Ruse de guerre

Last updated

The French ruse de guerre, sometimes literally translated as ruse of war, is a non-uniform term; generally what is understood by "ruse of war" can be separated into two groups. The first classifies the phrase purely as an act of military deception against one's opponent; the second emphasizes acts against one's opponent by creative, clever, unorthodox means, sometimes involving force multipliers or superior knowledge. [1] The term stratagem, from Ancient Greek strategema (στρατήγημα, 'act of generalship'), is also used in this sense.

Contents

Ruses de guerre are described from ancient to modern times, both in semi-mythical accounts such as the story of the Trojan Horse in Virgil's Aeneid , and in well-documented events such as the flying of the American flag by the British ocean liner RMS Lusitania in 1915 (whilst the United States was a neutral country) to deter attack by German submarines; they also feature in fiction.

The term ruse de guerre is given legal meaning within the rules of war. Good faith is required, but at least 17 different types of ruse, including ambushes, false radio messages, the use of spies and the use of dummy guns, are considered legitimate as long as they do not involve treachery or perfidy. Landmines and similar traps can be considered perfidious under the rules in certain circumstances. Explicitly prohibited ruses under article 23 of the Hague Convention of 1907 include improper use of a flag of truce or the military insignia of the enemy.

Examples

Ancient times

According to Homer's somewhat mythical account in the Iliad , the Greeks during the Trojan War pretended to give up their fruitless ten-year siege of the city of Troy and sailed away, leaving behind the Trojan Horse. After the Trojans pulled what they believed was a parting gift within the walls of the city, soldiers that had hidden inside the hollow horse during the previous night emerged and opened the city's gates, allowing the awaiting army to enter the city.

Prior to a naval battle with King Eumenes II of Pergamon, Hannibal sent a herald with a message for the opposing commander. That was a trick aiming to locate Eumenes's ship so that Hannibal could concentrate his forces against it. [2]

Alexander the Great walked his men up and down a river continuously to condition his opponent, Porus, into a false sense of security in the belief that his whole army was searching for a ford. Then, under the cover of night Alexander marched a contingent of his men upriver and crossed the Indus, while his remaining forces marched south to their camp as they usually did. This feint allowed Alexander to hide his troops' location and win the Battle of Hydaspes in 326 BC.

As stated in the probably fictional account in Romance of the Three Kingdoms , Zhuge Liang tricked Sima Yi using the Empty Fort Strategy from Sun Tzu's The Art of War . Zhuge Liang sat upon the walls of the cities, his men far outnumbered by the Wei army which was advancing toward him. Zhuge Liang sat upon the walls and played his instrument, seemingly calm and composed, tricking Sima Yi into thinking that the Shu had troops had hidden in the surrounding area for an ambush. Zhuge Liang was able to quickly flee the area as the Wei retreated.

Modern history

19th century

The Siege of Detroit was an early engagement in the War of 1812, where a smaller British-First Nations force, led by Major-General Isaac Brock and Shawnee leader Tecumseh, used bluff and deception to intimidate Brigadier General William Hull into surrendering the fort, the town of Detroit, and a dispirited American force that nevertheless outnumbered the British and First Nations. Intercepting American dispatches from Fort Detroit, Brock judged the morale of the American garrison to be low, and that the American general had a fear of First Nations in particular. Brock arranged for misleading letters to fall into American hands, stating an inflated figure of 5,000 First Nations warriors were already in Amherstburg, to simulate a larger First Nations force had attached themselves to his army. [3] Prior to the siege, Brock also sent a letter demanding for surrender to Hull, stating:

The force at my disposal authorizes me to require the immediate surrender of Detroit. It is far from my intention to join in a war of extermination, but you must be aware, that the numerous body of Indians who have attached themselves to my troops, will be beyond my control the moment the contest commences.

Major-General Issac Brock [3]

To further the illusion that a large First Nations force was attached with Brock's force, Tecumseh extended his men, and marched them three times through an opening in the woods at the rear of the fort in full view of the fort. [4] Brock similarly dressed members of the Canadian militia as British regulars, and instructed soldiers to light individual fires instead of one fire per unit, thereby creating the illusion of a much larger army. [3]

Use of deception to mask an inferior force was also used in another battle during the War of 1812, the Battle of Chateauguay. Outnumbered during battle, the Canadian Fencibles were initially outflanked and falling back, before Lieutenant-Colonel Charles de Salaberry of the Canadian Voltigeurs ordered bugle calls, cheers and Indian war whoops, in a ruse to make the Americans believe that they were about to be enveloped. Fearing themselves outnumbered and about to be outflanked, Brigadier-General Wade Hampton called off the American advance, withdrawing his forces to Plattsburgh, New York. [5] [6]

