The problem with Australian Discipline

[stevebecker]

Eddie,

You confuzed your self mate.

Yes all soldiers no matter what country were under British Military law so what is your point, the first question was why did these aussies get the chop by the British because they broke British Military law as we didn't have any military law to try them.

The coment about units was because people tend to think of our soldiers operated under our law, plainly as we know there was no aussie law only British. And that our men were not ours as they had left our influence by joining a British Colinel unit.

Then as now if you break the laws of another country (weather Military or Civil) you get tried by them not us, you only have to look at the Corby case in Indo.

As to there being Austrlian what I ment was born in Australia as Handcock and Witton were but Morant was a blow in and didn't think of himself as an Aussie but British? We have taken him like we do in these cases as an Aussie because he spent a few years here when he clearly didn't see himself that way.

Cheers

S.B

[edward_n_kelly]

Eddie,

You confuzed your self mate.

I think not - but always on the lookout for enlightenment.

Yes all soldiers no matter what country were under British Military law so what is your point, the first question was why did these aussies get the chop by the British because they broke British Military law as we didn't have any military law to try them.

True for the Second Anglo-Boer War and earlier (and the Boxer Rebellion) - but not true after 1903 for those serving in Australian Forces. Caveat on Canadians - they may have had legislation earlier than that of the Commonwealth of Australia.

The coment about units was because people tend to think of our soldiers operated under our law, plainly as we know there was no aussie law only British. And that our men were not ours as they had left our influence by joining a British Colinel unit.

Again true - but where had I said otherwise ?

Then as now if you break the laws of another country (weather Military or Civil) you get tried by them not us, you only have to look at the Corby case in Indo.

Not strictly correct - DEFENCE (VISITING FORCES) ACT 1963 is applicable in Australia and reciprocal agreements exist in certain other countries. Offences on "active service" would be prosecuted in Australia.

Interesting series of cases (in the High Court) as to who would be the jurisdiction for certain offences tried in Australia and even the "precedence" of Defence, Commonwealth and State Law in certain cases (like murder, rape, etc) - and contrary to what many would have thought it is actually in the reverse of the order I gave. They have also clarified the rights of civil police to attend or pursue, interview and detain military personnel wherever they are without seeking permission of anyone for an offence committed or suspected of have been committed. There is one case before the High Court now challenging the rights of Courts Martial and the Military Court system recently established by the current government (itself the result of successful High Court challenge to the then established order).

There is no correlation between civil cases (Corby) in relation to military personnel in the performance of their duty (however criminal). To draw any is specious at best.

As to there being Austrlian what I ment was born in Australia as Handcock and Witton were but Morant was a blow in and didn't think of himself as an Aussie but British? We have taken him like we do in these cases as an Aussie because he spent a few years here when he clearly didn't see himself that way.

But the point is correct - none were "Australian" as there was no such nationality until 1948. Identification meant that they were regarded as "Australian" but then about 30+% of the AIF would not have fitted your definition - being born overseas and had only been in Australia for a "..few years..". John Simpson Kirkpatrick for instance had only been in Australia for 4 years ...

...In May 1910 Kirkpatrick deserted at Newcastle, New South Wales. After humping his bluey (about the best life that a fellow could wish for) and briefly trying cane-cutting and station work in Queensland, he worked his passage from Cairns to Sydney and became a coalminer at Coledale, Corrimal and Mount Kembla in the Illawarra district.In 1911 he went briefly to the Yilgarn goldfield in Western Australia and for the next three and a half years worked as a steward, fireman and greaser on vessels around the Australian coast. Deeply attached to his mother and sister, he wrote regularly and sent a generous portion of his wages to his mother. On 25 August 1914 as John Simpson he joined the Australian Imperial Force at Blackboy Hill Camp, Perth, believing like many others that he would be going directly home to England.....

(Emphasis is mine)

In his letters home he openly admitted that he was only enlisting so he could get home on the cheap....

I suppose now we should disown him ?

Edward

PS Edited for some appalling grammar and spelling errors on my part.

[stevebecker]

Mate,

Yes I agree with your points.

My only reply to your answer is why draw Military law from dates like 1903 and 1963, plainly these men were not tried under those laws as they didn't exist.

Its very hard to try someone under the 1903 laws when your already dead.

But I understand your point and I in part agree.

But your coments about the soldiers Morant and Kirkpatrick are wrong, Morant had served in and aussie unit but was not at present serving in one when he committed his crimes, while Kirkpatrick was serving in an aussie unit when kiiled.

As would I disown him then no, but is Morant an aussie because he served in our Army? well yes I would think he was but he didn't see himself as an aussie but British, so what we may think is not that important its what he believed he was at the time and plainly he was a British subject serving in a British Colonial unit.

Cheers

S.B



.

[edward_n_kelly]

The problem is that - at that time - few if any thought of themselves as "Australian" - they thought of themselves as at best "British Australians" or more generally "British". Remember the local rhetoric about Australia and the Empire – it was more about being British than about Australia.

Peter Stanley’s essay at Australia in World War One amplifies this aspect.

As to Morant in particular - while serving in a colonial unit he could still be reagrded as Australian as Handcock and Witton or for that matter others commemorated on memorials around the country who were serving there in other than forces enlisted in an australian colony or post-federation in a unit of the Australian Commonwealth Forces (of which the Commonwealth Horse were the most numerous).

It should also be pointed out that many "colonials" enlisted or indeed participated as private individuals in the Boer War. The goldfields at Johanesburg were rife with antipodeans.....

Frank

[stevebecker]

Mate,

Yes but the only reason that Morant, Hancock and Witton would be on War Memorials is due to there Service with Australian units not due to serving in a colonial unit.

Few of these soldiers who paided there own way to the war and fought with South African units are on memorials here.

Of cause they (M, H and W) left Austrailan service to join a Colonial unit.

But we are still going in circles here.

Cheers

S.B

[edward_n_kelly]

And two of the three are commemorated on memorials in Australia....

Edward

[Hoffies]

Guys;

Very interesting and informative article. I do have one slight quibble, not at all with the core of the article. At the end it was stated that the Australians has the highest casualty rate of the allied nations.

Australians had the highest casualties as a % of troops deployed, and the highest deaths as a % of troops deployed. This is what it would refer to.

Another interesting fact: Australia had by far the lowest prisoners of war as a % of troops deployed. In the gallipoli campaign if I recall there were like... 10 Australian soldiers who were taken prisoner. This set the tone for the rest of the war.