MovieChat Forums > Joyeux Noël (2005) Discussion > French, German and Scottish?

French, German and Scottish?


I'm fairly certain that there were more than three nationalities in the trenches. Shouldn't that read The Allies and the Germans?

reply

There were French,Scottish,English,Belgian,German and Austrian soldiers involved.

A well-known Austrian soldier involved was no-one else then Adolf Hitler.

reply

[deleted]

Hitler did serve(as a corporal i think)with the German and Austrian troops that took part in the events

reply

Hitler did serve(as a corporal i think)with the German and Austrian troops


true

that took part in the events


Hitler certainly never took part in a fraternization.
These events were a rare exception in WWI.

reply

[deleted]

What I meantr Davidclaes is that Hitler served with the troops that were there.I never said he participated in the truce.

reply

One of the witnesses of the christmas truce, a german soldier named Josef Wenzel who wrote about the events in his letters home was of the 16th Bavarian reserve infantry regiment, the same regiment in which Hitler served in 1914.
I am no real Hitler expert so I don't know exactly where on the westfront he was during christmas 1914.
But I think if facts would exist about an involvement in the truce we would know about it. But even if there aren't any historical facts about it as it seems, it could have happened.
One thing I know is that Hitler silenced some of the comrades who served with him in the same regiment in WW1 when he seized power later.

Very strange.

Maybe anybody knows more about it?

reply

All I have seen about the topic is a note in a Danish article I read recently about the Xmas 1914 unofficial truce, that Adolf Hitler was furious over his comrades' fraternization with the enemy. That's all it says, no further details.

reply

[deleted]

Shut your mouth if you do not know what you are talking abotu hitler did serve as an Austrian soldier in WWI

reply

He actually served with the German army, not the Austrian army.

reply

One of Austria's greatest achievements was to convince the world that Beethoven was an Austrian and Hitler was a German.

reply

who in the world was ever convinced that beethoven was austrian?

reply

on3gin, learn your lessons.
You're mixing up Beethoven with Mozart.

What counts in this case is the name of the country where a person was born - to that very time when the person was born. Saying this, the facts are as follows.

Mozart: German (with Germany called "Holy Roman Empire" = "Heiliges roemisches Reich deutscher Nationen" to that time)

Beethoven: German (see above)

Hitler: Austrian-Hungarian (Empire of Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary, a dual Monarchy)

reply

May I ask why would the Holy Roman Empire be more German than Austrian?
As far as I know, back then the Empire was lead by the king of Austria. And anyway Mozart is from Salzburg, which was (and still is) in Austria.

reply

Because Austrians are ethnic Germans.

reply

-ish ... Austrians are a big mixture between Germans and Slavs.

reply

True but both Mozart and Hitler were from present-day Austria and Austria was still a region of the two empires.

reply

Beethoven's father was Dutch !

reply

You are a really friendly person.
By the way: I thought this to be a movie about being human in times of war, e.g. WWI, why does everybody have to get started on Hitler again? I know he was in the war, but he or his deeds were by no means important for that one.

reply

I believe that poster was right about Beethoven, I certainly, as a child thought he was Austrian, and he lived in Vienna for some time. Mozart was born in Salzburg, which was, at that time, under the protectorate of the Catholic bishops, and its own principality kind off.

I just listened to the director’s commentary, and the reason for picking the Scottish as his, representative of Great Britain (England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland) was because he could then have the bag pipes in his film, plain and simple.

reply

Hitler served in the German Army.

reply

Who's this idiot karlkoliver?

reply

The Christmas Truce was spontaneous and only occured that first Xmas after the war began. Hitler served with distunction with the Bavarian Army, which was part of the German Army.

reply

Hitler did serve in WWI but was a messenger throughout most of the war and was wounded by gas later in the war.

reply

... "but was a messenger"... You say that as if it was somehow some sort of rear-echelon job for slackers. Hardly. Being a front line messenger was no small task. Messengers had to be smart (memorizing the message they were given on the spot and under great stress) and have above average physical stamina (constantly running back and forth between the front line trenches and headquarters). They had to frequently leave the trenches, exposing themselves to enemy gunfire, especially if an assault was underway. The List Regiment and the headquarters messenger group suffered tremendous casualties during the war.

Much has been written attempting to down play Hitler's war service on the Western Front. Yet, a close examination shows he was a dedicated and brave front line combat soldier. While far from a typical recruit, his immediate circle of fellow soldiers and officers uniformly remembered him positively, albeit some said he was a bit odd. Hitler himself fondly remembered his service in the trenches. In June 1940 after the fall of France, he made a two-day tour of his World War I battlefields.