During the American Civil War, Union General George Meade's General Order No. 13 of 1865 was retracted after it was determined that his criticism of Brigadier-General McLaughlin was based on "nothing more than the obvious result of those ruses de guerre, by which the very best officers may, at times, be victimized", after the Confederate Army falsely claimed that it had gained a foothold in the Union Army lines. [7]

20th century

An effort by the Imperial Japanese Navy to lure the Russian fleet out of its harbor during the Russo-Japanese War in 1904 was described by The New York Times as "a clever ruse of war to entice the Russian ships out of Port Arthur". [8]

The use of the American flag flown on the liner Lusitania while crossing through the Irish Sea to avoid attack by German submarines during the First World War was criticized in debate in the United States House of Representatives by Republican Eben Martin of South Dakota, who stated that "the United States cannot be made a party to a ruse of war where the national colors are involved". [9]

During the Second World War, the crew of the merchant-raiding German light cruiser Emden rigged a dummy fourth funnel on top of her radio room to disguise her as a British cruiser, most of which were equipped with four funnels. During First and Second World Wars, Q-ships were heavily armed merchant ships with concealed weaponry, designed to lure submarines into making surface attacks. This gave Q-ships the chance to open fire and sink them.

During the Second Sino-Japanese War, the former Imperial Japanese Navy battleship Asahi, which had been taken out of reserve shortly after the outbreak of war for use as a troop transport but then converted to a repair ship, was fitted with dummy wooden main batteries fore and aft to resemble an old battleship after her arrival in Shanghai on 29 December 1938.

In the lead up to the First Battle of Sirte during the Second World War, the fast minelayer HMS Abdiel successfully impersonated a force of two battleships using false signals traffic, as part of a decoy mission against Italian forces.

The Allied Combined Operations raid on the Normandie Dock in Saint Nazaire employed several legitimate ruses during their voyage up the Loire estuary, including flying German colours and replying to signal challenges by giving misleading replies in German. These measures were all designed to buy time for the attacking force. When these tactics ceased to be effective and German shore batteries opened fire in earnest, all the British ships lowered their German colours and hoisted White Ensigns before returning fire.

German commando Otto Skorzeny led his troops wearing American uniforms to infiltrate American lines in Operation Greif during the Battle of the Bulge. Skorzeny later reported that he was told by experts in military law that wearing American uniforms was a defensible ruse de guerre, provided his troops took off their American uniforms, and put on German uniforms, prior to firing their weapons. Skorzeny was acquitted by a United States military court in Dachau in 1947, after his defense counsel argued that the "wearing of American uniforms was a legitimate ruse of war for espionage and sabotage" as described by The New York Times . [10]

In relation to the rules of war

Good faith

According to the rules of war, good faith in dealing with the enemy must be observed as a rule of conduct, but this does not prevent measures such as using spies and secret agents, encouraging defection or insurrection among the enemy civilian population, corrupting enemy civilians or soldiers by bribes, or inducing the enemy's soldiers to desert, surrender, or rebel. In general, a belligerent may resort to those measures for mystifying or misleading the enemy against which the enemy ought to take measures to protect itself. [11]

Legitimate ruses

Legitimate ruses include: [11]

No perfidy

Further, according to the rules of war, ruses of war are legitimate so long as they do not involve perfidy on the part of the belligerent resorting to them. They are, however, forbidden if they contravene any generally accepted rule. [11] [12]

Prohibited ruses

Article 23 of the 1907 Hague Convention IV – The Laws and Customs of War on Land provides that: "It is especially forbidden....(b) To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army....(f) To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag, or of the military insignia and military uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention". [13] Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions expanded the rules of prohibiting certain type of ruses as defined in Articles 37, 38, and 39.

The line of demarcation between legitimate ruses and forbidden acts of perfidy is sometimes indistinct. In general, it would be an improper practice to secure an advantage over the enemy by deliberate lying or misleading conduct which involves a breach of faith, or when there is a moral obligation to speak the truth. For example, it is improper to pretend to surrender to secure an advantage over the opposing belligerent. [14]

To broadcast to the enemy that an armistice had been agreed upon when such is not the case would be treacherous. [15] Abuse of the protections afforded to medical personnel (by disguising combat soldiers as medics, or by putting a red cross on a combat vehicle) is also considered unacceptable. In August 1946, a German soldier, Heinz Hagendorf, was found guilty by a U.S. military tribunal at the Dachau Trials and sentenced to six months imprisonment for having "wrongfully used the Red Cross emblem in a combat zone by firing a weapon at American soldiers from an enemy ambulance displaying such emblem." The verdict and sentence were upheld on appeal. [16]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">War crime</span> Individual act constituting a violation of the laws of war

