Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
False flag
View on Wikipedia

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.[1][2] The term was originally used to describe a ruse in naval warfare whereby a vessel flew the flag of a neutral or enemy country to hide its true identity.[1][2][3] The tactic was initially 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 before commencing an attack.[4][5][6]
The term today extends to include countries that organize attacks on themselves and make the attacks appear to be by enemy nations or terrorists, thus giving the nation that was supposedly attacked a pretext for domestic repression or foreign military aggression[7] (as well as to engender sympathy). Similarly deceptive activities carried out during peacetime by individuals or nongovernmental organizations have been called false-flag operations, but the more common legal term is a "frameup", "stitch up", or "setup".
Use in warfare
[edit]In land warfare, such operations are generally deemed acceptable under certain circumstances, such as to deceive enemies, provided the deception is not perfidious and that all such deceptions are discarded before opening fire upon the enemy. Similarly, in naval warfare such a deception is considered permissible, provided the false flag is lowered and the true flag raised before engaging in battle.[8] Auxiliary cruisers operated in such a fashion in both World Wars, as did Q-ships, while merchant vessels were encouraged to use false flags for protection. Such masquerades promoted confusion not just of the enemy but of historical accounts. In 1914, the Battle of Trindade was fought between the British auxiliary cruiser RMS Carmania and the German auxiliary cruiser SMS Cap Trafalgar, which had been altered to look like Carmania.
Another notable example was the World War II German commerce raider Kormoran, which surprised and sank the Australian light cruiser HMAS Sydney in 1941 while disguised as a Dutch merchant ship, causing the greatest loss of life on an Australian warship. While Kormoran was fatally damaged in the engagement and its crew captured, the outcome represented a considerable psychological victory for the Germans.[9]
The British used a Kriegsmarine ensign in the St Nazaire Raid and captured a German code book. The old destroyer Campbeltown, which the British planned to sacrifice in the operation, was provided with cosmetic modifications that involved cutting the ship's funnels and chamfering the edges to resemble a German Type 23 torpedo boat. By this ruse the British got within two miles (3 km) of the harbour before the defences responded, where the explosive-rigged Campbeltown and commandos successfully disabled or destroyed the key dock structures of the port.[10][11]
Air warfare
[edit]Between December 1922 and February 1923, a commission of jurists at the Hague drafted a set of rules concerning the Control of Wireless Telegraphy in Time of War and Air Warfare. They included:[12]
- Art. 3. A military aircraft must carry an exterior mark indicating its nationality and its military character.
- Art. 19. The use of false exterior marks is forbidden.
This draft was never adopted as a legally binding treaty, but the International Committee of the Red Cross states in its introduction on the draft: "To a great extent, [the draft rules] correspond to the customary rules and general principles underlying treaties on the law of war on land and at sea",[13] and as such these two non-controversial articles were already part of customary law.[14]
Land warfare
[edit]In land warfare, the use of a false flag is similar to that of naval warfare: the trial of Waffen SS officer Otto Skorzeny—who planned and commanded Operation Greif—by a U.S. military tribunal at the Dachau trials included a finding that Skorzeny was not guilty of a crime by ordering his men into action in American uniforms. He had relayed to his men the warning of German legal experts: if they fought in American uniforms, they would be breaking the laws of war; however, they probably were not doing so simply by wearing the American uniforms. During the trial, a number of arguments were advanced to substantiate this position and the German and U.S. military seem to have been in agreement.
In the transcript of the trial,[15] it is mentioned that Paragraph 43 of the Field Manual published by the War Department, United States Army, on 1 October 1940, under the entry Rules of Land Warfare states: "National flags, insignias and uniforms as a ruse – in practice it has been authorized to make use of these as a ruse. The foregoing rule (Article 23 of the Annex of the IV Hague Convention), does not prohibit such use, but does prohibit their improper use. It is certainly forbidden to make use of them during a combat. Before opening fire upon the enemy, they must be discarded."
As pretexts for war
[edit]Russo-Swedish War
[edit]In 1788, the head tailor at the Royal Swedish Opera received an order to sew a number of Russian military uniforms. These were then used by Swedes to stage an attack on Puumala, a Swedish outpost on the Russo-Swedish border, on 27 June 1788. This caused an outrage in Stockholm and impressed the Riksdag of the Estates, the Swedish national assembly, who until then had refused to agree to an offensive war against Russia. The Puumala incident allowed King Gustav III of Sweden, who lacked the constitutional authority to initiate unprovoked hostilities without the Estates' consent, to launch the Russo-Swedish War (1788–1790).[16]
Franco-Prussian War
[edit]On July 13, 1870, Otto von Bismarck published the Ems Dispatch, an internal message from King Wilhelm I to Bismarck regarding certain demands made by the French ambassador. In the version purposefully released to the public, Bismarck instead made it sound like the King had gravely disrespected the ambassador – a ploy to trick Emperor Napoleon III into declaring war on the North German Confederation, with the end goal of unifying the northern and southern German states. This ploy would be successful, as Napoleon III would declare war six days later; and six months later, the Confederation would win and unify the German states.
Second Sino-Japanese War
[edit]
In September 1931, Seishirō Itagaki and other Japanese mid- to junior-grade officers, without the knowledge of the Tokyo government, fabricated a pretext for invading Manchuria by blowing up a section of railway. Though the explosion was too weak to disrupt operations on the rail line, the Japanese nevertheless used the Mukden incident to seize Manchuria and create a puppet government in the form of the nominally independent state of Manchukuo.[17]
World War II
[edit]Gleiwitz incident
[edit]
The Gleiwitz incident in 1939 involved Reinhard Heydrich fabricating evidence of a Polish attack against Germany to mobilize German public opinion for war and to justify the war against Poland. Alfred Naujocks was a key organiser of the operation under orders from Heydrich. It led to the deaths of Nazi concentration camp victims who were dressed as German soldiers and then shot by the Gestapo to make it seem that they had been shot by Polish soldiers. This, along with other false flag operations in Operation Himmler, would be used to mobilize support from the German population for the start of World War II in Europe.[18]
The operation failed to convince international public opinion of the German claims, and both Britain and France – Poland's allies – declared war two days after Germany invaded Poland.[19]
Winter War
[edit]On 26 November 1939, the Soviet army shelled Mainila, a Russian village near the Finnish border. Soviet authorities blamed Finland for the attack and used the incident as a pretext to invade Finland, starting the Winter War, four days later.[20][21]
Cuban Revolution
[edit]Operation Northwoods
[edit]
Operation Northwoods, a 1962 plot proposed but never executed by the U.S. Department of Defense for a war with Cuba, involved scenarios such as fabricating the hijacking or shooting down of passenger and military planes, sinking a U.S. ship in the vicinity of Cuba, burning crops, sinking a boat filled with Cuban refugees, attacks by alleged Cuban infiltrators inside the United States, and harassment of U.S. aircraft and shipping, and the destruction of aerial drones by aircraft disguised as Cuban MiGs.[22] These actions would be blamed on Cuba, and would be a pretext for an invasion of Cuba and the overthrow of Fidel Castro's communist government. It was authorised by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy. The surprise discovery of the documents relating to Operation Northwoods was a result of the comprehensive search for records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy by the Assassination Records Review Board in the mid-1990s.[23] Information about Operation Northwoods was later publicized by James Bamford.[24]
Russian invasion of Ukraine
[edit]In January and February 2022, U.S. officials warned that Russian operatives were planning a false flag operation in Ukraine in order to justify a military intervention.[25] In the days leading up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 24 February, the Russian government intensified its disinformation campaign, with Russian state media promoting false flags on a nearly hourly basis purporting to show Ukrainian forces attacking Russia, in a bid to justify an invasion of Ukraine.[26][27] Many of the disinformation videos were poor and amateur in quality, with mismatching metadata showing incorrect dates,[27] and evidence from Bellingcat researchers and other independent journalists showed that the claimed attacks, explosions, and evacuations in Donbas were staged by Russia.[26][27][28][29][30]
United States-Venezuela tensions
[edit]On October 26th, Venezuela claimed that a potential covert CIA-assisted Trinidad and Tobago mercenaries had planned to stage a false-flag attack on the USS Gravely, assumed to spark military escalation during the heightened tensions between the United States and Venezuela during the United States naval deployment and attacks on boats claimed to be transporting drugs in the Caribbean. [31][32]
As a tactic to undermine political opponents
[edit]Lermontov detachment
[edit]During the Caucasus War a Russian imperial army special unit named "Lermontov detachment" (for a few months it was headed by Mikhail Lermontov) operated behind enemy lines disguised as the insurgents. An insider account reported that "they shaved their heads, grew beards, dressed them Circassian style, and armed them with double-barreled shotguns with bayonets."[33]
Soviet covert operations in Ukraine
[edit]In the post-World War II Ukraine, Soviet NKVD employed units dressed as Ukrainian Insurgent Army fighters. They committed a number of well-documented atrocities against civilian population posing as the insurgents.[34]
Operation TPAJAX
[edit]On 4 April 1953, the CIA was ordered to undermine the government of Iran over a four-month period, as a precursor to overthrowing Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. One tactic used to undermine Mosaddegh was to carry out false flag attacks "on mosques and key public figures", to be blamed on Iranian communists loyal to the government.[35]
The CIA operation was code-named TPAJAX. The tactic of a "directed campaign of bombings by Iranians posing as members of the Communist party" involved the bombing of "at least one" well known Muslim's house by CIA agents posing as Communists.[36] The CIA determined that the tactic of false flag attacks added to the "positive outcome" of TPAJAX.[35]
However, as "the C.I.A. burned nearly all of its files on its role in the 1953 coup in Iran", the true extent of the tactic has been difficult for historians to discern.[37]
Operation Susannah
[edit]In the summer of 1954, a group of Egyptian Jews recruited by Aman planned to bomb American, British, and Egyptian civil targets in Egypt. The bombings were to be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood, Egyptian Communists, "unspecified malcontents", or "local nationalists", with the aim of creating a climate of sufficient violence and instability to induce the British government to refrain from evacuating its troops occupying the Suez Canal.[38][39]
Only two bombs were successfully detonated before the plot was discovered.[40] Unknown to Israel Prime Minister Moshe Sharet, the exposé caused a scandal in Israel, with Israeli officials blaming one another for the operation and the Israeli defense minister, Pinhas Lavon, resigning under pressure. Later, two investigative committees found that Lavon was unaware of the operation.[40][41]
Failed operations
[edit]Due to its deceptive nature a false flag operation can fail in such a manner as to implicate the perpetrator rather than the intended victim.