Hitler passed up promotion to full corporal because it would result in his being reassigned from the messenger group.

Besides two Iron Crosses, Hitler was awarded the Bavarian Military Medal 3rd class with bar, and later received, as did all wounded soldiers, the Cross of Military Merit.


reply

Hitler was Austrian by birth but refused to serve in the Austro-Hungarian army due to his loathing of the Hapsburg Dynasty and his hatred of non-Aryans. He didn't want to serve alongside non-Germans. He was in a Bavarian unit as a dispatch runner and won the Iron Cross first and second class.

reply

""Hitler was involved in WWII not WWI!""

______________________________

Sorry, but Hitler was a soldier in WWI in the occidental front.

reply

hitler was a lance corporal in the first world war, he was a trench runner and was awarded i think the iron cross - could be wrong, don't quote me.

anyway - why are you arguing about such a pathetic evil man like hitler - hello, benno furman major deutsch god!!!

reply

read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler#World_War_I if you want to know more about Hitler in WWI...

Please visit my profile & me for my unsolved researches - always new ones! Thanks

reply

[deleted]

Hitler served as a soldier in World War I. He blamed German loss on gov't influenced by Jews. He was forming his racist and down right evil thoughts during this war. He initated World War II, but he was involved in World War I!

LEARN HISTORY!

I wish I could join the Navy!

reply

[deleted]

Hitler by no means invented anti-Jewish sentiment in Europe. He was a product of it, almost literally bred into it. His mother's mother was a maid for a rich Jew. She (his mother) was rumored (with some plausibility) to be the illegitimate daughter of her mother's employer. I.E., Hitler himself was possibly 1/4 Jewish.

There are also recollections that Hitler's father was an abusive man, and during his rages, he brought this issue up. Further, Hitler was missing a testicle. This was subject of some rumor during and after his life, and later verified when the KGB released the file on him some 20 years after the war. Soviet soldiers found his body outside his bunker, and there was an autopsy. The results were kept secret all those years to see who would come around looking.

There's an excellent book on Hitler's psychology called "The Psychopathic God" by (?).

Anyway, my main point was that Hitler did not invent anti-Jewish racism. It has always been strong in Europe, ever since Roman times, when they followed the legions into Europe. Ironically, Germany was one of the best countries "most of the time" in regards to how they were treated. The Jewish/German relationship has been described by one author as a "love hate" type. Indeed, many German philosophers had a deep admiration of Jewish culture.

It might be hard for an American to grasp the depth of Euro/Jewish relations before WWII, but they ran almost as deep in some countries as black/white relations. If you get to know some older Europeans well enough, you start to see it, either as an attitude or recognition, that Jews were a much bigger deal to Europeans than they are to Americans.

Which, of course, is why Hitler was able to get so much mileage out of it.

reply

I agree with your European Jewish argument but in no way has it ever been proven that Hitler's body was found, nor that his mother was jewish. Don't believe everything you hear, especially from the KGB during the cold war. It was a period of extreme censorship and propaganda from both fronts. So far the main plausible theory is that Hitler's body was never found, as I highly highly doubt that the Soviet Union would keep it a secret that they found probably the most wanted corpse of all times during the Cold War era where they could have used it to their advantage as en element to encourage the people.

reply

Excuse my facts, but...didn't Hitler order his body to be burned so the enemy wouldn't lay hold of his corpse?

Have you been listening to one too many Allied war-cries?

"Hitler, he had but one big ball
Goering, had two but they were small
Himmler, had something similar
And poor Goebbels, had no balls, at all."

--> My history teacher taught that to us in Yr 9. Apparently it was sung by Allies troops at the time. He told us his students used to sit in exams and recite it to jog their memory. =S

*********
Some day you will be old enough to start reading fairytales again.

reply

"Soviet soldiers found his body outside his bunker, and there was an autopsy. The results were kept secret all those years to see who would come around looking."

What exactly do you mean by "to see who would come around looking", Razz?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The only think I can think is that you are suggesting that some ex-Nazis may have tried to get some kind of contact with Hitlers body or files, so the KGB were using them as a honey trap.

I would appreciate it if you could clarify mate, please? It sounds very interesting.

reply

He wasn't forming his views during the war. He probably had had them before the war as well, but he formulated them in Prison after the Beer Hall Putsch in Munich in 1923. That's where his scribe wrote Mein Kampf as dictated by him.

reply

Hitler most certainly was involved in WWI, where he won the Iron Cross for bravery actually. Given to him by his Jewish commander. A bit ironic under the circumstances. He was a corporal and joined the army after his failed career as an artist. He was sent home towards the end of the war as he was temporarily blinded by mustard gas from the allies.

