Talk:Ruse de guerre

Standard of rules
This article uses many subjective terms like "legitimate" or "unacceptable" without identifying the rules to which it refers. The Geneva Conventions are widely accepted nowadays, but as war occurred during a few thousand year's of human history, they should be considered for what they are (an historical attempt to reduce war lawlessness, beginning in the 19th century) rather than being considered as a sort of divine law.

Otto Skorzeny's use of American uniforms
Last fall. when Kevin Sites captured a clip of a young Marine shooting a seriously wounded, unarmed Iraqi captive, columnist Thomas Sowell wrote an article defending the young Marine. He argued that the treatment GIs gave to German prisoners wearing American uniforms during the Battle of the Bulge set a precedent for giving prisoners summary executions. I got involved in a discussion on slashdot about Sowell's claim. My correspondents cited details of Otto Skorzeny's exploits that turned out to be partially incorrect. One of the links I turned up quoted Skorzeny on advice he had received from German experts in military law. According to this link the legal advice he received was that wearing American uniforms was a legitimate ruse de guerre, so long as they took off their American uniforms before they fired any weapons. According to his account Skorzeny was skeptical that this advice held any value.

Skorzeny commanded a half-company of Germans who were to make a serious attempt to infiltrate behind the American lines, without being detected. Of these 48 volunteers a small number made it back to the German lines. Three were captured, interrogated, stood trial, and were openly executed by firing squad. One of these three captured Germans was the source of the incapacitating rumour that the goal of this force was to assassinate Eisenhower. If one were to be charitable, the execution of these three was the grain of truth behind Sowell's claim that GIs were authorized to shoot prisoners.

In practice this half-company of infiltrators were not able to evade detection. Half a dozen made it back behind German lines, three were captured, the rest were killed in combat. Can this high rate of casualties be explained by the Germans being delayed by changing uniforms? Could this hight rate of casualties be explained by the Americans refusing to accept attempts by the Germans to surrender? Could this high rate of casualties be explained by furious GIs practicing summary execution of prisoners in secret?

My understanding of the obligations of the Geneva Conventions and the US UCMJ is that when a captor takes a prisoner into custody they are obliged to take reasonable steps to keep them safe. My understanding is that even if they suspect a prisoner of committing war crimes they are still obliged to keep them safe, until they are handed over to those authorized to make a determination as to whehter they were legitimate prisoners of war, innocent civilians, or illegal combatants, suspected war criminals.

summary execution of spies?
Isn't there a tradition of routinely shooting spies, because they were fighting out of uniform? Wouldn't this suggest that spying is not recognized as a legitimate ruse de guerre?

That gets into what you imply by saying "legitimate". Although spies face execution, it is an ancient, established practice of war, and all parties know their need (and duty) to defend against it. Many parties would simply consider spying to be a tactic that risks grave consequences, but is nonetheless legitimate. The very fact that governments typically shoot (foreign) spies instead of hanging them testifies to this. In that sense, it differs from attacking under the guise of a Red Cross vehicle, because in that case, combatants have a moral obligation to NOT attack such vehicles, but rather to offer safe passage. 65.77.101.63 00:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC) David

wikianswers?
"A Ruse de Guerre (trick of war) is a deliberate attempt to fool the enemy in wartime, for instance by making mock aeroplanes or tanks from wood in order to pretend you had more than you actually had."

and

"The fatal duel between the Duke of Hamilton and Lord Mohun is well known. McCartney, the second to Lord Mohun, was suspected of having stabbed treacherously the Duke; a reward was offered for having apprehended him.  About that time a gentleman was set upon by highwaymen, and with a happy presence of mind he told them he was McCartney.  On this they brought him to a justice of the peace in hopes of the reward, when he gave charge against them for the robbery, and they were sent to jail." 

and

"A ruse de guerre is a military trick, such as disguising a warship to appear to be a neutral merchant vessel, as the Germans did with their armed merchant cruisers during World War II. Germany's Pocket battleships also took steps to disguise their appearance.

This kind of naval deception was more common during 18th and 19th century. It was generally considered acceptable to sail under false colors, provided the belligerent lowered the false colors and raised the flag of their own nation, prior to firing their guns."

and

French wiki "Ruse de Guerre"[]

Pohick2 (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Breaking Rules
Several places in this article there are assertions governing what would constitute a ruse of war based on certain practices being against the rules, however the article does not make clear whose rules these are (genever convention? US Army?) and really needs to do so as it is not clear that such rules are always observed or indeed should be in anything more than a legal sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.35.20 (talk) 09:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the Geneva Conventions are the main implied source. However, most of the examples are from before those conventions were created. Nine years later your concern remains valid. --Aecur (talk) 04:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Money emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 01:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Flying German colors in Normandy
It is stated that when the Allied forces flew German colors in Normandy this was part of a legitimate ruse. However, earlier in the text it says that use of enemy military insignia is not permitted under international rules of war. At the time, the Hague Convention was already in force, so this ruse was likely illegitimate in WW2. It is certainly illegitimate now. I'm not sure enough to make the change myself, but there is objectively an inconsistency in the text. Aecur (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Aecur Quite often, a WP-talkpage can have few watchers, and comments like these can go unnoticed. If you want, you can in cases like these check for Wikiprojects at the top of the talkpage, and ask for input at their talkpages. None may bite but the hooks are cheap. Some Wikiprojects are more or less abandonded, but WikiProject Military history is not one of those. Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

American flag   Ruse de guerre   Lusitania
The article Ruse de guerre says Lusitania flew an American flag without specifying when or giving a reference. The article RMS Lusitania makes no mention of American flags. These two articles need to be reconciled. Reports at the time were coloured by politics but modern assessments should be able to clarify it. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Please note that it has been referenced here since it was first added in 2008.Davidships (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)