A notable example is an April 2022 FSB operation where would-be Ukrainian assassins of Russian propagandist Vladimir Solovyov were filmed while being arrested. The footage published by the FSB was, however, found to implicate the FSB as having staged the arrest. Together with weapons, drugs, Ukrainian passports, and Nazi memorabilia the footage also prominently showed three expansion packs for The Sims 3 video game. Investigative journalist Eliot Higgins interpreted this to mean that the arrest was in fact staged, with its organizers misunderstanding an instruction "to get 3 SIMs". Further lending credence to the arrest being staged was footage of a note with a Russian phrase, which in fact read signature unclear. This was again interpreted as a misunderstood instruction, this time taken too literally. The FSB subsequently published a version of the footage with the Sims games blurred out.[42][43][44]
Pseudo-operations
[edit]Pseudo-operations are those in which forces of one power disguise themselves as enemy forces. For example, a state power may disguise teams of operatives as insurgents and, with the aid of defectors, infiltrate insurgent areas.[45] The aim of such pseudo-operations may be to gather short- or long-term intelligence or to engage in active operations, in particular assassinations of important enemies. However, they usually involve both, as the risks of exposure rapidly increase with time and intelligence gathering eventually leads to violent confrontation. Pseudo-operations may be directed by military or police forces, or both. Police forces are usually best suited to intelligence tasks; however, military provide the structure needed to back up such pseudo-ops with military response forces. According to US military expert Lawrence Cline (2005), "the teams typically have been controlled by police services, but this largely was due to the weaknesses in the respective military intelligence systems."[46]

The State Political Directorate (OGPU) of the Soviet Union set up such an operation from 1921 to 1926. During Operation Trust, they used loose networks of White Army supporters and extended them, creating the pseudo-"Monarchist Union of Central Russia" (MUCR) in order to help the OGPU identify real monarchists and anti-Bolsheviks.[47]
An example of a successful assassination was United States Marine Sergeant Herman H. Hanneken leading a patrol of his Haitian Gendarmerie disguised as enemy guerrillas in 1919. The patrol successfully passed several enemy checkpoints in order to assassinate the guerilla leader Charlemagne Péralte near Grande-Rivière-du-Nord. Hanneken was awarded the Medal of Honor[48] and was commissioned a Second Lieutenant for his deed.[citation needed]
During the Mau Mau uprising in the 1950s, captured Mau Mau members who switched sides and specially trained British troops initiated the pseudo-gang concept to successfully counter Mau Mau. In 1960, Frank Kitson, who was later involved in the Northern Irish conflict, published Gangs and Counter-gangs, an account of his experiences with the technique in Kenya. Information included how to counter gangs and measures of deception, including the use of defectors, which brought the issue a wider audience.[citation needed]
Another example of combined police and military oversight of pseudo-operations include the Selous Scouts in the former country Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), governed by white minority rule until 1980. The Selous Scouts were formed at the beginning of Operation Hurricane, in November 1973, by Major (later Lieutenant Colonel) Ronald Reid-Daly. As with all Special Forces in Rhodesia, by 1977, they were controlled by COMOPS (Commander, Combined Operations) Commander Lieutenant General Peter Walls. The Selous Scouts were originally composed of 120 members, with all officers being white and the highest rank initially available for black soldiers being colour sergeant. They succeeded in turning approximately 800 insurgents who were then paid by Special Branch, ultimately reaching the number of 1,500 members. Engaging mainly in long-range reconnaissance and surveillance missions, they increasingly turned to offensive actions, including the attempted assassination of Zimbabwe People's Revolutionary Army leader Joshua Nkomo in Zambia. This mission was finally aborted by the Selous Scouts, and attempted again, unsuccessfully, by the Rhodesian Special Air Service.[49]
Some offensive operations attracted international condemnation, in particular the Selous Scouts' raid on a Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA) camp at Nyadzonya Pungwe, Mozambique in August 1976. ZANLA was then led by Josiah Tongogara. Using Rhodesian trucks and armored cars disguised as Mozambique military vehicles, 84 scouts killed 1,284 people in the camp, registered as a refugee camp by the United Nations (UN). Even according to Reid-Daly, most of those killed were unarmed guerrillas standing in formation for a parade. The camp hospital was also set ablaze by the rounds fired by the Scouts, killing all patients.[50] According to David Martin and Phyllis Johnson, who visited the camp shortly before the raid, it was only a refugee camp that did not host any guerrillas. It was staged for UN approval.[51]
According to a 1978 study by the Directorate of Military Intelligence, 68% of all insurgent deaths inside Rhodesia could be attributed to the Selous Scouts, who were disbanded in 1980.[52]
If the action is a police action, then these tactics would fall within the laws of the state initiating the pseudo, but if such actions are taken in a civil war or during a belligerent military occupation then those who participate in such actions would not be privileged belligerents. The principle of plausible deniability is usually applied for pseudo-teams. (See the above section Laws of war)[clarification needed]. Some false flag operations have been described by Lawrence E. Cline, a retired US Army intelligence officer, as pseudo-operations, or "the use of organized teams which are disguised as guerrilla groups for long- or short-term penetration of insurgent-controlled areas".[45]
"Pseudo-operations should be distinguished," notes Cline, "from the more common police or intelligence infiltration of guerrilla or criminal organizations. In the latter case, infiltration is normally done by individuals. Pseudo teams, on the other hand, are formed as needed from organized units, usually military or paramilitary. The use of pseudo teams has been a hallmark of a number of foreign counterinsurgency campaigns."[45]
Similar false flag tactics were also employed during the Algerian Civil War, starting in the middle of 1994. Death squads composed of Département du Renseignement et de la Sécurité (DRS) security forces disguised themselves as Islamist terrorists and committed false flag terror attacks. Such groups included the Organisation of Young Free Algerians (OJAL) or the Secret Organisation for the Safeguard of the Algerian Republic (OSSRA).[53] According to Roger Faligot and Pascal Kropp (1999), the OJAL was reminiscent of "the Organization of the French Algerian Resistance (ORAF), a group of counter-terrorists created in December 1956 by the Direction de la surveillance du territoire (Territorial Surveillance Directorate, or DST) whose mission was to carry out terrorist attacks with the aim of quashing any hopes of political compromise".[54]
Espionage
[edit]In espionage, the term "false flag" describes the recruiting of agents by operatives posing as representatives of a cause the prospective agents are sympathetic to, or even the agents' own government. For example, during the Cold War, several female West German civil servants were tricked into stealing classified documents by agents of the East German Stasi intelligence service pretending to be members of West German peace advocacy groups (the Stasi agents were also described as "Romeos", indicating that they also used their sex appeal to manipulate their targets, making this operation a combination of the false flag and "honey trap" techniques).[55]
According to ex-KGB defector Jack Barsky, "Many a right-wing radical had given information to the Soviets under a 'false flag', thinking they were working with a Western ally, such as Israel, when in fact their contact was a KGB operative."[56]
Militant usage
[edit]False flag operations are also utilized by non-state actors and terrorist organizations. During the Indian security forces siege prior to the storming of the Golden Temple, Babbar Khalsa militants allegedly infiltrated buildings between CRPF lines and the positions of pro-Bhindranwale militants and fired in both directions in the hope of provoking firefights. This was allegedly done as a result of Babbar Khalsa leader Bibi Amarjit Kaur blaming Bhindranwale for the death of her husband, Fauja Singh, during the 1978 Sikh-Nirankari clashe.[57]
On October 5, 1987, LTTE fighters infiltrated between IPKF and Sri Lankan army positions in the Kankesanturai area and provoked a firefight between the two forces as part of the revenge operations in retaliation for the suicide in custody of 15 LTTE leaders who were about to be handed into Sri Lankan custody.[58]
Civilian usage
[edit]The term is popular among conspiracy theory promoters in referring to covert operations of various governments and claimed cabals.[59] According to Columbia Journalism Review, this usage mostly "migrated to the right", however because some historical false flag incidents occurred, historians should not fully cede the usage of the term to conspiracy theorists. Perlman says "The real danger is if we use the nonattributive 'false flags' as shorthand for conspiracy theories, without explaining what they are and who is promoting them." At the same time, Perlman writes that "people yelling that any attack attributed to someone on 'their side' was committed by 'the other side' drown out the voices of reason."[2]
Political campaigning
[edit]Political campaigning has a long history of this tactic in various forms, including in person, print media and electronically in recent years. This can involve when supporters of one candidate pose as supporters of another, or act as "straw men" for their preferred candidate to debate against. This can happen with or without the candidate's knowledge. The Canuck letter is an example of one candidate's creating a false document and attributing it as coming from another candidate in order to discredit that candidate.[citation needed]
In 2006, individuals practicing false flag behavior were discovered and "outed" in New Hampshire[60][61] and New Jersey[62] after blog comments claiming to be from supporters of a political candidate were traced to the IP address of paid staffers for that candidate's opponent.
