The case where Australian troops were knowlingly murdered by the British Army in a kangaroo court was only done to apease German government opinion. After this case Australian policy was changed and Australian troops have ever since fought under Australian commanders and if tried in military courts by an Australian military court.

The film was actually filmed in Burra in South Australia maybe 120 kilometres away from where I am now.

PS The Aussie troops probably did shoot the prisoners and the German missionary. But that wasn't any different to what the British troops were doing.

Personally I have always felt Australian troops fought on the wrong side in the Boer Wars.

I saw this movie on DVD the other day. Seems to be relevant to some of the problems facing troops in Iraq these days. Any comments from our Australian and Afrikaans board contributors. The film mentioned that one of accused wrote a book afterwards (about being a scapegoat), Did it have wide circulation in Australia?
Peter.

The story is tradgic. They should have shot all the politicians invoved in that mess before trying Morant. They was a book written a couple of years ago called Shoot Straight You Bastards. I read it in SA, never got to the US. Put the colonial powers in a really bad light. Morant was a soldier carring out orders right or wrong. Tough to judge a man with 21st century morals in a 19th and 20th century conflict. The whole war regardless of the side etched the face of South African politics and history


Aleko

Nitrox, in the movie they made clear the fact that the Boer prisoners were in fact shot (by firing squad) and that the missionary was shot. The defence stated that they never disputed that the Boer prisoners were shot. In the movie, the man who shot the missionary admitted that he shot him, however he did not tell this to the defence attorney! So, it came down to new circumstances ("commandos"), following orders, disputed orders that came down from the top (Kitchener), responding to atrocities committed by the enemy etc. etc. hence my comment about current situations!Some things never change!
Peter.

Sorry forgot to ask. The movie showed the Aussie prisoners seated before the firing squad. Is this historically accurate? For some reason I always thought people stood. This was certainly a memorable movie, but not as much as Gallipoli. THAT was stunning!
Peter.

NitroX

Those same Aussies went to die by the tens of thousands for England in WW1 -and they fought as hard in WW2. (When Churchill denounced the surrender at Singapore-by a British general, he knew that the Aussies had been saying that Japanese infantry showed definite signs of failing morale and, more important, not receiving sufficient resupply of ammo - both of which were confirmed after WW2) I agree with every line of your post except the last line. (Honestly, as an Irishman, i go with the old Irish expression -"Better a devil you know than a devil you don't know" We knew the English - and at their worst, they never approached what Germans could do.

gerald416. I am interested in your comment about Churchill denouncing the surrender of Singapore. Do you have a timeframe or reference for this. I have an abbreviated version of his "Second World war" and would be interested in seeing what he had to say. Ditto your comments about Japenese morale. I would have thought that in these early days their morale would have been high, especially having just sunk the Prince of Wales and the Renown!
Thanks, Peter.

Peter:

I really regret that I can't give you a specific reference - but I do know that i have always been a serious history reader and I did read it in such a history.I suggest a "Google" search. It was the largest surrender of British arms in history -and very nearly didn't come off because Aussie (and, to give credit, some English units) didn't want to surrender. As it was, a number of troops took to the bush with rifles in hand. The Japs had met their first real resistance from the Aussies on the Malaya Peninsula.(Indian units had fled from just the sound of Jap bicycles on the paved roads)That resistance cost the Japanese infantry many lives. Remember that the Japs were on the attack - and found out that white soldiers could be as brave as them. It really shook them up. It was the Japanese Navy planes that sank Repulse and Prince of Wales. There apparently was no love lost between the Japanese Army and the Japanese Navy. The Japanese Navy, reportedly, flew out the next day and dropped wreaths in memorial tribute. It's an irony of history that the Japanese Navy never wanted war with the US and carried out the attack on Pearl Harbor that started everything.

Alf, if you are going to quote, perhaps you would cite your sources? If you had seen the movie, who would know that the camps where people were forcibly interred was talked about by Morant's defence attorney as something that he himself was involved in! So, no one was hiding that fact. Britain was a colonial power and you don't get colonies by staying at home! I suppose that RSA, Rhodesia, Kenya, India, Australia and Canada could all say the same thing "We didn't invite them over here"! Having said all that, are you going to claim that there were no German sympathizers in RSA during WWII?
Peter.
Peter.

Alf

I agree completely with your comments. The Boer Wars IMO were a terrible crime by a greedy empire and the attrocities and genocide committed there ranked as bad as the Nazis in Germany. Indeed Britian invented the modern concentration camp and by result, the modern death camps. The Nazis just refined them and made them more efficient ...

The story of Morant is poignant because they were knowingly executed unjusted for following orders by their own side. A double betrayal. Of course to an Afrikaaner they are just some more criminals who maybe got what they deserved.

That is one reason I stated I think Australian troops fought on the wrong side. IMO Australia has more in common with South Africans than the British (of course that is just my opinion). It is interesting that in the late 1880's and 1890's the Australian colonies began agitating for independence and for a "United States of Australia" (!). Britian forestalled this by offering a limited and graduated independence starting with Federation in 1901.

