Hmmmm.

I don't like that!

I guess Patton {whom I have always regarded as hard-headed, but a generals-general nonetheless} should have made clear when taking prisoners was going to be allowed. If you advance under fire, and once the enemy is flanked and exposed to your return fire then throws down his weapon and raises his hands, He is offering his surrender. Nothing says you have to accept such a surrender.

On the other hand, if there is a lull in the actual fighting and during this time the enemy attempts to negotiate a surrender, I believe it would be both wrong and stupid not to accept it. If you offer no chance too surrender, then you are forcing your enemy too fight too the death {and thus increasing the number of your own dead}. If you accept your enemies surrender, and then shoot him {once he is a disarmed prisoner and not a combatant} you have dishonored your country.

Ideally, you would want to let your enemy {and your own troops} know beforehand that once you begin your assault upon their positions, it's going to continue until they drive you back, or you over-run and kill them all. Give them a chance to surrender. If they prefer to die fighting, then let them.

And do not allow anyone that did not do the fighting, bleeding, and dying too sit in 'moral' judgment on those who did.

I never saw combat {only trained for it} but can easily imagine the stress you would be under.

In answer too your question, no. This is the first I heard of this.