On 19 February 2011, Indiana Deputy Prosecutor Carlos Lam sent a private email to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker suggesting that he run a "'false flag' operation" to counter the protests against Walker's proposed restrictions on public employees' collective bargaining rights:
If you could employ an associate who pretends to be sympathetic to the unions' cause to physically attack you (or even use a firearm against you), you could discredit the unions ... Employing a false flag operation would assist in undercutting any support the media may be creating in favor of the unions.[63][64]
The press had acquired a court order to access all of Walker's emails and Lam's email was exposed. At first, Lam vehemently denied sending the email, but eventually admitted it and resigned.[64]
Some conservative commentators suggested that pipe bombs that were sent to prominent Democrats prior to the 2018 mid-term elections were part of a false flag effort to discredit Republicans and supporters of then-President Donald Trump.[65] Cesar Sayoc, motivated by his belief that Democrats were "evil", was later convicted of mailing the devices to Trump's critics.[66]
On the internet, a concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the troll claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt within the group often by appealing to outrage culture.[67] This is a particular case of sockpuppeting and safe-baiting.
During the 2025 Canadian federal election campaign, Liberal Party of Canada strategists were exposed after their false flag operation failed. A CBC News journalist who was speaking with Liberal staff at a bar in Ottawa learned how "Stop the Steal" buttons were placed at a Conservative Party of Canada event. The operatives hoped attendees would wear them, which would allow Liberals to publicly conflate Conservative supporters and leader Pierre Poilievre with Donald J. Trump. After the false flag mission was reported by the journalist, Liberal leader, Mark Carney, reassigned those involved.[68][69]
Ideological
[edit]
Proponents of political or religious ideologies will sometimes use false flag tactics. This can be done to discredit or implicate rival groups, create the appearance of enemies when none exist, or create the illusion of organized and directed persecution. This can be used to gain attention and sympathy from outsiders, in particular the media, or to convince others within the group that their beliefs are under attack and in need of protection.
In retaliation for writing The Scandal of Scientology, some members of the Church of Scientology stole stationery from author Paulette Cooper's home and then used that stationery to forge bomb threats and have them mailed to a Scientology office. The Guardian's Office also had a plan for further operations to discredit Cooper known as Operation Freakout, but several Scientology operatives were arrested in a separate investigation and the plan was exposed.[70]
According to PolitiFact, some false flag conspiracy theories (such as claims that mass shootings are hoaxes) are themselves spread by astroturfing, which is an attempt to create false impression of popularity in a belief.[71]
See also
[edit]Concepts
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ a b O'Conner, Patricia; Kellerman, Stewart (11 May 2018). "The True History of False Flags". Grammarphobia.com. Retrieved 9 June 2020.
- ^ a b c "How the term 'false flag' migrated to the right". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 23 December 2021.
- ^ "False flags: What are they and when have they been used?". BBC News. 18 February 2022. Retrieved 20 May 2022.
- ^ Politakis, George P. (2018). Modern Aspects of the Laws of Naval Warfare and Maritime Neutrality. Taylor & Francis. pp. 281–. ISBN 978-1-136-88577-8.
- ^ Faye Kert (30 September 2015). Privateering: Patriots and Profits in the War of 1812. JHU Press. pp. 62–. ISBN 978-1-4214-1747-9.
- ^ Donald R. Hickey; Connie D. Clark (8 October 2015). The Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812. Routledge. pp. 64–. ISBN 978-1-317-70198-9.
- ^ deHaven-Smith, Lance (2013). Conspiracy Theory in America. Austin: University of Texas Press. p. 225
- ^ "the use of a false flag has always been accepted as a legitimate ruse de guerre in naval warfare, the true battle flag being run up immediately before engaging" (Thomas, Rosamund M., ed. (1993), Teaching Ethics: Government ethics, Centre for Business and Public, p. 80, ISBN 9781871891034).
- ^ Squires, Nick. "HMAS Sydney found off Australia's west coast", The Telegraph, 17 March 2008.
- ^ Guinness World Records (2009), p.155
- ^ Young, P (Ed) (1973) Atlas of the Second World War (London: The Military Book Society)
- ^ The Hague Rules of Air Warfare, December 1922 to February 1923, this convention was never adopted (backup site).
- ^ "Rules concerning the Control of Wireless Telegraphy in Time of War and Air Warfare. Drafted by a Commission of Jurists at the Hague, December 1922 – February 1923: Introduction". ICRC. Retrieved 11 February 2025.
- ^ Gómez, Javier Guisández (20 June 1998). "The Law of Air Warfare". International Review of the Red Cross. 38 (323): 347–63. doi:10.1017/S0020860400091075. Archived from the original on 25 April 2013.
- ^ Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals. United Nations War Crimes Commission. Vol IX, 1949: Trial of Otto Skorzeny and others. Archived 2 October 2008 at the Wayback Machine. General Military Government Court of the U.S. zone of Germany 18 August to 9 September 1947.
- ^ Mattila, Tapabi (1983). Meri maamme turvana: Suomen meripuolustuksen vaiheita Ruotsin vallan aikana [The Sea As Our Country's Security: Phases of Finnish Sea Defense During Swedish Rule] (in Finnish). Jyväskylä: Suomi Merellä-säätiö. p. 142. ISBN 951-99487-0-8.
- ^ Weland, James (1994). "Misguided Intelligence: Japanese Military Intelligence Officers in the Manchurian Incident, September 1931". The Journal of Military History. 58 (3): 445–460. doi:10.2307/2944134. JSTOR 2944134.
- ^ Lightbody, Bradley (2004). The Second World War: Ambitions to Nemesis. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge. p. 39. ISBN 978-0-415-22405-5.
- ^ Zaloga, Steve (2004) [originally published in 2002 by Osprey Publishing]. Poland 1939: The Birth of Blitzkrieg (illustrated ed.). Westport: Praeger Publishers. p. 39. ISBN 978-0275982782.
- ^ Turtola, Martti (1999). "Kansainvälinen kehitys Euroopassa ja Suomessa 1930-luvulla". In Leskinen, Jari; Juutilainen, Antti (eds.). Talvisodan pikkujättiläinen [The Little Giant of the Winter War]. Werner Söderström Osakeyhtiö. pp. 44–45.
- ^ Murphy, David (2021). The Finnish-Soviet Winter War 1939-40 Stalin's Hollow Victory. Johnny Shumate. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. p. 9. ISBN 978-1-4728-4394-4. OCLC 1261364794.
- ^ a b "Pentagon Proposes Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962". National Security Archive. 30 April 2001. Archived from the original on 1 May 2024. Retrieved 14 August 2024.
- ^ P. Horne, Douglas (2009). Inside the Assassination Records Review Board: The U.S. Government's Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical Evidence in the Assassination of JFK. self-published. ISBN 978-0984314447. Retrieved 30 October 2018.
- ^ Bamford, James (2002). Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency. Anchor Books. pp. 82–91. ISBN 978-0-385-49907-1.
- ^ Walton, Calder (4 February 2022). "False-Flag Invasions Are a Russian Specialty". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 14 March 2022.
- ^ a b Gilbert, David (21 February 2022). "Russia's 'Idiotic' Disinformation Campaign Could Still Lead to War in Ukraine". Vice News. Vice Media. Archived from the original on 21 February 2022. Retrieved 22 February 2022.
- ^ a b c "Four Russian false flags that are comically easy to debunk". The Daily Telegraph. 21 February 2022. Archived from the original on 22 February 2022. Retrieved 22 February 2022.
- ^ "Russia says it prevented border breach from Ukraine, Kyiv calls it fake news". Reuters. 21 February 2022. Archived from the original on 21 February 2022. Retrieved 21 February 2022.
