Letters

Was masquerading as unarmed neutral vessels considered legal, an allowable "ruse of war" for merchant raiders?

For an article that I've been asked to do by the U. S. magazine Military History, I have a general question that I suspect you can answer easily.

The infamous German "merchant raiders" of World War II (as well as the British Q ships of WWI) typically masqueraded as unarmed neutral vessels until they had lured their prey into range, then struck their false colors and hoisted the proper ensign. Was this considered legal, an allowable "ruse of war" or was it against the Hague and Geneva Conventions? I know the Hague convention of 1907 says something about merchant vessels that were converted to warships needing to carry the proper markings and identifiers of warships of that navy, but did that mean just flags/ensigns or did it also require warship-gray paint, say, and big numbers on the bow (or whatever)? And could the "proper markings and identifiers" be shown at the last minute or were they required to be in place permanently?

Thanks,
Stephan Wilkinson

Look for my books,
"The Gold-Plated Porsche"
and
"Man and Machine"
at amazon.com


Stephan,

Your query is not that easy to answer.

I have always understood it was a legitimate Ruse of War, for example, for an armed Merchant Raider to sail under false colours, but before opening fire against an enemy ship, the true ensign of the ship must be hoisted.

Of course the Hague Convention under Hague(V11 )  Convention relating to the conversion of Merchant Ships into warships, at Article 5 reads: Every Merchant ship converted into a warship must observe in its operations the laws and customs of the Sea.

The 1913 Oxford Manual under Section 111, article 15 indicates: Ruses of War are considered permissible.

The 1936 London Protocol is influenced by Protocol 1 of 1977 on the Traditional means and methods of warfare.

In the Book The Law of Naval Warfare, Collection of Agreements and Documents
 
Natalino Ronzitti. 
Professor of International Law at the Facilty of Law at Pisa University Italy, in a chapter at page 32 writes regarding Protocol 1, Article 39 ( 3 ) Preserving the lawfulness of the rule according to which a ship may use false colours before opening fire ( this means that the use of false colours is a legitimate ruse of war in sea warfare )

Regarding your question I know the Hague convention of 1907 says something about merchant vessels that were converted to warships needing to carry the proper markings and identifiers of warships of that navy, but did that mean just flags/ensigns or did it also require warship-gray paint, say, and big numbers on the bow (or whatever)? And could the "proper markings and identifiers" be shown at the last minute or were they required to be in place.

I do not believe That Armed Merchant Raiders were expected to be painted grey, or carry pennant Numbers on their hull, I think it refers to the need to fly the correct Ensign of their Navy at the time they declare their intent, and open fire.

Hope this helps if only in a small way. I would love to see a copy of your article in due course please!

Regards, 
Mac.


back to letters index


   

This site was created as a resource for educational use and the promotion of historical awareness. All rights of publicity of the individuals named herein are expressly reserved, and, should be respected consistent with the reverence in which this memorial site was established.

Copyright© 1984/2014 Mackenzie J. Gregory All rights reserved