What episode and at what time? Might help to hear what he's talking about.

Edit:

Alright, so it's at 3:27.

The OP's title is kind of misleading. Carlin quotes Norman Collins of the Seaforth Highlanders as saying that, when men were maimed or suffering from grievous wounds (out in No Man's Land in this specific quote) soldiers could either leave them to their own demise, or put them out of their misery. He talks of a soldier who was suffering from such a wound, but was brought to the medics rather than mercy killed on the field of battle. He died several days later in what was likely to be a great deal of agony. They were taught that, if they could muster the courage to do so, to put these kinds of mortally injured people out of their misery, and how (.45 to the back of the head).

So no, Carlin (who was quoting an officer who fought in the war) was not saying they were taught to kill anyone who was injured. They were taught that when necessary, mercy killings were an option, if you could muster the will to actually pull the trigger.

It's entirely new to me. I can't say definitively that it was never done (hell, it probably occurred a few times), but I have never read of a 19th or 20th century army systematically training its men to execute wounded comrades. It makes very little sense. For one, how is an infantryman with no medical training supposed to know when to perform such a mercy killing? The armies maintained aidmen, surgeons, field hospitals, and so on for the purpose of saving those who could be saved; it would be grossly inefficient to have thousands of moderately to severely wounded men killed at the front. For another, there's the morale factor. Men are not going to enjoy the prospect of mass killing of wounded friends, never mind actually having to implement it.

Hello everyone,

Unfortunately, we have already had to remove a number of poor quality responses in this thread, including many asking about the deleted comments, which merely compound the issue. Keep in mind that in /r/AskHistorians incorrect, speculative, or otherwise disallowed comments are removed by the mod-team. So please, before you attempt answer the question, keep in mind our rules concerning in-depth and comprehensive responses. Answers that do not meet the standards we ask for will be removed.

Additionally, it is unfair to the OP to further derail this thread with off topic conversation, so if anyone has further questions or concerns, I would ask that they be directed to modmail, or a META thread.

Thank you!

Slightly off topic but related, I apologize if I'm breaking any rules. I listen to his podcasts in my driving job and I think he is amazing at many levels. But sometimes he does get carried away with narration, nothing wrong with that, and makes some claims that boggles your mind. I ocasionally wonder to myself, really?

What do historians think of Dan Carlin, accuracy of facts wise?