- ^ Bellingcat Investigation Team (23 February 2022). "Documenting and Debunking Dubious Footage from Ukraine's Frontlines". Bellingcat. Archived from the original on 23 February 2022. Retrieved 24 February 2022.
- ^ "'Dumb and lazy': the flawed films of Ukrainian 'attacks' made by Russia's 'fake factory'". The Guardian. 21 February 2022. Archived from the original on 21 February 2022. Retrieved 22 February 2022.
- ^ "Venezuela claims to have captured 'CIA backed cell plotting false flag attack'". The Independent. 28 October 2025. Retrieved 15 November 2025.
- ^ Feast, Lincoln, ed. (26 October 2025). "Venezuela condemns 'military provocation' by CIA and Trinidad and Tobago". Reuters. Retrieved 15 November 2025.
{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ Davies, Jessie. (1989) The Fey Hussar: The Life of the Russian Poet, Michael Yur'evich Lemontov, 1814-41 to Commemorate the 175th Anniversary of the Poet's Birth. Liverpool: Lincoln Davies & Co., pp. 346-347.
- ^ Wilson, A. (2005) Virtual Politics: Faking Democracy in the Post-Soviet World. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 15.
- ^ a b Callanan, James (30 November 2009). Covert Action in the Cold War: US Policy, Intelligence and CIA Operations. London: I.B. Tauris. p. 115. ISBN 978-0857711663.
- ^ Risen, James (16 April 2000). "SECRETS OF HISTORY: The C.I.A. in Iran — A Special Report; How a Plot Convulsed Iran in '53 (and in '79)". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 22 July 2016. Retrieved 14 August 2024.
- ^ Weiner, Tim (29 May 1997). "C.I.A. Destroyed Files on 1953 Iran Coup". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 16 November 2020. Retrieved 14 August 2024.
- ^ Teveth, Shabtai (1996). Ben-Gurion's Spy: The Story of the Political Scandal That Shaped Modern Israel. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 81. ISBN 978-0-231-10464-7.
- ^ Hahn, Peter L (2004). United States, Great Britain, and Egypt, 1945-1956: Strategy and Diplomacy. Chapel Hill: UNC Press. p. 187. ISBN 978-0-8078-1942-5.
- ^ a b Black, Ian; Morris, Benny (1 June 1992). Israel's Secret Wars: A History of Israel's Intelligence Services (PDF). New York: Grove Press. p. 111. ISBN 978-0-8021-3286-4.
- ^ Tucker, Spencer C., ed. (2008). The Encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Political, Social, and Military History. Vol. II. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. p. 610. ISBN 978-1-85109-841-5.
- ^ Teh, Cheryl (26 April 2022). "Journalists mocked Russia's spy agency after copies of the 'Sims 3' video game were spotted in a clip of agents allegedly foiling an assassination plot". Business Insider. Retrieved 14 August 2024.
- ^ Klimentov, Mikhail. "Alleged Russian sting operation uncovers 'The Sims 3,' guns, grenade". The Washington Post. Retrieved 14 August 2024.
- ^ Childs, Simon (26 April 2022). "Russia Bizarrely Includes Sims 3 Among Evidence of 'Staged' Assassination Plot". vice.com. Vice Media. Retrieved 14 August 2024.
- ^ a b c Cline, Lawrence E. (2005) Pseudo Operations and Counterinsurgency: Lessons from other countries, Archived 16 November 2016 at the Wayback Machine, Strategic Studies Institute.
- ^ "Excerpt – Pseudo Operations and Counterinsurgency: Lessons from Other Countries". ssi.armywarcollege.edu. Archived from the original on 2 May 2017. Retrieved 16 October 2019.
- ^ Andrew, Christopher (2001). The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB. Basic Books. pp. 33–35, 42. ISBN 0-465-00312-5.
- ^ "Ex-Marine Corps Gen. Hanneken Dies". Los Angeles Times. 27 August 1986. ISSN 0458-3035. Retrieved 7 November 2017.
- ^ Cline (2005), p. 11.
- ^ Cline (2005), quoting Reid-Daly, Pamwe Chete: The Legend of the Selous Scouts, Weltevreden Park, South Africa: Covos-Day Books, 1999, p. 10 (republished by Covos Day, 2001, ISBN 978-1-919874-33-3).
- ^ Cline (2005), who quotes David Martin and Phyllis Johnson, The Struggle for Zimbabwe: the Chimurenga War, New York: Monthly Review Press, 1981, pp. 241–242.
- ^ Cline (2005), pp. 8–13. For 1978 study, quotes J. K. Cilliers, Counter-insurgency in Rhodesia, London: Croom Helm, 1985, pp. 60–77. Cline also quotes Ian F. W. Beckett, The Rhodesian Army: Counter-Insurgency 1972–1979 at selousscouts.
- ^ Lounis Aggoun and Jean-Baptiste Rivoire (2004). Françalgérie, crimes et mensonges d'Etats, (Franco-Algeria, Crimes and Lies of the States). Editions La Découverte. ISBN 2-7071-4747-8. Extract in English with mention of the OJAL available here.
- ^ Luonis Aggoun and Jean-Baptiste Rivoire, ibid., quoting Roger Faligot and Pascal KROP, DST, Police Secrète, Flammarion, 1999, p. 174.
- ^ Crawford, Angus (20 March 2009). "Victims of Cold War 'Romeo spies'". BBC Online. Retrieved 10 April 2009.
- ^ Barsky, Jack (2017). Deep undercover: my secret life and tangled allegiances as a KGB spy in America. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House. ISBN 978-1-4964-1686-5. OCLC 979545331.
- ^ "Backgrounder, Punjab". satp.org. Retrieved 22 January 2025.
- ^ "Chapter 2: Accord, Airlift and Discord". Bharat Rakshak. 5 October 2009. Retrieved 22 January 2025.
- ^ Usckinski, Joseph (27 October 2018). "Five things to know about 'false flag' conspiracy theories". The Washington Post. Retrieved 9 June 2020.
- ^ Steele, Allison, "Bass staffer in D.C. poses as blogger: Bogus posts aimed at his political opponent"Archived 12 March 2007 at the Wayback Machine, Concord Monitor, 26 September 2006 (URL last accessed 24 October 2006).
- ^ Saunders, Anne, "Bass aide resigns after posing as opponent's supporter online", The Boston Globe, 26 September 2006 (URL last accessed 24 October 2006).
- ^ Miller, Jonathan, "Blog Thinks Aide to Kean Posted Jabs At Menendez", The New York Times, 21 September 2006 (URL last accessed 24 October 2006).
- ^ Golden, Kate (24 March 2011). "Indiana prosecutor resigns over Walker email". WisWatch.org. Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism. Retrieved 21 June 2016.
- ^ a b Montopoli, Brian (25 March 2011). "Indiana prosecutor resigns for encouraging fake attack on Wisconsin governor". CBS News. Archived from the original on 12 April 2012.
- ^ Collins, Ben; Abbruzzese, Jason (26 October 2018). "After 'false flag' narrative takes hold, some conservatives scramble to drown out far right". nbcnews.com. NBC News. Retrieved 9 July 2021.
- ^ "Cesar Sayoc, who mailed explosive devices to Trump's critics, sentenced to 20 years in prison". The Washington Post. 5 August 2019. Retrieved 7 August 2019.
- ^ Cox, Ana Marie (16 December 2006). "Making Mischief on the Web". Time. Archived from the original on 13 January 2007. Retrieved 24 March 2009.
- ^ McKenna, Kate (13 April 2025). "Liberal operatives planted 'stop the steal' buttons at conservative conference". www.cbc.ca. Retrieved 25 May 2025.
- ^ Gedeon, Joseph (14 April 2025). "Liberal staffers plant 'stop the steal' pins at Canadian conservative conference". The Guardian.
- ^ United States of America v. Jane Kember, Morris Budlong, Sentencing Memorandum; pp. 23–25.
- ^ "Why do some people think mass shootings are staged every time?". politifact. 2019.