So yeah, he fought in the first one, started the second one.

x

reply

[deleted]

Can't believe you were NOT aware he was a CORPORAL in the Austrian army. That is why he became popular when he began his campaign to get elected in the '20s. This war made him bitter. He was gassed and left the trenches.

reply

Not only the Allies and the Germans fought - but the French imported thousands and thousands of Vietnamese too! (they were occupying Vietnam at the time)

reply

There were also Welsh soldiers involved.

reply

That's a bit reduntent, Gaz. Of course Welsh soldiers fought, it was the British Army! There is no Welsh army, or English, or Scottish. They all fight in the British army for the nation of the United Kingdom.

It's a bit daft as well to say "not only the allies and the Germans fought, Vietnamese (or anyone) also fought". Unless you don't know what the term "allies" means, this is a bit of a strange thing to say. The Vietnamese were allies.

reply

[deleted]

Searcher: You should search for the difference between then and than.

reply

What i meant was, shouldn't the description for this film read the Allies? By mentioning the French and the Scottish the other countries who's troops were in the trenches on the frontline with the allies are forgotten.

reply

In 1914 only France, Russia and Britain were at war with Germany and Austria...
in this Movie are Scotts, french and german people involved... why should they call the two western Powers just "the allies"...and I think, as I know so far from "Battlefield 1918" ;-) the so called "allies" (Western democracies) weren't called the allies in WW1

reply

They were called the Entente powers.

reply

Don't forget Belgium and Serbia.

reply

Yes please, don't forget Belgium. We had the sad honour of staging this events in our country. :-(. There are still so many scars.

But I will most certainly go to this movie. I hope he shows that war is the most gruesome mistake people can make.

reply

that's what i'm saying. by saying French and Scottish the other countries that fought are forgotten.

reply

It certainly makes a change that Scots have been recognised for their efforts in WWI. There's a very lazy (not malicious) attitude that Britain is England and England is Britain, not only from our European cousins but from our friends south of the border as well. When you break down statistics of losses per British nation (esp WWI), Scots losses were appalling per head of population, much higher than English casualties.

As a Scot (and History teacher in England), I still have to use textbooks that refer to WWI as 'England v Germany' (not kidding).This totally undermines the sacrafices of the other British nations.

Please don't think this is somehow an anti-English rant, it's certainly not, my point is that Scots, Welsh and Irish should not be forgotten for their efforts in the world wars. It's nice to see a WWI film that concentrates on a section of the WWI British Army that doesn't reiterate stereotypes of 'stiff upper lip' English officers.

reply

As a French who lives near Belgium Frontier, I can tell my land knows what WWI meant and still means for the land itself and also in our minds, even if it is 90 years old. France is like a crossroad in Europe, by consequence we saw too many wars on our own land.

In fact, it is not really "useful" to speak about who was there and who was not cause in fact there was almost everyone on this battlefront. You forgot New Zealand and Canada (Commonwealth), and so many else, like people from former french colonies like Vietnam, North Africa, Senegal, and so on. In "World War", you have "World".

The main thing to say is in fact war is the ugliest mankind invention.

And when we can see movies that remember us there were only simple guys fighting against other simple guys for a reason only known by people who handle power, it remembers us to be aware about what our governments decide for us (do you see what I'm saying ?).

Another example : In Vimy (North of France), 65000 canadians died. It is now for ever a canadian land (offered by French government). I heard from one canadian student (employed as a guide for groups) that Canadians and Germans, were throwing cigarettes or some other stuff from firsts lines (only few meters distance) during Christmas.

Remember...there were fathers, sons, brothers on both lines.....

reply

Je vous remercie de souligner la contribution des Canadiens à la Première guerre mondiale, guerre qui a commencé pour nous en même temps que pour le Royaume-Uni. Il en a été de même pour la Deuxième guerre mondiale.

Je dois hélas vous corriger sur le nombre des pertes canadiennes à Vimy.

Cela doit plutôt être 6500 soldats canadiens que 65 000, car ce dernier nombre excède d'environ 10 000 le nombre total des soldats du Dominion canadien tués lors de toute la Première guerre mondiale.

Vous me corrigerez au besoin, mais je crois me rappeler que 25 000 soldats français puis 25 000 soldats britanniques sont morts en essayant de s'emparer de la crête de Vimy. La ligne n'a pas bougé de plus que quelques mètres.

L'armée allemande a perdu 40 000 hommes en défendant la colline, avant de céder à l'assaut très minutieusement préparé des Canadiens.

