[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
Time: 9:20:19 AM
Remote Name: 188.8.131.52
And I repeat - The title of Witton's book - 'Scapegoats.
I quote from Mr Petch's posting:
'Kitcheners policy of burning famhouses, destroying crops which led to deaths of starvation of many Boer families, or herding women and small children into Concentration Camps [yes the British not the Germans invented them] and see how many thousands perished of Typhoid and Dysentry [sic] which was preventable and then you will understand why the Afrikaaners still despise the British'
So why was Kitchener not the one tried by court martial, found guilty of murder and executed?
'Morant's and Hancock's [sic] only practical and lasting contribution has been to the Australian military justice system and this has been that no other Australians have been able to be tried by field court martial with the threat of punishment by firing squad except by the Australian Army itself and this is the only thing they should be remembered for. '
And isn't that in itself enough? Is this a small thing, not to be able to be shot by hypocritical overlords who, though they may order the burning of houses and murder by starvation and disease of women and children, would have you shot for carrying out orders which they obvioulsy WERE capable of issuing?
Give us a break. Let's look fairly at who the real war criminals were here. Morant and Hancock shot soldiers, albeit prisoners. As I said before, this doesn't excuse the act, but it is certainly a step up from what Kitchebner ordered and made sure occurred. And then he got 'frustrated' with some of the men under his command? Wonder how they could ever have got out of hand with such an example as leader? If someone needed and deserved to be shot to help end the war, nobiody need have looked any further than the big K himself.