[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
Time: 7:43:59 PM
Remote Name: 188.8.131.52
I know Steve and Rob won't agree with my argument against them but, aren't you both being a little pedantic? What I mean is that the BVC was operating in 1900 when communications were erratic and the idea that war had rules is severely under threat. Australian soldiers in the BVC were engaged in illegal activities running cattle and stills. (Are any cases documented of charges being brought against them?) Surely this brings their ability and even their "professionalism" into question. Weren't some of them sent back from Egypt in 1914?
Even in the first World War an Australian private responds to what is considered a stupid order by an Australian Officer by saying that the officer will be lucky to survive the next "stunt" as it would be difficult to tell where the bullet came from!
The point I'm making is Morant and Handcock were indeed responsible for their actions. However, they were the ones who were made scapegoats because of the same pedantic legalities that shifted the blame from people like Taylor to them. All historical analysis requires you to understand the time and the repercussions. If Witton is guilty, wh does he only serve a relatively light sentence? Why did the Captain of the "Canberra" during the Falklands war say the reason the Canberra came so close to shore to disembark its troops was because "you couldn't lose the liner with name of the sovereign (Eliz 2) but all Canberra was was the capital of Australia." Appears to me like the British still view us as expendable.