Remembering & honoring our friends.
In the case of Gallipoli, I think it's somewhat justified - the campaign was a disaster. But that was hardly unique in British campaigns of the early to mid-war.
Breaker Morant, on the other hand, was a war criminal - I have some sympathy for Handcock and Witton who were probably not educated enough to understand they'd been given an order contrary to the rules of war - but Morant was. He killed out of revenge, pure and simple and while that is understandable, it's not acceptable in an officer. Should he have been shot? Probably not, but the fault for that lies with the Australian government - Australia had just become an independent nation at that stage, and it failed to make any representation on his behalf. If it had, he and Handcock would have probably been treated as British officers had in similar circumstances - cashiered and sent home.
Remembering & honoring our friends.
Yes, but the British who approved of what he did originally, only turned their back on him to gain peace with the Boers, that is what was wrong with Morant’s treatment. Plus the sense that Australian soldiers, as opposed to British soldiers were more expendable.
George Wittow: Major Thomas has been pleading justifying circumstances and now we're just lying.
Peter Handcock: We're lying? What about THEM? It's no bloody secret. Our graves were dug the day they arrested us at Fort Edwards.
George Wittow: Yeah, but killing a missionary, Peter?
Harry Morant: It's a new kind of war, George. A new war for a new century. I suppose this is the first time the enemy hasn't been in uniform. They're farmers. They come from small towns, and they shoot at from behind walls and from farmhouses. Some of them are women, some of them are children, and some of them... are missionaries, George.