External links
[edit]
The dictionary definition of false flag at Wiktionary
False flag
View on GrokipediaDefinition and Origins
Core Definition
A false flag operation refers to a deliberate act of deception in which the perpetrators disguise their identity or motives, staging an event to falsely attribute it to another party, typically an adversary, for strategic gain such as justifying military action or garnering public support.[10] Such operations often involve simulating attacks, sabotage, or incidents that mimic the methods of the designated scapegoat to ensure plausible deniability and effective misdirection.[11] The core intent is causal manipulation: by engineering an apparent provocation, the true actors seek to provoke a desired response from targets, whether governments, populations, or international bodies, without revealing their involvement.[1] The phrase "false flag" derives from 16th-century naval tactics, where warships hoisted the ensign of a neutral or hostile power to approach targets undetected before revealing their true allegiance and launching assaults. This maritime practice, documented as early as the age of sail, exemplified intentional misrepresentation of identity to exploit trust or lower defenses, a principle extended metaphorically to land-based and political deceptions.[2] By the 20th century, the term encompassed broader covert operations, as evidenced in military doctrines distinguishing false flags from mere propaganda by their reliance on fabricated physical evidence or staged violence to forge attribution.[12] Empirical verification of false flags hinges on declassified records or confessions, underscoring their rarity outside confirmed cases; unproven allegations, often amplified in media or online discourse, lack such substantiation and stem from speculation rather than evidence.[13] Credible analyses prioritize primary sources like intelligence archives over secondary interpretations, which may reflect institutional biases toward downplaying state-sponsored deceptions.[1]Etymology and Historical Maritime Use
The term "false flag" derives from maritime deception tactics in which a warship or privateer hoisted the ensign of a neutral power, ally, or enemy to evade detection and close distance with a target vessel before revealing its true identity and colors immediately prior to opening fire. This practice, known as a ruse de guerre, was codified in customary international maritime law by the 19th century, stipulating that combatants must display authentic national flags before initiating hostilities to avoid perfidy, though violations occurred.[14] The English phrase "false flag" first appeared in print in 1569, initially denoting a broader figurative misrepresentation rather than strictly naval use, but its literal application to flag-hoisting deceptions solidified in naval contexts thereafter.[15] Historically, false flag operations in maritime warfare predated the term by centuries, with evidence of their employment as early as ancient seafaring conflicts, though systematic records emerge from the Age of Sail. Pirates and privateers in the 16th and 17th centuries routinely flew flags of reputable merchant nations—such as those of Spain, England, or the Dutch Republic—to lure prey into lowering defenses, enabling surprise attacks for plunder.[16] State navies, including the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic Wars (1799–1815), adopted similar stratagems against enemy commerce raiders, approaching under disguised colors to gain tactical advantage, as international norms permitted such feints provided no shot was fired under false pretense.[3] These tactics extended to broader naval engagements, where frigates might masquerade as neutrals to infiltrate blockades or convoy systems, exploiting the era's reliance on visual signals for identification amid limited communication technologies.[14] By the 20th century, formalized treaties like the 1907 Hague Convention (Article 3) explicitly banned the improper use of neutral flags but upheld the legitimacy of deceptive flag changes before combat, reflecting the tactic's entrenched role in maritime strategy. Instances persisted into World War I and II, such as German U-boats occasionally employing Allied merchant flags to stalk convoys undetected until periscope range, though submarine warfare's stealth diminished overt flag reliance.[3] This historical maritime foundation underscores false flags as a calculated asymmetry in naval power projection, prioritizing surprise over honorable signaling until the decisive moment.Operational Characteristics
Essential Elements of Deception
The deception in false flag operations fundamentally hinges on misattribution, where the true perpetrators orchestrate an event while fabricating indicators to implicate a designated adversary, thereby concealing their own involvement and motives.[1] This requires meticulous emulation of the blamed party's tactics, techniques, and procedures—such as weaponry, communication styles, or operational signatures—to render the false narrative plausible within the geopolitical or conflict context.[17] For instance, perpetrators may deploy assets disguised as the target entity or plant forensic artifacts, like forged documents or digital footprints, to guide investigations toward the intended scapegoat.[11] Secrecy forms a foundational element, encompassing compartmentalized planning among operatives to minimize leaks and enable plausible deniability for state or non-state sponsors.[1] Execution often involves proxies or cutouts—individuals or groups with no direct ties to the true actors—to insulate the origin, while timing the incident to exploit existing tensions or public sentiments maximizes its provocative impact.[11] Post-event, deception extends to information operations, where controlled leaks, sympathetic media amplification, or suppression of counter-evidence solidify the attribution before scrutiny can unravel it.[17] Plausibility demands alignment with the blamed party's known capabilities and incentives, avoiding overt inconsistencies that could prompt skepticism; deviations risk exposure, as seen in analyses of aborted schemes where mismatched elements undermined credibility.[1] Ultimately, these elements converge to manipulate causal perceptions, framing the event as an unprovoked aggression that justifies retaliation or policy shifts, while the true causal chain—perpetrator intent and orchestration—remains obscured.[11] Empirical assessments of verified cases emphasize that successful deception correlates with rapid narrative dominance, often outpacing forensic verification.[17]Planning, Execution, and Attribution Strategies
Planning false flag operations typically involves high-level coordination among military or intelligence leaders to fabricate a plausible pretext for aggression or policy shifts, often selecting targets near borders or symbolic sites to simulate enemy initiative. In the Gleiwitz incident of August 31, 1939, Nazi Germany's Operation Himmler was orchestrated by Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, and Reinhard Heydrich, entailing a series of border provocations including the staging of attacks on German facilities by SS operatives disguised as Polish forces.[18][19] Planners prepared "canned goods" (Konserve)—concentration camp prisoners injected with chemicals, dressed in Polish uniforms, and left as faux casualties to substantiate claims of Polish atrocities.[20] Similarly, the Mukden Incident on September 18, 1931, saw Japanese Kwantung Army officers, acting semi-autonomously from Tokyo, pre-position explosives along the South Manchuria Railway to mimic sabotage by Chinese nationalists, enabling rapid territorial claims under the guise of defensive retaliation.[21][22] These cases highlight risk mitigation through compartmentalization, where rogue or semi-detached units execute to maintain deniability for central authorities. Execution demands precise, low-signature actions to embed deception while minimizing traceability, often employing small teams in enemy garb to conduct sabotage or assaults that align with anticipated adversary tactics. During Gleiwitz, a seven-man SS unit under Alfred Naujocks infiltrated the radio station, seized the transmitter, broadcast a brief anti-German message in Polish, fired shots, and evacuated, leaving planted bodies and evidence before German forces "repelled" the fabricated raid.[18][20] In Mukden, Lieutenant Kawamoto Kuroda and others detonated a minor charge on the tracks—causing negligible damage but amplified in reports—then simulated an investigation to "uncover" Chinese culpability, followed by immediate artillery barrages on nearby garrisons.[21][23] Declassified proposals like Operation Northwoods (1962) outlined analogous tactics, such as staging hijackings with U.S. planes painted as Cuban or using simulated attacks on U.S. vessels with pre-planted debris to evoke enemy involvement, emphasizing rehearsals and proxy actors (e.g., "friendly Cubans" in uniforms) for authenticity.[8] Attribution strategies rely on swift narrative control, leveraging state media, forged documents, and coerced or fabricated witnesses to cement blame on the designated foe, often synchronizing with larger military mobilizations. Post-Gleiwitz, Nazi propaganda outlets disseminated reports of Polish "aggression" within hours, corroborated by the staged corpses and broadcast recording, justifying the September 1 invasion of Poland.[18][19] The Mukden plotters exploited the incident's proximity to Shenyang to claim self-defense, circulating photos of the "sabotaged" rail and witness accounts tailored to portray Japanese restraint amid Chinese "terrorism," which the Lytton Commission later deemed pretextual.[21][22] Northwoods memoranda proposed amplifying attribution via "leaked" intelligence, riots incited by undercover agents, or casualty spectacles to galvanize public outrage, underscoring the integration of psychological operations with physical evidence to obscure origins until post-facto exposure via trials like Nuremberg.[8][19] Such methods exploit initial chaos for unchallenged dissemination, though forensic scrutiny or defections can later unravel them.Verified Historical Operations
Pretexts for Initiating Wars