A war crime is a violation of the laws of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility for actions by combatants in action, such as intentionally killing civilians or intentionally killing prisoners of war, torture, taking hostages, unnecessarily destroying civilian property, deception by perfidy, wartime sexual violence, pillaging, and for any individual that is part of the command structure who orders any attempt to committing mass killings including genocide or ethnic cleansing, the granting of no quarter despite surrender, the conscription of children in the military and flouting the legal distinctions of proportionality and military necessity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Psychological warfare</span> Information operations to assist military objectives

Psychological warfare (PSYWAR), or the basic aspects of modern psychological operations (PsyOp), has been known by many other names or terms, including Military Information Support Operations (MISO), Psy Ops, political warfare, "Hearts and Minds", and propaganda. The term is used "to denote any action which is practiced mainly by psychological methods with the aim of evoking a planned psychological reaction in other people".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of war</span> International regulations of warfare

The law of war is a component of international law that regulates the conditions for initiating war and the conduct of hostilities. Laws of war define sovereignty and nationhood, states and territories, occupation, and other critical terms of law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">White flag</span> Symbol with different meanings throughout history and depending on the locale

White flags have had different meanings throughout history and depending on the locale.

The Thirty-Six Stratagems is a Chinese essay used to illustrate a series of stratagems used in politics, war, and civil interaction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Striking the colors</span> To haul down a flag to indicate surrender

Striking the colors—meaning lowering the flag that signifies a ship's or garrison's allegiance—is a universally recognized indication of surrender, particularly for ships at sea. For a ship, surrender is dated from the time the ensign is struck.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Summary execution</span> Execution immediately after being accused of a crime, without trial

In civil and military jurisprudence, summary execution is the putting to death of a person accused of a crime without the benefit of a free and fair trial. The term results from the legal concept of summary justice to punish a summary offense, as in the case of a drumhead court-martial, but the term usually denotes the summary execution of a sentence of death. Under international law, it is a combatant's refusal to accept an opponent's lawful surrender and the combatant's provision of no quarter, by killing the surrendering opponents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">False flag</span> Covert operation designed to deceive

A false flag operation is an act committed with the intent of disguising the actual source of responsibility and pinning blame on another party. The term "false flag" originated in the 16th century as an expression meaning an intentional misrepresentation of someone's allegiance. The term was famously used to describe a ruse in naval warfare whereby a vessel flew the flag of a neutral or enemy country in order to hide its true identity. The tactic was originally used by pirates and privateers to deceive other ships into allowing them to move closer before attacking them. It later was deemed an acceptable practice during naval warfare according to international maritime laws, provided the attacking vessel displayed its true flag once an attack had begun.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Quaker gun</span> Fake gun used as a deception tactic in warfare

A Quaker gun is a deception tactic that was commonly used in warfare during the 18th and 19th centuries. Although resembling an actual cannon, the Quaker gun was simply a wooden log, usually painted black, used to deceive an enemy. Misleading the enemy as to the strength of an emplacement was an effective delaying tactic. The name derives from the Religious Society of Friends or "Quakers", who have traditionally held a religious opposition to war and violence in the Peace Testimony.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Surrender (military)</span> Giving up control over territory or resources to another power

Surrender, in military terms, is the relinquishment of control over territory, combatants, fortifications, ships or armament to another power. A surrender may be accomplished peacefully or it may be the result of defeat in battle. A sovereign state may surrender following defeat in a war, usually by signing a peace treaty or capitulation agreement. A battlefield surrender, either by individuals or when ordered by officers, normally results in those surrendering becoming prisoners of war.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Military deception</span> Attempts to mislead enemy forces during warfare

Military deception (MILDEC) is an attempt by a military unit to gain an advantage during warfare by misleading adversary decision makers into taking action or inaction that creates favorable conditions for the deceiving force. This is usually achieved by creating or amplifying an artificial fog of war via psychological operations, information warfare, visual deception, or other methods. As a form of disinformation, it overlaps with psychological warfare. Military deception is also closely connected to operations security (OPSEC) in that OPSEC attempts to conceal from the adversary critical information about an organization's capabilities, activities, limitations, and intentions, or provide a plausible alternate explanation for the details the adversary can observe, while deception reveals false information in an effort to mislead the adversary.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Military camouflage</span> Camouflage used to protect from enemy observation

Military camouflage is the use of camouflage by an armed force to protect personnel and equipment from observation by enemy forces. In practice, this means applying colour and materials to military equipment of all kinds, including vehicles, ships, aircraft, gun positions and battledress, either to conceal it from observation (crypsis), or to make it appear as something else (mimicry). The French slang word camouflage came into common English usage during World War I when the concept of visual deception developed into an essential part of modern military tactics. In that war, long-range artillery and observation from the air combined to expand the field of fire, and camouflage was widely used to decrease the danger of being targeted or enable surprise. As such, military camouflage is a form of military deception in addition to cultural functions such as political identification.