As for the atrocites in the Boer War, the winners write history and try and execute the enemy criminals. Their own war criminals are heroes. Look at Churchill and Truman in WW2.

.

.

Well after Breaker Morant, Golippoli and the "Bodyline tactics", Who needs enimies when we have freinds like that. Nothing against people from England, it is just the occaisional general treating the colonials like shit. As for the Boers,theyve done nothing bad to us yet, apart from throwing a few punches and playing rough in Rugby.
And this is from someone who was born in Pomgolia (England)

NitroX

The Boers were not exactly a people without faults of their own. They invented "Komandos" and the actions of an ununiformed group operating against uniformed forces required the British to hit very hard at apparent "civilians". That peaceable looking Boer farmer by daylight had been shooting at British forces during the night. Yes, the Brits used massive round ups and they tried to concentrate the Boer civilians in the newly named "concentration camps". What other tactics could be used? Wholesale shootings? To compare the "concentration camps" of the Boer War to the concentration camps of Nazi Germany is a real stretch, IMO. The difference is that the English who can be indomitable in war also have a conscience as a people and simply didn't act with such terrible ferocity as say, the Nazi SS. (Do you think Gandhi's tactics would have worked against the Nazis? They would have shot him out of hand -and anyone else who tried to sabotage them. The Brits couldn't bring themselves to use such tactics. They ran a terrible place in Northern Ireland in very recent history named Long Kesh Gaol where IRA prisoners were held - Then word began to get out to the English public about some terrible things that went on there. The authorities were forced to close down the place. That English sense of fairness wouldn't stand for acting like savages. No, I just prefer the English as my "devil" to anyone else! (BTW, proof that the Boers themselves didn't think the English went too far was in the fact that Boers rallied to fight for England in two world wars. (There were a large number of South Africans who served in the RAF and just reading the names tells you their ancestry)

.

I know of at least one other "nation" that used embattled farmers to stand up to British regulars.

Alf:

Maybe I should have phrased it better. Of course, the Boers were entitled to defend themselves as best as they could. (I only wanted to defend the British against a charge of being inhumane) War, by definition, is a nasty business in which we act against our fellow man. Breaker Morant was a great movie. It is to the credit of the producers that they made it perfectly clear that the court martial was guided by large reasons of state in convicting. Were the Boers right? Yes and no. Like all too many wars, there is no black and white. Many Boers buried old feuds and made peace with the English - just as many Irish have done so - and that's a feud that was a heck of a lot older and longer lasting and with far more blood having been shed.I saw the movie for what it was -capturing a moment in history and regrettably making soldiers pay for reasons of state requiring it.

.

.

Gerard

I dislike hypocracy and justifications to justify the the unjustifiable.

A war crime is a war crime. Having to do it to "win" is not an excuse.

In an ideal world the war criminals of the winning side would stand side by side with the loosers in the "dock" and on the "scaffold".

If that happened it would be quite likely the leadership of both sides would be executed and the number of wars would be seriously decreased.

"conscience and "sense of fairness" seem to clash with the use of poison gas, starting the bombing of civilians in WW2, firebombing wholly civilian cities, concentration camps, institutionalised racism, unfair trading practices .... Writing history is a valuable asset.

Results and consequences count not rhetoric.

Anyway this is all off-topic.

I have both the book by Nick Bleszynski (Shoot Straight You Bastards, Random House Publishers, Australia ISBN 1-74051-081-X) and the DVD.

Unfortunately the original transcripts of the trial were lost (on purpose, it is claimed) so the book is largely based on anecdote, Morant's own writings and letters, and Lt G Witton's own book about the trial "Scapegoats of the Empire"

The author puts Morant across as rather a romantic character who was caught up in seeking revenge for the death of his friend Capt Hunt.

I won't go into the politics of what happened and why, but it was a shocking example of how the empire held sway over its colonies.

As to the German connection wrt the murder of missionary Heese, this is largely discounted as a reason for the trial and executions. In any event, Handcock was found "not guilty" of this particular charge of murder, and Morant "not guilty" of inciting Handcock to murder.

I live in the area where Morant roamed in the early part of his service before being posted to the Spelonken, and it is always fascinating to hunt these hills knowing he had been there before.

Unfortunately Nick takes some licence describing the train ambush of the Gordons at Naboomspruit. He implies that the train was blown up in a cutting between Naboomspruit and Potgietersrus, where no cutting exists. The railway is actually elevated above the plain the whole way. I can only assume he got his geography wrong as it can only be South of Naboomspruit, where it gets hillier.

The movie is actually based on a play, excellently filmed and directed, unfortunately the landscape of Burra looks nothing like the area Morant operated in, which was the Woodbush, Tzaneen, Duiwelskloof and Louis Trichardt areas.

As to seating those executed, this was common practice. It was done to plenty Boer commandos (Jopie Fourie comes to mind).