C'est donc l'économie en hommes sacrifiés autant que la victoire elle-même dont les Canadiens ont pu se réjouir.

Indépendamment de ce qui a valu la victoire aux forces canadiennes, Vimy est surtout considéré par les historiens canadiens et québécois comme une date marquante dans l'émergence au Canada anglophone d'un sentiment national canadien se démarquant du sentiment d'appartenance à l'Empire britannique.

( Cela vaut évidemment pour les anglophones car les Canadiens français n'avaient pas attendu le 20ième siècle et la guerre de 1914-1918 pour se sentir une nation nord-américaine. )


Pierre Croteau
Montréal, Québec

reply

hum... on aurait dit mon prof d'histoire, mais merci quand même pour l'information.

How often it is that the angry man rages denial of what his inner self is telling him.

reply

I totally agree, Scotland may be part of the UK but we are a nation on it's own. The Scots have been involved in wars for most of the modern age yet we are known as "English". We were one of the first nations to storm the D-day beaches (with bagpipes!!).
Also this film pinpoints on 3 single nations, but it is trying to tell a story, I don't think it is trying to ignore all the other nations who were involved.

reply

The Irish especially should never be forgotten, as it was they that had at least one battallion fighting on the German side!

Looks like a spanner, acts like a spanner ... it's spanner boy

reply

[deleted]

Need to mention the Commonwealth primarily Canada, New Zealand, and Australia made huge sacrfices for the Commonwealth.

reply

im english and i agree entirely. in every war there is always a country/countries that are left unnamed and that quite frankly sucks. WWII for instance, everytime i speak to americans about it, they are sure of themselves that they were 'The Gonads' in that war. they fail to realise that they only joined in after about 3/4 years, by which time many nations including as far away as australia (!) had already been pitching in.

I dont blame any nation for being ignorant, only those high up pompous &^£$ who wrote the history books.

B*tch over

reply

Uh, okay, let me just say what I learned in US History classes...

1. When WWII rolled around, the US was *not* eager (as a nation) to re-enter a costly foreign war.

2. We did, however, help in several ways by blockading oil to Asia, shipping raw and finished materials to Europe, and sailed a large fleet of navy flotillas. That certainly antagonized the Japanese Empire.

3. At several points, Germany was somewhat popular in the US during and previous to WWII, hosting dignitaries and fundraisers even! Hitler made overtures of treaties with the US even.

But, it was inevitable in a way that eventually the Japanese would invade - as they were desperate for oil. The US was heavily invested in the Philippines, having fought a huge bloody war there. Japan wanted to pre-emptively destroy our Pacific capabilities, and hoped to acquire some oil supplies by controlling the trade routes.

So, in conclusion, most US folks should know better. We did kick a**, but not until after a couple of years. Our political class was desperate to preserve England and Europe as a huge chunk of our economy was based on exporting!!

reply

Oh jesus, you are not getting this film at all! This film is based (loosely) on TRUE events that took place. Only the Scots, the French and the Germans were involved in these particular true events, THAT'S why there's no other nationalities involved.
It would be like making Amistad (about slavery) with a variety of different nationalities playing the African slaves! The film isn't trying to pretend no other countries took part in WW1 - it clearly presumes people will know that many did (which, er, clearly people don't know!)

reply

Perhaps the reason they only mentioned French and Scottish soldiers is that maybe only French and Scottish soldiers from the Entente side of the conflict, were involved in this Christmas get-together.

reply

No, It was British, not just Scottish but that doesn't matter at all for this film. No one should be getting upset that it didn't show the English taking part, anyone who knows the real story knows they did take part. Here we have the Scots representing the UK, that's fine by me (and Englishman) and as someone has already said, the reason the director specifically choose the Scots to represent Britain, was for the exchange of the bagpipes and the singing.

The French are quite infamous for not taking part in the cease fire. I know that some probably did, some individuals and maybe the odd squadron here and there but there has been much written by the Germans of their disappointment that the French would not leave their trenches. The British also wrote of French lack of trust and many French wrote about it from their point of view. The reasons for them not taking part like the rest is quite fuzzy. It has been put down to a lack of trust by the French in general, cowardice by the French in general or, and I expect this to most likely be true, orders from their generals (in general;-)) and higher ups that they must not, under any circumstances, fraternise with the enemy, with the threat of dawn firing squad if those orders are not obeyed.

