Breaker Morant- Was He A Scapegoat?

[Slithy_Tove]

I wonder if these executions influenced the Australians to refuse to let any of their troops to be shot by the British later in WWI. Considering that the British shot over 300 of their own, 25 Canadians and 5 New Zealanders, their deaths may have spared more lives in the long run.

[Boyo_Jim]

My question is, if the trial transcript disappeared, how do we know how fair or unfair the trial was? What evidence is there and who/where did it come from?

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@Boyo_Jim

My question is, if the trial transcript disappeared, how do we know how fair or unfair the trial was? What evidence is there and who/where did it come from?

The most prolific contemporary source of information was Witton, Morant’s and Handcock’s codefendant, so of course you have to take that with a grain of salt, but even so, there are serious questions as to the court-martial’s fairness: Court-martial of Breaker Morant - Wikipedia

[Mk_VII]

The [UK] British Nationality Act 1948 created the need for the self-governing Dominions to start issuing their own passports (Canada had begun doing this shortly before).
The government does not retain any court-martial transcripts from before 1914, and it appears likely that they were pulped in the wartime salvage drives of the 1940s.

[Cicero]

@Mk_VII

The [UK] British Nationality Act 1948 created the need for the self-governing Dominions to start issuing their own passports (Canada had begun doing this shortly before).
The government does not retain any court-martial transcripts from before 1914, and it appears likely that they were pulped in the wartime salvage drives of the 1940s.

The transcripts disappeared in 1902.

[Cicero]

@Slithy_Tove

I wonder if these executions influenced the Australians to refuse to let any of their troops to be shot by the British later in WWI. Considering that the British shot over 300 of their own, 25 Canadians and 5 New Zealanders, their deaths may have spared more lives in the long run.

Slithy Tove, that question has been raised a number of times with varying answers. Unfortunately, my main reference for this- the Shot at Dawn site has now been disbanded.

I think it is probably more of the fact that Australia wanted to keep control of their own troops. Specifically they wanted them to fight in their own units and not be used as reinforcements for British Divisions (this was not unusual- America refused to allow their troops to be used as reinforcements and demanded they be grouped as American units- although some did indeed fight at one stage under the control of the Australian Monash). Part and parcel of this was keeping control of punishment under the Army regs. (Australians could be executed under a civilian code- for instance murder).

Probably the other valid point is that the Australian Army was totally voluntary. The Govt tried to get a conscription vote through twice and failed. They were careful regarding capital punishment for an Army of volunteers- even though the Australian Army brass did favour it.