Alf:

It might be useful if some other posters in this forum (who I suspect never wore a uniform or ever were shot at)to try some comparisons with the Third Reich or with the USSR. The record of the Third Reich is well known. Isn't it odd that our Australian left winger never mentioned Stalin's elimination of the kulaks in the late 1920s and early 30s - and an estimated 20 million dead? How about Stalin's gulags (REAL concentration camps) in Arctic Siberia? Want to guess how many died there in the 75 years of the USSR? And anyone wants to match this against the Brits and say it's the same? That's delusional. Your references mean nothing to me. The Boers were a bunch of Dutch Reformed Church psalm singing hypocrites who were hellbent on exterminating the native peoples. Along the way they thought it would be nice to hold onto the gold and diamond mines in SA. I think it was better that the British took over - and if the best you people can do today is to muster support from Aussie lefties (whose people never had anything to do with settling Australia and who are cowards to the bone when it comes to war) then this is one Irishman who prefers the English. (I'm in much better company)

gerald416

Once again you have shown yourself to be an Ignorant Ass.

I suggest you actually try and learn something about the history you opine about before you reach your conclusions, not after.

Nitro

The first object of war is to win, not play fair.

Gerald416,

Your comments are morally repugnant!

Your inferences inter alia 'Dutch Reformed Boer psalm singing hypocrites....' smacks of an insult to the dignity of Irish people who died fighting on the Boers side, let alone the Boers!.... My great grandfather fought with the boers and was killed in the Boer war, and I also have family from my Mom side who where killed in the war.

I would suggest you go and read the voluminous books that are being published now on this subject and your eyes will be opened.....

Dave Bradley

Hmmm, I worked with the Aussies in Viet Nam as a USAF ground FAC. Never saw any cowardice among them and we got into some pretty deep s---!

Gentlemen, I posted this (admittedly off topic) on this forum because it tends to be a bit more "gentlemanly" than the political forum, which, in any case, I very rarely visit. I really wanted to get educated not only on the original story, but also on modern perspectives. I was in Namibia this summer and was told that Afrikaans is pretty much the "lingua franca" (let's not start another debate please!). As this country was once a German administered territory, I would be curious if any one would comment on the remanents of Boer culture and thinking there, as opposed to the language. Certainly there seem to be plenty of Germans there, many of whom have been there quite a while, and of course, Namibia has plenty of German hunters and Jagd hunting farms. So, what is the connection, if any, between Germans and Boers, and what remains of Boer influence in Africa?
Peter.

As an aside their were rumours (wishful thinking more than likely) that the Breaker was not executed but spirited away an returned to Australia. Many reports from Drovers in the 20's of seeing and meeting him in the NT.

There's too much evidence available that will discount that rumour. What many folk don't know is that Morant and Handcock were disinterred in 2000 or 2002 (not sure) from the Pretoria cemetery and returned to Australia. Search the net for Morant one of the websites states this. I don't know where he was re-buried, probably somewhere near Parkes.

As an aside, there's a widely (and correctly, I feel) held belief that had not so many women and children died in those concentration camps, then the socio-political and demographic landscape of South Africa would be very, very different today.

As for the comments regarding cowardly Australians, you just have to look at their military exploits in both world wars. They don't come much gamer than the Aussies, with the possible exception of the Micks and the Scots.

You should read the book "The Prophet", about a Boer seer and his influence on the Boer leadership before, during and after the Boer war to get some insight into the sympathies between the Boers and the Germans.

In Namibia today, Afrikaans is widely spoken by the blacks as well as most whites. Probably more so than English. But the Germans all speak German and they don't regard themselves as Boers. Remember, the whites in Namibia were for all intents and purposes white South Africans, they fell under the same government, put on the same uniforms (well until the SWATF was founded), and fought the same brush war against the black nationalist groups. Some of the white Namibians were Afrikaners, and some were Germans. Tough bunch on the whole.

Here's another factoid. The RUSSIANS helped the Boers during the Boer War, with materiel and medical personnel I believe. There's a monument somewhere that attests to the fact. The Russians saw the Boers as simple peasants rising up against the British colonizers and they sympathized with them. Ironically, in more recent times the Russians supported the black "terrorist" organizations in the fight against Boer domination, and the Boers detested the "Communists" including the Russians.

Just goes to show, you can't make any sense of history, and there's no point fighting over past battles. Unfortunately, that tribal instinct is still strong in our "civilized" bones, and there's no telling what men will do when these instincts are triggered by conflict.

Now, at the risk of starting another firefight, let me just say that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Gerald

Your cowardice comment beggars belief and clearly demonstrates how weak your grasp of history is. Read up on the Battle of Long Tan (Veitnam 1966) for an example of the Australian fighting spirit.



For the record though in your earlier post you fail to give credit where it is due to the British units involved in the defence of Singapore, who outnumbered and fought just as hard as their Australian brothers down the Malay peninsular before they were sold out by the single worst strategic military blunder made by the British last century.