I'm sure the French desperately wanted to be a part of this but they were (at this time, obviously not later on when they were close to complete mutiny) brilliantly trained soldiers who would not understand the thought of disobeying an order.

reply

And Belgium. We served as 'front'.

reply

It refers to soldiers from these 3 countries because those were the ones involved in this truce at Christmas time.

reply

I think the film is simply trying to show what happened at Christmas 1914 in some parts of the western front by using one section of the front as an example, which just happened to have German, French and Scottish soldiers fighting there (because -let's be realistic- they can't show what happened all over the western front, otherwise you couldn't make a story out of it!)
Besides, I personally think, the film is quite unrealistic; I don't think the soldiers actually sat together for hours, drinking coffee and holding mass together. Far from it: they might have given each other gifts and christmas greetings, but nothing like this! Plus: did you see how clean and tidy no man's land was in the film? Of course it's nice to imagine it that way, but so untrue. The real terrors of war stay hidden.
The film is a bit far-fetched with other words and I think they should have stayed closer to the truth.

reply

The soldiers did seat with each other for hours sometimes the truce went on for couple of days...the top brass are the ones who stopped the x-mas truce and don't forget they thought it would be over by x-mas hence why they stopped fighting.

There are many story's about what happened you just have to take your own view about it and let the rest in peace.

reply

There's an excellent book on the Christmas Truce called "Silent Night". The soldiers who fraternized were primarily British (including Scots) and German, although there was also some limited French/German contacts. The generals were dismayed and the British ordered a slow artillery barrage just prior to Christmas, 1915 to be sure there was no repeat of the truce of 1914.

reply

There was an article just the other day about this truce on mises.org: http://www.mises.org/story/1978 . It mentions "Silent Night," which is based heavily on personal correspondence from the front - if anyone is interested, the book is by an author by the name of Stanley Weintraub. One of the more interesting things in the book, as the Mises article points out, is his last chapter "What if?" that examines what might have happened had the soldiers been able to bring about a permanent end to the war during the Christmas truce. To quote mises.org:

The last chapter of Weintraub's book is entitled "What If — ?" This is counterfactual history at its best and he sets out what he believes the rest of the 20th century would have been like if the soldiers had been able to cause the Christmas Truce of 1914 to stop the war at that point. Like many other historians, he believes that with an early end of the war in December of 1914, there probably would have been no Russian Revolution, no Communism, no Lenin, and no Stalin. Furthermore, there would have been no vicious peace imposed on Germany by the Versailles Treaty, and therefore, no Hitler, no Nazism and no World War II. With the early truce there would have been no entry of America into the European War and America might have had a chance to remain, or return, to being a Republic rather than moving toward World War II, the "Cold" War (Korea and Vietnam), and our present status as the world bully.

reply

Notice how the English are always portrayed bad in movies these days? Why not include them fraternising with the French and Germans? Do they think the public wouldn't go near a movie in which English people aren't invaders or baby-killers? The only English characters in the movie are the pompous officer (and the pompous British military officer is one of the most over-used cliches), and the dastardly Bishop who uses the Bible to justify war. Why make only the English characters bad?

This movie promotes European integration and co-operation at a time when many people are starting to have doubts. The exclusion of England from any positive role in the movie would suggest that Europe would be better off without England. (Maybe Mel Gibson coughed up a few million dollars to make the movie)

reply

"The exclusion of England from any positive role in the movie would suggest that Europe would be better off without England."

Europe would not be better off without England. As an example and despite my private feelings, I applaud Blair for duking it out with the EU or any leaders that strive to protect and better the country and unify with neighbors. Cheap shot at Mr. Gibson.

"Notice how the English are always portrayed bad in movies these days?"

I'm American and I'm bored to tears with the cliched British military officers and for that matter cliched British characters in movies today. Not every Brit is drinking tea (or beer), with cuecumber sandwiches, playing cricket while listening to Queen. My ancestors are rolling around in the graves at the moment for defending the Brits (I'm German, Scottish, and Welsh with a twist of Blackfoot Native American.)

This movie illustrates we are people with nationalities not the other way around. And in times of war and now influential globilization humanity and unity are vital for a better future.

reply

If you're going to bring Tony Blair into this, it might be worth noting that he's Scottish.

reply

No he's English. Being born in Scotland doesn't mean he is a Scot and he doesn't claim to be either. The same would go the other way or is Andy Cameron an Englishman?

reply

Blair's father was illegitimate and his mother was a Protestant from Ireland. His early childhood was in Scotland and his secondary schooling was in Scotland. I seem to have heard that he's one of these people who's Scottish when it suits him, usually politically.

Andy Cameron? David Cameron's roots might be more interesting. Enlighten us.

reply

:-?.
So you are advocating jus sanguinis, when it comes to nationalities? ("You can only be Scottish, if your parents were Scots, regardless of where you grew up.").

reply

"... our present status as the world bully."

