In an unintentional way, was it not justice that Morant and Hancock were executed?
While the execution of the Boer prisoners issue can be argued, it is pretty clear that they conspired and carried out the murder of the German Missionary, an unarmed non-combatant. And as such, they should have been executed under the laws of that era.
Witton on the other hand should not even been prosecuted.
[deleted]
If they thought he was a spy they could have arrested him at Fort Edward. Letting him go, then stalking and killing him wasn't just cold-blooded murder, it was sadistic too. They were toying with the old man before killing him.
Yes, Morant and Handcock got what they deserved.
[deleted]
I'm really conflicted over this question. I guess that's why I like the film so much.
Maj Thomas' argument that war crimes are typically committed by normal (i.e. moral) men who have been thrust into the very abnormal situation of war (particularly a guerrilla war). I don't think anyone would argue that Morant under normal civilian circumstances was the type of man who would participate in the murder of a priest. But what he experienced in the war made him into a killer, so can he be totally blamed for his actions to a point where he "deserved" execution?
I guess I would conclude that a fairly long prison sentence was more appropriate for Morant than execution. Hancock, who actually pulled the trigger may have deserved execution.
It's an amazingly complex situation and really don't think there is a 100% "right" answer.
Yes
shareI have watched this movie many times and my opinion seems to change every time. I guess that's the mark of a good movie, or perhaps it has something to do with what I'm drinking at the time.
These days I have no real sympathy for Morant and crew. At least they got a trial. That's a lot better than their prisoners got.
I also don't blame Kitchener for instigating the trial. He was worried that the killing of the German priest may be an excuse for Germany to enter the war, thus escalating the Boer War into a full blown world war. If executing 2 or 3 murderous prisoners can prevent World War 1, it's a small price to pay.
I think I'm becoming more of a hard-a$$ as I get older.
My issue with the relative level of justice in the Morant case (as it was depicted in the movie) is this:
The same level of culpability applies up the command chain to the highest level that approved the order of summary executions. It was not just to *both* execute Morant *and* promote the superiors who issued the orders Morant was carrying out. (And I don't believe for a second that Morant was the only with that interpretation "wearing khaki", or even that it was only at his level and below.) When you start summary executions for espionage (which is the crime that was technically being committed by "wearing khaki"), you can't possibly expect that there won't be any cases like the German priest.
I agree that those who issue an order and those who carry it out are equally guilty. My take on the film is that Kitchener would not have pressed charges regarding the execution (murder)of the Boer prisoners. The problem arose with the murder of the German missionary (they could have simply detained him) and the subsequent German government reaction.
The beauty of this film is that it has complex moral issues. These guys were certainly no saints but they were also scapegoats in a ruthless power play at the level of nations.
"At least they got a trial".
There really isn´t much of a difference between shooting ´suspects´ on the spot and a show trial where the result is predetermined. If anything, the latter can be seen as worse since it institutionalizes and legitimizes miscarriage of justice. And, although the defendents were certainly guilty of what they were accused of, the case made by their attornay in the courtroom seemed strong enough to get them acquitted.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Kitchener explains it just before he tells Johnny to go deal with the question of shooting the Boar prisoners.
share[deleted]
Even Kenneth Ross, the writer of Breaker Morant, thinks Morant and Co. deserved what they got, albeit in an underhanded way. The question is whether their higher-ups should have been prosecuted or at least censured as well.
"Haven't they replaced you with a coin-operated machine yet?"
My answer is no, because the tribunal acquitted them. The execution was decided by Kitchener.
It is clear by other officers that the practise of shooting prisoners was routine. Considering one officer could not remember or know how many prisoners he sent to be dealt with also proves that point.
Sadly the only one that should have been put to prison and perhaps executed was Handcock. He shot the missionary and also committed perjury.
I agree with Major Thomas, the whole thing should have been dealt with by the Australian Army, not the British, as the defendants were Australian soldiers.
Lord Kitchener allowed Boer Prisoners to be put into concentration camps, and did the "scorched earth" policy, which was just as vile as anything Morant and Handcock did.
The German missionary should have been placed under confinement as soon as he defied the legitimate request of the soldiers and contacted the Boers prisoners. Since there were no facilities to confine him, and his actions made it obvious that he was collaborating with the enemy, shooting him became a realistic option.
When you wage war out of uniform - as a spy - you forfeit the protections of the laws of war.
Killing a spy caught on the battlefield during wartime is a long-accepted practice.
I concur. Excellent point.
shareIt's been about 10 years since I did my research on it but Hesse, the missionary, though German born was actually Dutch and was a British subject believe it or not. I can't remember the details of how long he'd been a subject (or to be honest if he was even German born).
At the time of sending Handcock to kill Hesse Morant had already shown his propensity to shoot people considered spies because that's how he got rid of Visser - the prisoner taken when hunting down the group that killed his friend, Captain Hunt at Devil's Ravine in the opening scenes (from memory) of the movie. In reality the execution of Visser was done on very flimsy evidence. Visser was wearing some old British military kit to keep warm and Morant claimed part of it was Hunt's trousers - Not the case supposedly because Morant was wearing them himself! He said this to get the support of the men in his company who weren't quite as bent as him because he needed a firing party to do the job. It's a fair bet that if he thought he could execute Hesse as a spy without completely showing his hand as as murderer, a thief etc. he would have.
Hesse had spoken to some Boer prisoners while they were digging holes (I think at Fort Edward or otherwise somewhere in the field) and had been told by them that they thought Morant had them digging their own graves. Armed with this Hesse asked Morant about it and Morant denied any such thing - though it was probably true that he was having them dig their own graves. Hesse pushed on to (I think) Pretoria, he had told Morant that was where he was going. Handcock asked Morant if he thought Hesse believed the prisoners and might report the incident to the commanding officers in Pretoria. This would have been very problematic as Handcock and Morant were already under investigation for a raft of crimes. Handcock was sent to kill Hesse.
Handcock was seen by a local native boy whom those investigating the incident listened to at length. The case was flawless but there were concerns about him being believed by the court martial, also the intelligence officer (Robertson or Robinson (John Waters in the movie) had done a deal with Morant and Handcock to give them an alibi and stop the native testifying as long as Morant and Handcock didn't tell the court martial that the orders not to take prisoners came from him. Morant and Handcock were acquitted of the Hesse murder and Robertson of his charges in relation to giving such orders.
by Robertson I mean Captain Taylor....
share"Justice" would require that others, at higher levels of command, should have joined them int heir trial and should have reaped consequences that were suitable to their larger role in the "crimes".
So for it to be "justice" for Morant and Hancock to be executed, "justice" would require that Lord Kitchener suffer an even more serious consequence - yet he escaped having to face even the same consequence as Morant and Hancock.
The whole concept of choosing scapegoats is unjust.
IIRC Morant was quite guilty: Visser may have been shot in the heat of post-combat which does happen and is understood. He also 2x shot Boers taken prisoner and being marched back to th stockade. He also shot a Boer fighting with the BVC who was believed to be a spy. Then Hesse.
Being in a remote outpost and dealing with the type of war they did it is not surprising he elected to start shooting prisoners. His intelligence officer Alfred Taylor also shot natives as well at this time. So an atmosphere was set as to shooting suspects or prisoners.
Units which commit atrocities are either worn down by attrition or intense combat. I do not see that as happending with the BVC so do wonder why the acceptance by the officers of shooting prisoners.