tobacco as a return present. That evening, at the stated time, German heads suddenly popped up and started to sing. Each number ended with a round of applause from both sides.

The Germans then asked the British to join in. At this point, one very mean-spirited Tommy shouted: 'We'd rather die than sing German.' To which a German joked aloud: 'It would kill us if you did'.


December 24 was a good day weather-wise: the rain had given way to clear skies.

On many stretches of the Front the crack of rifles and the dull thud of shells ploughing into the ground continued, but at a far lighter level than normal. In other sectors there was an unnerving silence that was broken by the singing and shouting drifting over, in the main, from the German trenches.

Along many parts of the line the Truce was spurred on with the arrival in the German trenches of miniature Christmas trees – Tannenbaum. The sight these small pines, decorated with candles and strung along the German parapets, captured the Tommies' imagination, as well as the men of the Indian corps who were reminded of the sacred Hindu festival of light.

British soldiers bringing in Christmas holly It was the perfect excuse for the opponents to start shouting to one another, to start singing and, in some areas, to pluck up the courage to meet one another in no-man's land.

By now, the British high command – comfortably 'entrenched' in a luxurious châteaux 27 miles behind the front – was beginning to hear of the fraternisation.



Stern orders were issued by the commander of the BEF, Sir John French against such behaviour. Other 'brass-hats' (as the Tommies nick-named their high-ranking officers and generals), also made grave pronouncements on the dangers and consequences of parleying with the Germans.

However, there were many high-ranking officers who took a surprisingly relaxed view of the situation. If anything, they believed it would at least offer their men an opportunity to strengthen their trenches. This mixed stance meant that very few officers and men involved in the Christmas Truce were disciplined.

Interestingly, the German High Command's ambivalent attitude towards the Truce mirrored that of the British.



Christmas day began quietly but once the sun was up the fraternisation began. Again songs were sung and rations thrown to one another. It was not long before troops and officers started to take matters into their own hands and ventured forth. No-man's land became something of a playground.

Men exchanged gifts and buttons. In one or two places soldiers who had been barbers in civilian times gave free haircuts. One German, a juggler and a showman, gave an impromptu, and given the circumstances, somewhat surreal performance of his routine in the centre of no-man's land.

Two Territorials of London Rifle Brigade with Saxon troops of the 104th and 106th Regiments in No Man's Land near Ploegsteert Wood during the unofficial Christmas TruceCaptain Sir Edward Hulse of the Scots Guards, in his famous account, remembered the approach of four unarmed Germans at 08.30. He went out to meet them with one of his ensigns. 'Their spokesmen,' Hulse wrote, 'started off by saying that he thought it only right to come over and wish us a happy Christmas, and trusted us implicitly to keep the truce. He came from Suffolk where he had left his best girl and a 3 ½ h.p. motor-bike!'

Having raced off to file a report at headquarters, Hulse returned at 10.00 to find crowds of British soldiers and Germans out together chatting and larking about in no-man's land, in direct contradiction to his orders.

Not that Hulse seemed to care about the fraternisation in itself – the need to be seen to follow orders was his concern. Thus he sought out a German officer and arranged for both sides to return to their lines.




While this was going on he still managed to keep his ears and eyes open to the fantastic events that were unfolding.

'Scots and Huns were fraternizing in the most genuine possible manner. Every sort of souvenir was exchanged addresses given and received, photos of families shown, etc. One of our fellows offered a German a cigarette; the German said, "Virginian?" Our fellow said, "Aye, straight-cut", the German said "No thanks, I only smoke Turkish!"... It gave us all a good laugh.'

Hulse's account was in part a letter to his mother, who in turn sent it on to the newspapers for publication, as was the custom at the time. Tragically, Hulse was killed in March 1915.

On many parts of the line the Christmas Day truce was initiated through sadder means. Both sides saw the lull as a chance to get into no-man's land and seek out the bodies of their compatriots and give them a decent burial. Once this was done the opponents would inevitably begin talking to one another.

The 6th Gordon Highlanders, for example, organised a burial truce with the enemy. After the gruesome task of laying friends and comrades to rest was complete, the fraternisation began.

With the Truce in full swing up and down the line there were a number of recorded games of soccer, although these were really just 'kick-abouts' rather than a structured match.

On January 1, 1915, the London Times published a letter from a major in the Medical Corps reporting that in his sector the British played a game against the Germans opposite and were beaten 3-2.

Kurt Zehmisch of the 134th Saxons recorded in his diary: 'The English brought a soccer ball from the trenches, and pretty soon a lively game ensued. How marvellously wonderful, yet how strange it was. The English officers felt the same way about it. Thus Christmas, the celebration of Love, managed to bring mortal enemies together as friends for a time.'

The Truce lasted all day; in places it ended that night, but on other sections of the line it held over Boxing Day and in some areas, a few days more. In fact, there parts on the front where the absence of aggressive behaviour was conspicuous well into 1915.

Captain J C Dunn, the Medical Officer in the Royal Welch Fusiliers, whose unit had fraternised and received two barrels of beer from the Saxon troops opposite, recorded how hostilities re-started on his section of the front.

Dunn wrote: 'At 8.30 I fired three shots in the air and put up a flag with "Merry Christmas" on it, and I climbed on the parapet. He [the Germans] put up a sheet with "Thank you" on it, and the German Captain appeared on the parapet. We both bowed and saluted and got down into our respective trenches, and he fired two shots in the air, and the War was on again.'



The war was indeed on again, for the Truce had no hope of being maintained. Despite being wildly reported in Britain and to a lesser extent in Germany, the troops and the populations of both countries were still keen to prosecute the conflict.

Today, pragmatists read the Truce as nothing more than a 'blip' – a temporary lull induced by the season of goodwill, but willingly exploited by both sides to better their defences and eye out one another's positions. Romantics assert that the Truce was an effort by normal men to bring about an end to the slaughter.

In the public's mind the facts have become irrevocably mythologized, and perhaps this is the most important legacy of the Christmas Truce today. In our age of uncertainty, it comforting to believe, regardless of the real reasoning and motives, that soldiers and officers told to hate, loathe and kill, could still lower their guns and extend the hand of goodwill, peace, love and Christmas cheer.