You need to get out, more. Truly.

God, how I wish people could talk about movies and leave politics out of it.

reply

It seems you didn't bother reading his/her post properly. Though s/he made the mistake of not using quotation marks, he/she clearly stated that that paragraph was a direct, copy/paste quote from another website.

reply

I don't think this movie meant to bash the English at all, it just focused on a certain area which happened to have Scottish units deployed and not English ones. But it's based on a true story and fact of the matter is that while the French and Germans officials publicly denied this fraternisation between their lines, the English press actually printed a story about it at the time which was on very favourable terms of these happenings and was well received by the English public. The book clearly states this fact, so, there's certainly no intention to bash the English, nor to depict them as warmongers, okay? :)

The last chapter of Weintraub's book is entitled "What If — ?" This is counterfactual history at its best and he sets out what he believes the rest of the 20th century would have been like if the soldiers had been able to cause the Christmas Truce of 1914 to stop the war at that point. Like many other historians, he believes that with an early end of the war in December of 1914, there probably would have been no Russian Revolution, no Communism, no Lenin, and no Stalin. Furthermore, there would have been no vicious peace imposed on Germany by the Versailles Treaty, and therefore, no Hitler, no Nazism and no World War II. With the early truce there would have been no entry of America into the European War and America might have had a chance to remain, or return, to being a Republic rather than moving toward World War II, the "Cold" War (Korea and Vietnam), and our present status as the world bully.


Don't have much to add to that assessment and totally agree that a lot of these horrors might very well have been avoided had the war ended differently. The war didn't have to stop as early as 1914 though. A non-entry of the US would probably have avoided Nazism as well, since it would have led to a stalemate. While Germany was gaining the upperhand through Russia's surrender they were far too war weary by 1918 to even think about invading Great Britain and thus achieving total victory, but they would not have been defeated either, so a just truce would have been achieved. Had the war ended this way in 1918 it's plausible to believe that Europeans would have avoided future wars due to the mass casualties in WW1, since all sides were tired of war and didn't want to see it happen again.

A remark on Italy though;

At that time, the Allies were the Russians, Italians, French and Great Britain.

Scotland wasn't an independent nation, Scottish regiments notwithstanding.

The US only got involved in the final months of that war.


That's not quite correct since Italy was actually part of the Central Powers in 1914, but declared herself neutral at the onset of WW1 (which can be considered dishonorouable on Italy's behalf, but Italy justified this action on grounds that it was Austro-Hungaria which declared war on Serbia and Italy was only bound to defensive interaction on behalf of her allies). Netherless Italy was never a reliable ally for the Central Powers either way, since she had her own quarrels with the Austrians and wanted to gain some Austrian territories along the Adriatic. So, it's really no surprise that they struck a deal with the Entente and joined the war on behalf of the Allies, but that was 1915.

reply

Durr, Scotland is part of Britain........ For anyone who doesn't know (HOW? HOW can you not know?) Britain consists of: England, Wales, SCOTLAND and Northern Ireland.

reply

No Britian consists of Scotland, Wales and England.

The United Kingdom includes Great Britian and Northern Ireland

reply

Have you forgotten Canada, Australia and New Zealand? The Australian warship HMAS Sydney sank the German light cruiser SMS Emden on 9 November 1914.

reply

No surprise that if you leave the french to make a film like this, they choose to leave out the English.

What a massive chip on their shoulder they have.

LOL

reply

It could get quite full if we listed all the nationalities from the different Empires involved.

reply

Indians were also involved!!

To my knowledge there was little involvement with the French. Although there was contact, it was limited. The French saw the Germans as invaders and wanted little to do with making friends with them. The Brit's (or should I say people from the UK as the Northern Irish were there) didn't care so much as they couldn't be bothered fighting over 'cabbage patches in France' (a rough quote).

Interesting comments about the Scottish/British thing. I've lived in Finland for 4 years, I'm English but it drives me mad when Finns refer in both English and Finnish to The UK & GB as England (englanti in Finnish)...It's something that I tell them they shouldn't do in both English and their native Finnish, as it's basically disrespectful to the Welsh, Scottish and Irish. Someone once told me that that is a typical conservative British attitude - How they figured that out is beyond me!!

reply

In this particular instance the british unit present was the Black Watch, a scottish regiment. There are only three Leftenents portrayed so, theoretically there were perhaps only one company of each nationality facing each other.

The Germans had allies as well, so maybe it should be the Allies against the Allies.

