Quarter.

This is coolbert:

Here once more from the "myths" of the Great War [WW1] as enumerated by Professor Niall Ferguson:

"[Myth #] 12. 'That the British treated German prisoners of war well (Ferguson argues the British routinely killed German POWS)'"

Art. 23 . . . . it is especially forbidden [to]: [From the Hague Convention of 1907]

(c) "To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion"
(d) "To declare that no quarter will be given"

An enemy soldier, on the battlefield, having laid down his arms, put his hands up, waved the white flag, surrendering, NOT fleeing, is NOT to be harmed. NOT to be abused, shot, etc.

And it is also impermissible to declare that "no quarter" will be given. To announce in advance that surrender will not be accepted is too a violation of the rules of land warfare.

Anecdotal accounts DO SEEM to suggest that the British Army during the Great War [WW1] was in the habit [?] of killing those Germans willing to surrender. German troops laying down their arms, waving the white flag with hands up, being mowed down by the English! This did happen?

I guess the question would be - - how habitual was this and under what circumstances - - how pervasive and whether ignored or condoned by superior command?

1. Again - - from the book "A Brass Hat in No Man's Land" by Frank Crozier:

"The British soldier is a kindly fellow and it is safe to say, despite the dope, seldom oversteps the mark of barbaric propriety in France, save occasionally to kill prisoners he cannot be bothered to escort back to his lines."

Save occasionally!!

Crozier in this particular instance is speaking of prisoners being shot during the "heat of battle" while combat is an on-going process? Especially in those instances of large numbers of German troops more or less surrendering en masse, too many to guard, the English infantry not being able to release a number of men to adequately safeguard that "large number", SHOOTING being a solution of "what to do with these guys"!!

2. Professor Guy Chapman narrating a conversation with Blake [both men English officers] as found in the book, "The Face of Battle" by John Keegan:

"we took a lot prisoners in those trenches yesterday morning. Just as we got into their line, an officer came out of a dugout. He'd got one hand above his head, and a pair of field glasses in the other. He held his glasses out to S . . ., you know, the ex-sailor with the Messina earthquake medal - - and said, 'Here you are Sergeant, I surrender,' S . . . said, 'Thank you sir,' and took the glasses with his left hand. At the same moment, he tucked the butt of his rifle under his arm, and shot the officer straight through the head. . . . [and this was not an isolated incident] 'It wasn't only him: another did exactly the same thing.'"

Men - - out of their heads - - rushing forward during an offensive - - adrenaline flowing - - not thinking clearly or thinking at all - - shooting down surrendering and disarmed enemy troops - - "Thank you sir"!! A "heat of battle" type of occurrence.

3. "Machine-gunners were deeply hated by the infantry and they were more likely to be killed when captured than other soldiers"

Of all the weapons encountered by the infantryman during the Great War, it is intuitive that the machine gun was the most feared and the operators thereof would be the most hated and have the most animosity and rage directed against them?

The machine gunner of the Great War era, that man actually at the controls of the weapon, defending a trench line or strong-point, engaged in very personal warfare [but doing so in an almost impersonal manner, operating a "machine"], "mowing down" advancing enemy infantry as would a combine harvesting grain, industrial and mechanical-like. An individual gunner manning a machine gun during WW1 might very well have accounted for the deaths and wounding of many THOUSANDS OF ENEMY TROOPS!

It need not be elaborated upon that those gunners and crews serving machine guns during the Great War were highly disliked by ALL sides and stood little chance of having their surrender accepted?

4. And the same thing too for the sniper! The sniper from the Great War [or any other war for that matter] waged a personal war, also in an impersonal manner. Hated for singling out individual enemy soldiers, disruptive, creating havoc!

"if a sniper was taken prisoner he could expect no mercy, on either side"

The British, encountering a German either determined to be a sniper or suspected of sniping, WOULD AUTOMATICALLY SHOOT THE MAN DEAD?!

Anecdotal accounts aside, by and large, generally speaking, after the "heat of battle" had passed, the British Army during WW1 [and WW2 and British "small wars" subsequent to 1945] did and has behaved in a decent manner, comporting itself well with regard to humane treatment of prisoners-of-war [POW], obeying the laws of land warfare in a conscientious manner, with all regard to protocol and international treaty requirements!!

My intuitive guess is that if you were taken prisoner by the British during the initial combat phase of an offensive - - and managed to be escorted to the rear under guard - - the chances of survival were very good. NO shooting of prisoners - - NO killing of the wounded, etc.

coolbert.