Trench Warfare, 1914-1918: The Live And Let Live System

by Tony Ashworth

The story of the great battles of the First World War has been told by historians, journalists and others. The shock and slaughter of the Somme, Verdun and Passchendaele are a major theme of most books. Large scale battles, however, comprised the smaller part of soldiers' total time in combat. For 90% of that time soldiers fought small scale battles . These small conflicts were violent, continual and involved complex weaponry and specialised tactics. Yet, during small battles, soldiers could and often did, make choices not possible during large ones. From these choices, there evolved between enemies a curious culture of live and let live which constrained the war culture of kill or be killed in fundamental ways.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, World War I, War, Military Fiction, Military History

280 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1980

Reviews

[Trawets · Rating 3 out of 5]

Life in the trenches of WWI was not unremitting slaughter and throughout the war some units managed to come to a "live and let live" arrangement with their enemy. Tony Ashworth examines in detail how non-elite regiments made life safer and more tolerable for themselves while in the front line. After Douglas Haig took command of the BEF at the end of 1915, life became much more difficult for those less aggressive soldiers, however many still found ways of avoiding unnecessary conflict.
Tony Ashworth's book is more a sociological study than a history book, and though not an easy read is very interesting and sheds light on the term "a quiet front".

[Boudewijn]

Notes:

March 29, 2020: Added to TBR after reading De meeste mensen deugen where it was used as a resource

[Peter Fox · Rating 2 out of 5]

There's a good book struggling to escape Ashworth's dry repetitive prose.

He makes a good case that there was a large element of live and let live on the Western Front, with violence being kept down to acceptable levels in order that each side should be able to live a tolerable life. However, the book is overly long for the evidence and he fills the space by telling us a bit of what he is about to say later and with various academic studies and theoretical musings. These aren't particularly interesting.

What is interesting are the anecdotes from the service personnel. These keep the book afloat. Without these it would just be tedious.

[Caitlin Hanrahan · Rating 5 out of 5]

An important and original topic. Very comprehensive and well-researched.

[Gregory · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very intensely written. You need your full concentration to follow along. Almost an academic text. The author has done a lot of researching WW1 to prove his theories about how enemies find ways to cooperate to their mutual benefit (staying alive). Firstly, through overt fraternisation until senior commanders put a stop to it. Then through inertia - just not fighting very much and finally through ritualised violence where each side gave the other full opportunity to avoid being in harm’s way. There many interesting quotes and anecdotes. The corollaries are important- this was not uniquely a WW1 phenomenon and can even be extended to the world of business. It can seen as a version of « The Prisoner’s Dilemma ». As a by-product, the book also teaches you a lot about British military structure and organisation. But it is not easy reading - the text is so carefully written to avoid endangering his theories that it requires a quiet room and a lot of attention to get the most from it.

[Dropbear123 · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting book about how men in trench warfare tried to minimise the fighting and actual killing of their opponents. Details the beginning of the truces, how they changed over time (from communicated truces to more informal shooting over heads and deliberately missing), how the system was maintained, what happened when the system was broke and the high command’s response to the system. For a book from the 80s it was surprisingly fair to Haig, even defending his pushing of raids which has gotten him a lot of criticism, and wasn’t filled with ‘lions led by donkeys’ cliches. Lots of primary sources like battalion histories or diaries and accounts of the men.

However it is a dry academic writing style and very analytical. While I enjoyed it I’m a bit of a WWI obsessive and if you are not really interested in WWI then you’d probably hate the book. 4/5

[Bas · Rating 4 out of 5]

The large title "trench warfare" is very misleading, it's a interesting book on the well-documented tendency of soldiers to avoid unnecessary discomfort and casualties in the trenches by making unofficial rules of conduct and engagement with the enemy.

[Steve Penner · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was a book club choice and truly the member who suggested it needs to be clubbed. It is a tedious and monotonous read about trench warfare in WWI. The thesis held is that a "live and let live" philosophy of combat was held between the opposing sides whenever and wherever along the lines during the long stalemate that was the Western front. There is much detail on how that happened and how the upper hierarchy of the British military tried to rein it in. The contested point seems to be why this happened. Were men unwilling to kill for their country and cause or were they not desiring to die and found any way possible to avoid it, even fraternizing with the enemy. Can't imagine anyone reading this unless required by a teacher or a book club.

[Michael Gordon · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting topic, but the writing is quite dry and feels repetitive. Would only recommend to those with a keen interest in the First World War, as it’s more academic than popular-history. It read like someone’s dissertation. Won’t read again.

[Leonardo]

Citado en Compórtate.

[David Martin · Rating 2 out of 5]

I love books about the First World War with over 100 in my library. This, however, made for difficult reading. The title is misleading as the book reads more like an academic thesis, dull and very repetitive. For the information it imparts, it is far too long. What frustrated me most about it was the gross over-use of the two phrases “for instance” and “for example”. There must be very few double pages in the book that do not contain at least one of these phrases. For instance, on one double page I counted five of them. Another annoying feature, which added to the repetitive nature and over-long length of the book was the author’s habit, usually at the end or beginning of chapters, to tell you what he has just told you in the previous chapter, and then to tell you what he was going to tell you in the next. A disappointing read.

[Phil · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not what I expected at all.
Reads like a thesis. Long, repetitive, slow