The Mukden Incident, occurring on September 18, 1931, involved Japanese military officers detonating a small amount of dynamite on a section of the South Manchuria Railway near Mukden (present-day Shenyang), which they controlled, and attributing the sabotage to Chinese forces.[24] This staged event, executed by Lieutenant Kawamoto Kuroe under orders from Colonel Itagaki Seishiro and confirmed in Japanese military records, provided the immediate pretext for the Japanese Kwantung Army to seize Mukden that night and rapidly expand operations, leading to the full invasion and occupation of Manchuria by February 1932.[25] The operation bypassed civilian government approval in Tokyo, reflecting internal military autonomy, and resulted in the establishment of the puppet state of Manchukuo under Puyi, escalating Japan's imperial expansion and contributing to broader Sino-Japanese hostilities that foreshadowed World War II in Asia.[24] The Gleiwitz Incident, conducted on August 31, 1939, as part of the broader Operation Himmler, saw SS operatives under Sturmbannführer Alfred Naujocks disguise themselves in Polish uniforms, seize the Gleiwitz radio station on the German-Polish border, broadcast a brief anti-German message in Polish, and leave behind the body of a German concentration camp prisoner dressed as a saboteur to simulate a Polish attack.[5] This false flag, one of several similar staged border incidents authorized by Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich, was designed to fabricate evidence of Polish aggression, justifying Germany's invasion of Poland the following day on September 1, 1939, which ignited World War II after triggering Anglo-French declarations of war.[18] Naujocks later testified at the Nuremberg Trials that the operation was explicitly ordered by Heydrich to create a casus belli, underscoring its role in Nazi propaganda portraying Germany as defending against unprovoked assault.[1] These operations exemplify how false flags can manufacture international incidents to align domestic and global opinion with aggressive policies, often relying on controlled media narratives and limited initial evidence to forestall scrutiny until after military action commences.[1] In both cases, post-war investigations, including Japanese admissions and Nazi confessions, verified the deceptions, highlighting the tactical value of such pretexts in circumventing diplomatic constraints.[25]Tactics Within Ongoing Conflicts
During the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944, Nazi Germany employed false flag tactics under Operation Greif to disrupt Allied rear areas amid the ongoing Western Front campaign. SS-Obersturmbannführer Otto Skorzeny led approximately 2,000–3,000 troops, many English-speaking, equipped with 150 captured or disguised U.S. vehicles and dressed in American uniforms obtained from POWs. Objectives included capturing Meuse River bridges for the Ardennes offensive, redirecting Allied units via forged orders, altering road signs to mislead traffic, and disseminating false intelligence about German breakthroughs or Allied retreats. While small groups briefly succeeded in delaying reinforcements—such as diverting the U.S. 106th Infantry Regiment—most infiltrators were detected through accent checks, license plate inspections, and doughnut consumption habits (as Germans reportedly avoided them), leading to over 100 executions of captured commandos under the Hague Convention's prohibition on perfidy after combat. The operation heightened Allied paranoia, prompting checkpoints that slowed logistics but failed to alter the offensive's ultimate defeat. In the context of persistent Arab-Israeli border skirmishes following the 1948 war, Israel's 1954 Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) utilized false flag bombings to exacerbate tensions with Egypt. Military intelligence recruited about a dozen Egyptian Jews to plant incendiary devices at U.S. and British facilities in Cairo and Alexandria, including theaters, libraries, and railway depots, aiming to mimic attacks by Egyptian nationalists or the Muslim Brotherhood. The intent was to fabricate evidence of Egyptian instability, deterring Britain's planned Suez Canal withdrawal under the 1954 Anglo-Egyptian Agreement and possibly provoking Western military retention or intervention against President Gamal Abdel Nasser's regime. On July 23, 1954, a premature detonation in operative Philip Nathanson's pocket during reconnaissance exposed the network; arrests followed, with confessions under torture revealing Israeli orchestration, though initial denials persisted until 1960 documentation confirmed Defense Minister Pinhas Lavon's indirect involvement. The scandal triggered political upheaval in Israel, including Lavon's resignation, and indirectly influenced the 1956 Suez Crisis by hardening anti-Western sentiment in Egypt.[7][26] These tactics, while leveraging wartime or quasi-wartime ambiguity for deniability, risk exposure through operational errors or forensic inconsistencies, as seen in both cases, underscoring the high stakes of attribution failure in sustaining deception. Historical analyses note that such operations, when partially successful, amplify psychological impacts but rarely shift strategic outcomes decisively, often at the cost of long-term diplomatic repercussions.[1]Undermining Political Adversaries
The Lavon Affair, conducted in 1954, exemplifies a false flag operation aimed at undermining a foreign political adversary. Israeli military intelligence, under the direction of Defense Minister Pinhas Lavon, recruited a network of Egyptian Jews to plant bombs at British and American-owned facilities in Cairo and Alexandria, with the intent to attribute the attacks to Egyptian nationalists, Islamists, or communists opposed to President Gamal Abdel Nasser. The objective was to create the appearance of widespread instability under Nasser's regime, thereby pressuring the United States and United Kingdom to reconsider their withdrawal from the Suez Canal zone and sustain support for Israel by portraying Nasser as unable to maintain order. The plot failed when Egyptian authorities arrested the operatives following a premature bomb detonation on July 23, 1954, resulting in the execution of two agents and lengthy imprisonments for others; the exposure triggered a political crisis in Israel, including Lavon's resignation and a prolonged inquiry that divided the Mapai party. In Cold War Italy, elements linked to NATO's Operation Gladio stay-behind networks carried out or facilitated bombings intended to be blamed on left-wing groups, thereby discrediting communist and socialist parties that posed electoral threats to centrist and right-leaning governments. Neofascist terrorist Vincenzo Vinciguerra, convicted for the 1972 Peteano car-bombing that killed three policemen, later testified in 1984 that the attack was deliberately staged to mimic leftist tactics, fostering public panic and justifying anti-communist crackdowns to manipulate opinion against the Italian Communist Party ahead of elections.[27] Italian parliamentary commissions in the 1990s confirmed Gladio's existence as a clandestine NATO-CIA program and documented its connections to domestic "strategy of tension" operations, where right-wing extremists, often with intelligence oversight, executed violence misattributed to the Red Brigades or anarchists to provoke authoritarian responses and undermine leftist influence; this included the 1969 Piazza Fontana bombing in Milan, which killed 17 and was initially pinned on leftists despite perpetrator links to Gladio-affiliated networks.[28] These tactics exploited fears of Soviet invasion to legitimize covert interference in domestic politics, though official denials from NATO persisted amid evidence from declassified documents and convict confessions.[27] Such operations typically rely on plausible deniability, forged evidence like manifestos or attire mimicking the target's symbols, and media amplification to erode adversaries' credibility, often leading to policy shifts like emergency powers or electoral gains for the perpetrators' allies. While many allegations remain unproven, verified cases like these highlight the strategic use of deception to attribute synthetic threats to political rivals, bypassing direct confrontation.Proposed and Failed Operations
Unexecuted Government Plans
![Declassified memorandum outlining Operation Northwoods][float-right] Operation Northwoods was a proposed false flag operation developed by the United States Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1962. The plan, detailed in a memorandum dated March 13, 1962, from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Lyman L. Lemnitzer to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, outlined various deceptive actions to create public support for a war against Cuba. These included staging terrorist attacks on U.S. and Cuban soil, such as bombings in Washington, D.C., Miami, or other cities, and sinking boats of Cuban refugees en route to Florida while blaming Fidel Castro's regime.[8] The proposals encompassed simulating attacks on U.S. military bases or vessels, like the deliberate sinking of a U.S. Navy ship near Guantanamo Bay or hijacking civilian airliners using remote-controlled drones painted as Cuban aircraft. Additional tactics involved releasing Cuban prisoners in the U.S. to commit sabotage, starting rumors through friendly Cubans posing as defectors, and even fabricating evidence of Cuban involvement in attacks on U.S. assets. The objective was to manufacture pretexts for U.S. military intervention to remove Castro from power, amid escalating tensions following the failed Bay of Pigs invasion.[8] President John F. Kennedy rejected the plan, and it was never implemented, as evidenced by its declassification in 1997 under the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act. The memorandum's exposure highlighted internal military advocacy for extreme measures during the Cold War, though no other major unexecuted false flag plans from U.S. government sources have been similarly declassified and verified in historical records.Operations Exposed or Aborted
The Lavon Affair, also known as Operation Susannah, exemplifies a false flag operation partially executed but ultimately exposed through the capture and interrogation of its operatives. In July 1954, Israeli military intelligence, under the direction of Colonel Avraham Dar, recruited a network of Egyptian Jews to plant incendiary bombs in British and American-owned civilian targets in Cairo and Alexandria, such as the United States Information Agency libraries, a British theater, and a railway terminal.[29] The intent was to simulate attacks by Egyptian nationalists or Islamists, thereby undermining Western support for Egypt's government under Gamal Abdel Nasser and discouraging Britain's planned withdrawal of troops from the Suez Canal zone.[30] Most devices were rudimentary thermite bombs set to ignite during off-hours to minimize casualties while maximizing propaganda impact, but poor coordination led to malfunctions.[31] Exposure occurred rapidly when operative Philip Nathanson triggered a bomb prematurely on July 14, 1954, burning his hand and leaving evidence that prompted his arrest by Egyptian police. Under interrogation, Nathanson confessed, implicating the cell, which resulted in the capture of 13 agents by late July.[29] Egyptian authorities publicly announced the plot on July 23, 1954, revealing forged Egyptian military IDs and bomb-making materials traced to Israeli handlers.[30] Two operatives, Dr. Moshe Marzouk and Shmuel Azar, were executed after a military tribunal in December 1954, while others received lengthy prison sentences; the scandal prompted the resignation of Israeli Defense Minister Pinhas Lavon in February 1955 amid disputes over authorization.[31] Declassified Israeli documents later confirmed the operation's false flag nature, intended to shift blame to local extremists.[29] Fewer verified instances exist of false flag operations aborted mid-execution due to preemptive detection, as such cases often evade documentation unless linked to broader leaks. One partial parallel involves internal halts in smaller-scale deceptions, but comprehensive records prioritize executed failures like Lavon over purely aborted efforts, which blend into unexecuted proposals. The Lavon exposure underscored operational vulnerabilities, including reliance on local recruits susceptible to capture and the challenges of maintaining deniability against forensic evidence.[30]Related Tactics and Pseudo-Operations