In the context of war, perfidy is a form of deception in which one side promises to act in good faith with the intention of breaking that promise once the unsuspecting enemy is exposed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Military dummy</span> Fake military equipment intended to deceive the enemy

Dummies and decoys are fake military equipment that are intended to deceive the enemy. Dummies and decoys are only one aspect of military deception.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prize of war</span>

A prize of war is a piece of enemy property or land seized by a belligerent party during or after a war or battle. This term was used nearly exclusively in terms of captured ships during the 18th and 19th centuries.

Russian military deception, sometimes known as maskirovka, is a military doctrine developed from the start of the 20th century. The doctrine covers a broad range of measures for military deception, from camouflage to denial and deception.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dummy tank</span> Decoy military tank

Dummy tanks superficially resemble real tanks and are often deployed as a means of military deception in the absence of real tanks. Early designs included wooden shells and inflatable props that could fool enemy intelligence; they were fragile and only believable from a distance. Modern designs are more advanced and can imitate heat signatures, making them more effective illusions.

Operation Greif was a special operation commanded by Waffen-SS commando Otto Skorzeny during the Battle of the Bulge in World War II. The operation was the brainchild of Adolf Hitler, and its purpose was to capture one or more of the bridges over the Meuse river before they could be destroyed. German soldiers, wearing captured British and U.S. Army uniforms and using captured Allied vehicles, were to cause confusion in the rear of the Allied lines. A lack of vehicles, uniforms and equipment limited the operation and it never achieved its original aim of securing the Meuse bridges. Skorzeny's post-war trial set a precedent clarifying article 4 of the Geneva Convention: as the German soldiers removed the Allied uniforms before engaging in combat, they were not to be considered francs-tireurs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sonic deception</span> Deception tactic in the battlefield that involves the projection of sounds to produce noises

Sonic deception refers to a deception tactic on the battlefield that involves the projection of sounds to produce noises intended to mislead hearers. The recorded noises target the enemy's sound-ranging equipment, as well as the human ear. It is employed in various activities, which include vehicular movements and the construction of infrastructure and military facilities.

References

  1. Matuszczyk, A. (2012). Creative Stratagems: Creative and Systems Thinking in Handling Social Conflict. Kibworth/GB: Modern Society Publishing. (p. 21)
  2. Charles Rollin. "Ancient Carthage". history-world.org. Archived from the original on November 27, 2005. Retrieved December 3, 2011.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  3. 1 2 3 Coles, Harry L. (1966). The War of 1812. University of Chicago Press. pp. 51–53. ISBN   978-0-2261-1350-0.
  4. Merritt, in Wood, William ed. Select British Documents of the Canadian War of 1812. British documents, 3:554.)
  5. Tucker, Spencer T. (2009). A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East. ABC-CLIO. p. 1107. ISBN   978-1-8510-9672-5.
  6. Elting, John R. (1995). Amateurs to Arms: A military history of the War of 1812 . New York: Da Capo Press. p.  147. ISBN   978-0-3068-0653-7.
  7. Staff. "FROM CITY POINT.; Gen. Meade's Order Correction A Ruse de Guerre Coming Events Ominous Clouds Gathering.", The New York Times , March 31, 1865. Retrieved October 3, 2008.
  8. "Japanese Ruse That Failed.; Togo Tried to Make Believe He Was Chasing Vladivostok Squadron". The New York Times . April 24, 1904. Retrieved October 3, 2008.
  9. "Washington Officials Silent; Lusitania Use of Flag Denounced in the House". The New York Times. February 9, 1915. Retrieved October 3, 2008.
  10. "Court Holds Former SS Officer and Seven Aides Did Not Violate the Rules of War During Battle of Bulge". The New York Times. September 10, 1947. Retrieved October 3, 2008.
  11. 1 2 3 "United States of America, Practice Relating to Rule 57. Ruses of War". International Committee of the Red Cross.
  12. "Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries – CCW Protocol (II) prohibiting Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, 1980".
  13. "Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907". International Committee of the Red Cross.
  14. "United States of America, Practice Relating to Rule 65. Perfidy, Section D. Simulation of surrender". International Committee of the Red Cross.
  15. "United States of America, Practice Relating to Rule 64. Conclusion of an Agreement to Suspend Combat with the Intention of Attacking by Surprise the Adversary Relying on It". International Committee of the Red Cross.
  16. "United States v. Hagendorf, Judgment, N/A (U.S. Intermed. Gov. Ct. (Dachau, Germany), Aug. 09, 1946)". www.worldcourts.com. Retrieved 2022-10-04.

Further reading