The Germans, Austro-Hungarians, Bulgarians and Ottomans in the First World War have been historically labeled the Central Powers.

reply

English portrayed as bad in movies? Psh. You have James Bond. The French are the ones who get the shaft. They have Inspector Clousseau. Don't be whining about nothing. The Germans are portrayed as evil more often than not as well. Anglocentric buffoonery is all that sort of meaningless complaining is.

reply

Since when does Tony Blair say he is English and not Scottish? I've never heard him say that, not that I give a monkeys.

Anyway nae doubt Scotland has a glorious defeat in this movie.

reply

Many nations were involved, but the film (it already came out in canada and I saw it) portrays only what happens in one specific location where there happens to be only Scottish, French and Germans.

Towards the end of the movie, one can nonetheless understand through the dialogues and by a text that this unoficial truce did not only happen in one given place but in all over the front.

reply

Germany and Austria-Hungary were the Allies due to their treaty and the Entente was result of treaty between Russia, France and Britain.

And yes, Hitler was involved in World War I.

I wish I could join the Navy!

reply

its just a film so respect it for what it represents not for what it presents

reply

at the place theyu r fightin @ in the film there is just scottich, french & german soldiers

reply

"Shut your mouth if you do not know what you are talking abotu hitler did serve as an Austrian soldier in WWI"

Actually, he served as a German soldier during WWI. He left Austria to escape National Service (sorry, I dont know if thats what its called there) but joined the German army when Germany entered the war.

I agree with some people on this thread, that loads of other nations fought during the war. However, they were not all mingled in with one another. Some regiments were at other lines and trenches. So that means that during the Christmas truce, some particular nations were together in their games of football and exchanging of cigarettes etc. Im not too sure if that makes sense now but im gonna post it anyways lol!

reply

At that time, the Allies were the Russians, Italians, French and Great Britain.

Scotland wasn't an independent nation, Scottish regiments notwithstanding.

The US only got involved in the final months of that war.

reply

Hitler's racist ideology took shape when he was a student in Vienna before the war. His personal frustration with the Jewish art dealers


Interesting, rare movie to check out: Noah Taylor (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Shine, Flirting, etc.) as Hitler and John Cusack as an art dealer... Its title is MAX. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290210/

-----------------------------
"What in pluperfect hell...?"

reply

Leaving aside the nationalistic bickering, which really has no place on this site, let me clarify the historical background to this film and clear up one or two other matters:

There were a great many truces on both the Western and Eastern Fronts at Christmas 1914, some lasting for two days or more. The various High Commands made sure there was none for the remainder of the War.

British (including Scots), French, and German troops were on the Western Front; German, Austrio-Hungarian, and Russian on the Eastern; the fighting involving Austria, Germany, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc. is usually referred to as the Balkan Front; Germany and Austria fought Italy on the Italian Front. As the War progressed the situation became more complicated, but the film is set in 1914.

The Entente was, strictly speaking, Britain and France. With Belgium, Russia, and Serbia, and later Italy, Portugal, Romania and a handful of other nations up to and including the USA, the were referred to as The Allies. Germany, Austria-Hungary, and eventually Turkey and Bulgaria were known as the Central Powers.

Hitler was Austrian but fought in the German Army on the Western Front, was wounded 5 times, and received a major decoration.

About the film: Obviously based on fact (which a reviewer in the daily Mirror didn't seem to realise), it depicts a plausible version of events as far as the chronology and units involved are concerned. The British and French lines did meet and it is a fact that the 3 combatant armies would have been in close proximity. Troops from all parts of the British Isles took part.

The idea of opposing soldiers having lived in, been educated in, and even married women from each other's countries is based on fact. The story is, indeed, a representative picture of the 1914 truces.

Unfortunately, the nonsense with the opera singers reduces it to comedy, such is the improbability of the suggestion.

The uniforms and equipment are extremely accurate, with the glaring and surprising exception of the German Model 08/15 machine-gun, which did not enter service until early 1916.

reply

Hey Dont forget that Australian and Candian soldiers also made up part of the British empire at the time and also had large numbers of troops on the western front

From what i can recall, Hitler fought in some area against the Canadians

reply

[deleted]

Well, there was indeed a lot of different nationalities involved, and this films talks about a particular part of the front line, where French, Scottish and German people were posted. There has been a lot of these events during that time, as it said at the end of the movie, and this movie talks about a particular one.

reply

This is a very popular thread ! I’ve not had the chance to read every comment, but I’d like to mention a couple of things about comments I’ve seen:-

