[toretore]

Rather than assuming that these soldiers negotiated truces out of purely pragmatic reasons, I think the article completely ignores that most people actually don't want to lie half-frozen in trenches killing each other. They had these "truces" because war is hell and everybody wanted a break from it. If there was nobody there to order them, most would've gone home.

[dalke]

How does it ignore that?

It gave examples of how shelling didn't occur during wartime, and how latrines and food trains weren't targeted, because people wanted food, wanted to eat in peace, and need to take a crap - and if they did it then the other side would respond in kind.

I guess I'm confused about how "everybody wanted a break from it" isn't a pragmatic reason.

But the essay continues: "Initially, this was a purely instrumental impulse, self-serving cooperation to prevent retaliation." (I think that's your 'purely pragmatic'.) Followed by:

> With time, however, this sense of responsibility developed a moral tinge, tapping into the soldiers’ resistance to betraying those who dealt honorably with them. It occurred to them that: The other side didn’t want dinner disturbed any more than we do; they also don’t want to fight in rainstorms; they also have to deal with brass from headquarters who screw up everything. A creeping sense of camaraderie emerged.

I can't help but think that the essay takes on your point whole-heartedly, and doesn't ignore it.

[7952]

A "Live and let live" policy is very pragmatic if you are lying soaking wet in a rat infested trench. It was common for troops to avoid offensive actions in the understanding that the enemy would do likewise. It would have been blatantly obvious people that the fighting in more quiet sectors had little strategic value.