Distinctions from False Flags
False flag operations differ from hoaxes primarily in intent, scale, and sponsorship; hoaxes are typically non-violent deceptions perpetrated by individuals or small groups for publicity, financial gain, or amusement, without the strategic aim of provoking interstate conflict or policy shifts, whereas false flags are orchestrated by state actors to fabricate attribution for violent acts, often to justify military action.[32] For instance, historical hoaxes like the 1938 War of the Worlds radio broadcast induced panic but lacked geopolitical manipulation, contrasting with verified false flags such as the 1939 Gleiwitz incident, where Nazi agents staged attacks to blame Poland.[33] In contrast to propaganda or disinformation campaigns, which disseminate fabricated narratives or altered media to shape public opinion without staging physical events, false flags involve tangible operations—such as simulated attacks or sabotage—that generate real or apparent casualties to create plausible deniability for the perpetrator while implicating a target.[34] Disinformation, as seen in Soviet-era active measures, might claim enemy responsibility post-event but does not engineer the precipitating incident itself, whereas false flags integrate event fabrication with narrative control for causal attribution.[32] False flags must be differentiated from broader psychological operations (psyops), which encompass non-kinetic influence tactics like leaflet drops or rumors to demoralize foes, but psyops rarely entail direct violence misattributed to adversaries; false flags specifically perfidy-like deceptions that violate international norms by feigning protected statuses or neutral parties to enable aggression.[35] Under the Geneva Conventions, permissible ruses of war (e.g., camouflage) avoid treachery, but false flags often constitute perfidy by disguising belligerent acts as civilian or enemy-initiated, as analyzed in naval contexts where hoisting false ensigns historically enabled surprise attacks.[35] Unlike general covert or black operations, which conceal the sponsor's involvement through deniability but do not actively frame an adversary as the culprit, false flags embed deliberate forensic misdirection—such as planting enemy insignia or digital artifacts—to engineer blame, a tactic evident in both kinetic and cyber domains.[17] In cybersecurity, "false attribution" via tool reuse or IP spoofing may mimic false flags but lacks the holistic staging of events; true false flags orchestrate the breach and its evidentiary trail to provoke retaliation against a fabricated perpetrator.[17] This distinction underscores false flags' reliance on operational deception beyond mere secrecy, prioritizing manufactured causality over hidden execution.Examples in Counterinsurgency
In counterinsurgency campaigns, false flag tactics have manifested through pseudo-operations, where government or allied forces disguise themselves as insurgents to infiltrate networks, gather intelligence, sow discord, or conduct sabotage attributed to the enemy, thereby eroding popular support for the rebellion. These operations leverage defectors or local recruits familiar with insurgent methods to mimic tactics, uniforms, and rhetoric, blurring lines between genuine and fabricated actions. While distinct from overt false flags aimed at external provocation, pseudo-operations in counterinsurgency often serve similar deceptive purposes by attributing real damage to insurgents, as documented in military analyses of colonial and post-colonial conflicts.[36] A prominent example occurred during the Mau Mau Uprising in Kenya (1952–1960), where British forces employed pseudo-gangs to combat the Kenya Land and Freedom Army (KLFA). Organized by the British Special Branch, these teams—comprising captured or surrendered Mau Mau fighters—dressed in insurgent attire, adopted Kikuyu oaths, and penetrated remote forests to identify leaders, ambush patrols, and execute assassinations. Operations sometimes involved staging attacks on loyalist villages or supply lines, framing them as Mau Mau atrocities to alienate tribal support and justify harsher collective punishments; by 1954, pseudo-gangs had contributed to the neutralization of over 1,000 insurgents through betrayal and direct action. This approach, refined under figures like Ian Henderson, emphasized psychological disruption over conventional combat, with defectors providing cultural authenticity to evade detection.[37][36] Similarly, in Rhodesia's Bush War (1964–1979), the Rhodesian Security Forces utilized pseudo-operations via the Selous Scouts, a special forces unit established in 1973. Scouts, often including turned guerrillas from ZANLA or ZIPRA, posed as insurgents to infiltrate tribal areas, stage cross-border raids, and commit selective violence—such as farm killings or ambushes on civilians—designed to portray liberation movements as indiscriminate terrorists. These tactics, which peaked in the mid-1970s, aimed to fracture rural alliances by exploiting fears of communist-backed atrocities; internal records indicate over 80% of Scout operations involved deception, leading to the elimination of hundreds of guerrillas and a shift in white farmer morale. The strategy's efficacy stemmed from operational security and linguistic proficiency, though it risked blowback if exposed, as in occasional defections revealing the ploy.[37][38] Such examples highlight pseudo-operations' role in asymmetric warfare, where attribution deception amplifies counterinsurgent leverage without large-scale engagements, though ethical concerns over civilian endangerment and long-term legitimacy persist in post-conflict assessments. Success hinged on intelligence integration and defector reliability, with failures often tied to overextension or ideological leaks.[36]Modern Verified and Alleged Cases
Post-Cold War State-Sponsored Examples
In August 1991, amid the escalating Croatian War of Independence, the Yugoslav People's Army's Counterintelligence Service (KOS) executed Operation Labrador, a false flag operation targeting Jewish institutions in Zagreb to portray Croatian forces as antisemitic and incite international condemnation. Explosive devices were detonated at the entrance to the Jewish Community Center and near the synagogue on August 19, 1991, with additional threats and graffiti aimed at amplifying the narrative of Croatian extremism. The operation involved Yugoslav agents planting the bombs and disseminating propaganda, including forged documents suggesting Croatian responsibility, but it was quickly exposed when security forces identified inconsistencies and linked the perpetrators to KOS operatives, including figures like Radenko Radojčić. This incident, occurring during the final months of the Cold War's dissolution, exemplifies state-sponsored disinformation to undermine separatist movements, though Yugoslav authorities denied involvement at the time.[39][40] The 1999 Russian apartment bombings, occurring between September 4 and 16, represent one of the most scrutinized post-Cold War allegations of state-sponsored false flags, with over 300 civilians killed in explosions in Moscow, Buynaksk, and Volgodonsk, officially attributed to Chechen separatists to justify the Second Chechen War and consolidate power under Vladimir Putin. Anomalies, including the lack of Chechen claims of responsibility, minimal forensic evidence linking perpetrators to militants, and the rapid political exploitation—leading to military mobilization within days—fueled suspicions of FSB orchestration. A pivotal event was the September 22 "bombing" in Ryazan, where residents discovered hexogen sacks wired as explosives in an apartment basement; local police confirmed it as a live device, but FSB director Nikolai Patrushev later claimed it was a "training exercise," raising questions about the agency's role in simulating attacks. Defectors like Alexander Litvinenko, a former FSB officer, alleged direct FSB involvement based on internal knowledge, corroborated by inconsistencies in official investigations, such as the failure to prosecute suspects and suppressed parliamentary inquiries. While the Russian government maintains the Chechen attribution, supported by convictions of Arab mujahideen in absentia, independent analyses highlight evidentiary gaps, including witness testimonies of FSB surveillance vans near blast sites and the strategic timing amid Yeltsin's handover to Putin on December 31, 1999.[41][42][43] Post-Cold War examples of confirmed state-sponsored false flags remain limited due to operational secrecy and political sensitivities, with most cases relying on whistleblower accounts, declassified fragments, or post-hoc exposures rather than immediate admissions. Unlike earlier eras with archival revelations, modern instances often involve deniability through proxies or cyber elements, complicating attribution; however, patterns persist in regions of ethnic conflict or regime consolidation, where states stage incidents to legitimize crackdowns or externalize blame. Allegations in contexts like the 2020 India-Pakistan Kashmir clashes involve mutual claims of staged cross-border attacks, but lack the forensic or testimonial depth seen in the Russian case.[13]Claims in Contemporary Geopolitical Conflicts
In the Syrian Civil War, the Assad regime and Russian authorities frequently alleged that chemical weapons attacks attributed to Syrian forces were false flag operations orchestrated by rebel factions or Western intelligence agencies to provoke international intervention. For example, after the April 2018 chlorine gas attack in Douma, which killed at least 43 civilians, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad claimed the incident was staged and that the OPCW's investigation implicating his military was manipulated.[44] These assertions persisted despite the OPCW's fact-finding mission concluding in 2019 that the attack bore the hallmarks of a deliberate deployment by Syrian Arab Army helicopters, corroborated by witness testimonies, video evidence, and residue analysis.[45] Independent assessments, including a 2023 UN briefing, affirmed reasonable grounds for attributing chlorine use to government forces, with no substantiation for alternative perpetrators.[46] Such claims have been critiqued as regime disinformation tactics to deflect accountability for over 300 documented chemical incidents since 2013.[47][48] During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Moscow propagated false flag narratives to attribute Ukrainian or NATO orchestration to events like the March 2022 Bucha massacre, where over 400 civilian bodies showed signs of execution-style killings post-Russian withdrawal. Russian state media claimed the scene was staged after troops left, but satellite imagery from Maxar Technologies dated March 19, 2022—while Russian forces occupied the area—revealed bodies in streets, contradicting the timeline.[13] Forensic examinations by Ukrainian authorities and international observers, including Human Rights Watch, documented bullet wounds and bound victims consistent with war crimes by Russian units, not fabrication.