In 1914, Adolf Hitler was a private in the 16th Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment. On 31st October 1914, his unit was surprised and routed while in reserve at Gheluvelt Chateau by a bayonet charge by 2nd Btn Worcesters bursting out of Polygon Wood. Wisely, Hitler legged it too. How 20th Century history could have been changed with a timely bayonet for Herr Hitler ! A few weeks later, for his dispatch-running efforts, he was awarded the Iron Cross Second Class. In 1918, Corporal Hitler was reputedly awarded the Iron Cross First Class under slightly misty circumstances. One version said that he had single-handledly gone into No-Mans land and at bayonet point forced a group of British soldiers to surrender. Another version said that he had merely taken possession of a group of prisoners captured by other German soldiers and escorted them to the behind the lines ‘POW cage’. Another version said he was arbitrarily awarded it, along with other soldiers, as a morale boost for the papers and conscripted green troops. Ironically, Hitler’s own officer signed the recommendation him for the award, a Captain Hoffman, who was Jewish. Observers and Nazi rivals did notice that Hitler didn’t mention his Iron Cross during speeches or even conversations about the old days.

Fraternisation at Christmas 1914 was a fact. It didn’t happen in all the sectors of the front line and it ranged from a brief lull in firing on Christmas Eve only to fully-fledged truces lasting up to New Year. Some sectors fired at each other as usual. Even before Christmas, British generals were aware of the possibility of Christmas fraternization and for instance Major General Sir Horace Dorrien-Smith and Major General Sir John French issued directives to troops warning them of the punishment for such acts if they went ahead. However, despite various censures of wrongdoers etc, no unit was punished or disbanded etc. Christmas 1915 saw very little fraternization.

As for which nations’armies were on the Western Front (ie from the Swiss frontier to the Belgian coast at Nieuport), as it developed in 1914, the Western Front was home initially to soldiers from Belgium, France, Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales & Ireland) and Germany. Temporary British manpower shortages in the Autumn of 1914 saw the arrival of Indians (including Gurkhas), West Indians and the first Canadians. Equally, the French brought in North African troops, Vietnamese sharpshooters and the Foreign Legion. 1915 saw the Indians and West Indians leave and more Canadians appear. The British by now had trained many more troops (volunteers) back in the UK who now started to arrive in big numbers. In mid-1916, Australians arrived on the Western Front for the first time. South Africans also joined, attached to 9th Scottish Division. 1917 saw the arrival of the first Americans (2 divisions attached to British and French units). In 1918, Portuguese troops joined alongside the British. An anti-Bolshevik Russian contingent joined alongside the French, as well as Polish and Czech volunteer units. In early 1918 too, the Americans arrived in growing numbers, soon to go into action on the Marne. However, Austro-Hungarian troops, Italians, Bulgarians, Serbians, Russians (other than mentioned above), Romanians, Greeks, Montenegrans, Turkish and Japanese, though all at war in WW1, never sent troops to the Western Front.

reply

There were a few instances of Italian troops on the Western Front. I have seen their graves.

reply

Yes, almost nobody mentioned Italy had big part in WWI and also between Austrian and Italians there were fraternisations!

-----
Mick Travis: When do we live? That's what I want to know.
----
I love London City!

reply

yes there were. but they were focussing on that part where there were Scots, French and Germans. its really very simple

Stop! Nobody move... I've dropped me brain...!

reply

Funny enough, this whole thread got out of hand because someone wanted all the Allied armies listed as taking part. The movie focuses on that small area where those THREE nationalities were dug in. That's all and there's nothing to be disputed. I've watched the movie about 4 times and it was indeed just those three groups in that movie and that movie didn't concern itself with the entire war.

reply

I'm not an expert about this period of history, and, I'm safely guessing I'm not the only one, but from what I have read, the truces were pretty much hit and miss. One stretch of the line could be celebrating Christmas and 100 yard in either direction could be firing at each other.

It's amazing how difficult it is to wage a war if the soldiers refuse to fight.

reply

Another filmed rendition of the 1914 truce is found in the allegorical film "Oh ! What a Lovely War !".

The scene portrays a fictionalised gathering of Black Watch and German troops in No Man's Land, plus some English. Some of the dialogue and events acted out were based on letters written by soldiers who took part in truces or witnessed them.

In a memorable moment when Jocks and Landsers are looking at photos, trying out each other's schnapps and whisky, Virginia and Turkish cigarettes and even cigars, the peaceful bliss is broken by a sudden artillery bombardment in No Man's Land. As everyone gets ready to scatter, a German shouts to a Jock "These are your guns which are firing - they will hit you too !" The Jock replies "It's us they're firing at !!"



"S h i t happens in mysterious ways, its wonders to peform"

reply