MovieChat Forums > 'Breaker' Morant (1980) Discussion > Abu Ghraib and Breaker Morant

Abu Ghraib and Breaker Morant

posted 20 years ago by jostcomp
15 replies | jump to latest

I was reading the latest article from New Yorker magazine website... this movie is the first thing that came up in my mind after reading it. I wonder if anyone else see the similarity.

What was not mentioned in the movie is that years later after Morant was executed Kitchener actually admit that he had issued order that allow the soldiers to shoot any civilian who is wearing the army khakis...(I read this a while ago, correct me if i'm wrong)

If what the new yorker article said was true or that the pentagon was really hiding some secretly program or whatever...I just hope those prisoner guards did end up being scrapegoat...

[–] white_knight0086 20 years ago

What was not mentioned in the movie is that years later after Morant was executed Kitchener actually admit that he had issued order that allow the soldiers to shoot any civilian who is wearing the army khakis..

This is mentioned in 'Breaker Morant' be it brief.
Major Thomas raises this as a defense to the first charge laid against the men, however the court dismisses it saying the order only applies if the enemy is wearing a soldiers uniform with the intent to decieve the british forces.

[–] shaunssm 19 years ago

It was common military practice to treat enemy soldiers who wore your army's uniform as spies and were therefore sentenced to death. I don't know when this practice died out, but in the Second World War all sides sentenced spies to death. I guess the issue was that such 'spies' should be brought into be tried before a military court. Morant and his boys shot them right on the spot of capture.

In many wars soldiers would dress in enemy uniforms for espionage purposes, but in the Boer War, many Boer guerrillas had a lack of clothing, so they would steal British uniform for personal comfort.

I enjoyed the movie, but I still think that Australian efforts to make a hero out of him is deluded. Even if Kitchener did order units to shoot captured prisoners (which I doubt) Queen's regulations prohibited such actions and officers would have had problems with carrying such orders out. While the Boer War may have been morally wrong (but the Boers were no angels - the Boer republics were vehemently more racist than the British Cape and Natal Colonies - as they shot any blacks or Afrikaners who assisted the British) this was no Nazi German army whose whole mission was to be nasty. Why do people think Morant and his boys were reported and brought to court martial. Some people had a conscience (if that is how you spell it).

[–] executive-2 20 years ago

More recently, a diary entry from one of Kitchener's officers appeared, stating that Morant had not acted under orders - if you do a google search, you'll find the reference. This creates issues for Australian hero-worshippers....

[–] white_knight0086 20 years ago

[–] Col_Hessler 19 years ago

I'm replying to the first post, yes, they could be scapegoats, it happens in every war, and I recall when I saw this in my teens how conventional armies can't fight guerillas with conventional methods and how politicians ultimately dictate what soldiers do. Clausewitz was right. War is an extenstion of diplomacy.

well I'm drinking wine and eating cheese and catching some rays, y'know

[–] enthusiast 19 years ago

Agreed. The true story of Breaker Morant is much darker than what the movie shows. The movie is biased towards Morant; in actuality his crimes were pretty blatant. There is a lot that was not shown in the movie that did enter into the court martial.

[–] j_s_nightingale 19 years ago

Regarding Abu Ghraib (2003), Breaker Morant (1902) and History: It was actually Napoleon, circa 1810 who said "Those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it". Clearly some learning is still not being done.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] WarHawkeye 19 years ago

No, there just aren't a lot of parallels between Iraq in 2005 and South Africa in 1901. Sorry, just isn't so. I mean, you can stretch anything in anyway to make your point if you want, but you'd really have to be Gumby to make this fit.

It makes a better fit with Vietnam, which was a war the Australians had a sizeable committment in and came away from with a lot of the same issues as their American allies.

And no, there wasn't a secret government program to have a second rate reserve unit act that way in Abu Ghraib. Poor training, lousy supervision and an absence of leadership, yes, but secret program? No.

[–] Nikon11 19 years ago

I disagree.

I first saw it in the early 80's, and just recently bought and watched it.

It immediately made me think of what is happening in Iraq, in terms of the fighting of an unconvential war, not knowing who the enemy really is.

I can't argue with you, though, about it being "a better fit with Vietnam". But I don't think that it has to be an either or situation.

[–] pullgees 18 years ago

At the time of its release comparisons were made between the court marshall of Lt Wiliam Calley for the massacre of hundreds of unarmed Vietnam civilians and Morant to high-light how an army or part of get sucked into murder while believing they were doing their duty. What was their reasons while under fire? Rule 303 and M16.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] steven_torrey 9 years ago

The trouble with making any kind of conclusion of a movie based on a real event is that the movie may not be an accurate interpretation of the historical event. So while the movie wants certain comparisons--the historical reality of the event may not warrant those conclusions.