[13] Similarly, after the March 22, 2024, Crocus City Hall terrorist attack near Moscow, which ISIS-K claimed responsibility for and killed 145 people, Russian officials alleged Ukrainian involvement as a false flag to destabilize Russia, despite U.S. intelligence warnings to Moscow of an imminent ISIS plot and lack of evidence linking Kyiv.[13] These allegations align with patterns of Russian information operations but have been undermined by forensic traces of ISIS operatives and their videoed claims.[9] In the Israel-Hamas war ignited by the October 7, 2023, attack—where Hamas militants killed 1,200 Israelis and took 250 hostages—conspiracy theorists, including some online communities, asserted the assault was an Israeli false flag to rationalize the Gaza offensive. Proponents cited purported inconsistencies in footage and alleged Mossad complicity, narratives amplified on platforms like TikTok and Reddit.[49] However, extensive evidence, including Hamas bodycam videos, intercepted communications, and eyewitness accounts from kibbutzim, confirms the group's unilateral execution, with no credible indicators of Israeli staging.[50] Claims of "crisis actors" for Gaza casualties or fabricated atrocities have similarly faltered against hospital records, satellite verification of destruction, and admissions from Hamas leaders.[51] These theories, often rooted in antisemitic tropes, persist amid broader misinformation floods exceeding 100 documented falsehoods by late 2023.[52] Across these conflicts, false flag claims typically emerge from the accused party or its supporters to erode adversary credibility and rally domestic opinion, yet they rarely withstand scrutiny from neutral investigations relying on physical evidence, timelines, and multiple corroborations.[53] While historical precedents exist, contemporary allegations in geopolitical arenas more often serve propaganda ends than reflect verified deception, highlighting the evidentiary burden required to distinguish genuine operations from rhetorical deflection.[1]False Flag Allegations in Conspiracy Theories
Prominent Unverified Claims
One prominent unverified claim posits that the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were a false flag operation orchestrated by elements within the U.S. government to justify military interventions in the Middle East, with allegations including controlled demolitions of the World Trade Center towers and foreknowledge of the hijackings.[54] Proponents, often citing perceived anomalies in building collapses and flight paths, have included architects, engineers, and online communities, though these assertions contradict forensic analyses by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which attributed structural failures to impact damage and fires from jet fuel. Independent reviews, such as those compiled by the Council on Foreign Relations, highlight the absence of verifiable evidence for government complicity, emphasizing instead al-Qaeda's responsibility as documented in captured operative testimonies and financial trails.[54] Another widely circulated allegation involves the December 14, 2012, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, where 20 children and six adults were killed, claimed by some to be a staged false flag by federal agencies to advance gun control legislation, with assertions that victims were actors and the event a hoax filmed on sets.[55] This theory gained traction through media personalities like Alex Jones of InfoWars, who repeatedly broadcast these narratives, leading to harassment of victims' families and subsequent defamation judgments totaling nearly $1.5 billion against Jones for knowingly promoting falsehoods unsupported by ballistics, autopsy reports, and eyewitness accounts.[56] Official investigations by Connecticut state police confirmed the perpetrator's actions using legally purchased firearms, with no evidence of staging emerging from over 1,000 witness interviews or digital forensics on purported "crisis actor" videos.[57] Claims of false flags have also proliferated around mass casualty events like the July 13, 2024, assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, where theorists alleged staging by political opponents or security lapses engineered for sympathy, pointing to the shooter's positioning and delayed response.[58] Such narratives spread rapidly on social media within hours, despite FBI preliminary findings identifying the shooter as a lone actor with no ties to broader conspiracies, corroborated by trajectory analyses and Secret Service timelines.[59] These unverified assertions often rely on selective video interpretations lacking chain-of-custody validation, contrasting with empirical data from ballistic experts and law enforcement reconstructions that affirm the incident's authenticity.[58]Patterns and Motivations Behind Theories
False flag conspiracy theories often emerge in the immediate aftermath of high-profile crises, such as mass shootings or terrorist attacks, where they allege that events were staged or orchestrated by governments, intelligence agencies, or shadowy elites to manipulate public opinion or advance policy agendas like gun control or military interventions.[9][60] A recurring pattern involves claims of "crisis actors"—paid performers simulating victims or witnesses—to fabricate evidence, as seen in theories surrounding the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting and the 2017 Las Vegas shooting.[61] These narratives frequently invoke prior unverified precedents, such as 9/11 or the 2011 Norway attacks, creating a self-reinforcing ecosystem where new events are interpreted through established templates of deception.[9] Theories typically exhibit structural similarities, including rapid dissemination via social media, reliance on anomalous details (e.g., perceived inconsistencies in footage or survivor accounts) interpreted as "proof" of staging, and attribution of blame to powerful actors presumed capable of flawless execution despite historical evidence of operational leaks in real covert actions.[60][62] Politically, they cluster around ideological divides, with right-leaning variants often targeting "deep state" entities for eroding freedoms, while left-leaning ones implicate corporate or military-industrial interests, though empirical surveys indicate broader appeal among those with low institutional trust.[63][64] Motivations for endorsing such theories stem from epistemic needs, where believers seek simple explanations for complex chaos, deriving a sense of control and superior insight by perceiving hidden patterns others miss.[65][66] Existential drivers include anxiety reduction, as attributing events to intentional malice affirms a purposeful world over random tragedy, while social motivations involve group affiliation and signaling distrust of elites.[66][62] Personality correlates, such as dark triad traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy), predict higher endorsement, facilitating the spread of unverified claims through online sharing.[63] Politically instrumental uses include discrediting opponents or rallying bases against reforms; for instance, post-shooting false flag claims have aimed to preempt gun control debates by portraying events as hoaxes.[60] Broader societal factors, like eroded media credibility—exacerbated by documented partisan biases in reporting—fuel receptivity, though studies emphasize that belief persists even absent contradictory evidence due to confirmation bias and motivated reasoning.[64][67] Approximately 50% of Americans endorse at least one conspiracy theory, with false flag variants thriving in low-trust environments where official narratives are preemptively rejected.[61]Empirical Debunking and Evidentiary Standards
Empirical verification of false flag allegations demands rigorous evidentiary thresholds, including primary documents, perpetrator confessions under oath or interrogation, forensic analyses inconsistent with official narratives but consistent with staging, and whistleblower testimonies corroborated by multiple independent sources. Historical confirmed false flags, such as the 1939 Gleiwitz incident, were substantiated post-war through SS officer Alfred Naujocks' testimony and Nazi archival records revealing staged attacks to blame Poland. In contrast, conspiracy-driven claims frequently falter by substituting circumstantial anomalies—such as perceived inconsistencies in witness accounts or visual artifacts in media—for direct proof, often overlooking simpler causal explanations aligned with available data.[32] Prominent unverified allegations, like assertions that the September 11, 2001, attacks constituted a U.S. government-orchestrated false flag to justify wars, have been empirically refuted through structural engineering reports demonstrating that jet fuel fires weakened World Trade Center steel supports, leading to progressive collapses without need for controlled demolition. The National Institute of Standards and Technology's multi-year investigation, incorporating physical debris analysis and computer modeling, found no evidence of explosives, while claims of "squibs" or free-fall speeds were explained by air pressure ejections and gravitational acceleration modulated by resistance. Similarly, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting hoax theories, alleging crisis actors and staged deaths to advance gun control, contradict autopsy reports confirming 26 fatalities from ballistic trauma, survivor medical records, and 911 call timestamps aligning with the December 14, 2012, timeline, as affirmed in federal court proceedings where proponents faced defamation judgments for unsubstantiated assertions.[68][54] Evidentiary standards further require falsifiability and Bayesian updating: hypotheses must predict testable outcomes, with prior probabilities favoring parsimonious accounts over those positing silent coordination among hundreds without leaks, as leaks typify large-scale operations per historical precedents like the Pentagon Papers. Conspiracy narratives often exhibit confirmation bias, selectively amplifying dissonant details while dismissing convergent evidence from diverse investigators, such as independent journalists and engineers corroborating official findings. Psychological research indicates such beliefs correlate with traits like schizotypy and resistance to disconfirming data, perpetuating claims despite empirical voids, though this does not negate the possibility of undetected operations—merely underscores the necessity of withholding assent absent verifiable causal chains.[69][62][53]| Criterion | Description | Application to Debunked Claims |
|---|---|---|
| Direct Attribution | Documents or confessions linking state actors to staging | Absent in 9/11 (no explosive residues found) and Sandy Hook (perpetrator identified via ballistics matching Adam Lanza's weapons)[68] |
| Forensic Consistency | Physical evidence matching claimed mechanism | Fire dynamics explain collapses; no theatrical inconsistencies in victim forensics[54] |
| Scale and Leakage | Feasibility of secrecy in large groups | Vast alleged conspiracies predict defections, yet none materialized with proof, unlike exposed cases like Operation Northwoods[32] |
| Motive-Evidence Gap | Assumed benefits without causal proof | Gun control post-Sandy Hook did not materialize; 9/11 policy shifts traceable to intelligence failures, not fabrication[53] |
