{br} STUCK with your assignment? {br} When is it due? {br} Get FREE assistance. Page Title: {title}{br} Page URL: {url}
UK: +44 748 007-0908, USA: +1 917 810-5386 [email protected]
  1.  Patton’s phantom army and the D Day Invasion    



    Set the stage of the situation and identify: the major players; their interests and objectives; the reason for deciding upon Denial and Deception; the objectives of the effort; the mechanics of the effort; their effects on the situation; and their effects on the overall situation. Finally , make a judgement on whether the effort was a success, or a failure, and why. Format: You should format your paper using the ENDNOTES standards provided by the Chicago writing manual (i.e. 1-inch margins on all 4 sides, double spaced, without an extra space between paragraphs or subheadings, 12-point font). It is highly recommended that you pick up a copy of the latest Chicago manual as it is used across INTL courses.




Subject Law and governance Pages 13 Style APA


All warfare is based on deception-Sun Tzu[1]

An army without secret agents is exactly like a man without eyes or ears-Chia Lin[2]

As Sun Tzu, a military strategist, and Chia Lin, an author, alleged several years ago that deception is the main strategy that has made military operations successful. By compelling the opponent to stress his responsiveness in other regions, the most effective force multiplier to utilize is deception. By compelling the opponent predict at the period and area of attacking activities whereas feeding him deception, the adversary is kept lopsided. The aim of this essay is to scrutinize one of the major and most effective deceptions military operations of World War II, referred to as Operation FORTITUDE. FORTITUDE was the name for the Allies’ strategy to mislead the German management as to the period and region of the expected amphibious arrivals in busy Europe. The general strategy itself was extraordinarily basic: to demonstrate persuasive proof that the Normandy arrival was; however, one of a sequences of arrivals through North and West Europe to occur in the mid-summer and end of 1944.[3] What made the strategy incredible was the extent of its trickery and the self-assurance of its cover story. This essay will concentrate on these characteristics of the deception strategy, the major players, their interests and objectives, the objectives of their effort, the mechanism of the work, and their effects on the circumstances. The paper concludes by explaining how the effort was a success.

The strategy originated from the British Intelligence Service’s called the twenty (XX) Committee. It framed and implemented the strategy over several approaches as well as the Double Cross System that German intellect negotiators in Britain changed to work for the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) through the British Security Service (MI5). The committee was the mastermind in influencing the numerous double agents that guaranteed a strong hold on German understanding of the forthcoming assault. These mediators, such as GARBO commanding his 27 representative system, BRUTUS and other agents, kept their Nazi incident generals furnished with fictitious evidence that was obediently delivered to German Armed Forces High Command (OKW).[4] The twenty Committee managed to deceive the Germans’ with a wireless radio trick strategy, including an exclusively made-up US military commanded by the US most dreaded commanding officer, Lieutenant General G. S. Patton.[5] The committee utilized a closed loop fraud coordination, where they could feed false evidence to the opponent and openly determine the level of the opponent’s confidence in the statistics. In achieving this, the committee initially made-up evidence to be offered to the double mediators and to the wireless deception entities. The mediators then delivered the evidence to their German supervisors whose wireless radio entities airing the deceits, expecting German Radio Intellect interference. As the data strained up over the complex German intellect organization, the XX Committee was capable of using Ultra captures of the Enigma-indistinct communications, permitting them to assess the consequence of the lies and transform those deceptions that the enemy never believed. [6]

In the 1930’s, the Abwehr and FHW tried to penetrate representatives into Britain.[7] Arthur Owens was the first double agent and a major player who gave his services to MI5 when the combat with Germany started to appear more definite. Owens turned out to be the double agent, SNOW, and even though he was not completely trusted at times, he was treasured in the logic that he basically positioned the foundation for upcoming agents. GARBO (via his network) and BRUTUS contributed extensively in the Fortitude North deceit. With five of his 27 representatives positioned through Scotland and Ireland to account on the activities of the unreal 4th Army that was the attack force for the assault of Norway.[8] In the North, BRUTUS was apparently operational for the Polish foundations involved in the 4th Army. This power was envisioned as a distracting power that would directly introduce the major attack on the Pas de Calais. Abwehr received well GARBO’s reports, who were capable building a comprehensive command of combat for the imminent attack.[9] By depending on the Ultra intellect from interrupted Enigma encrypted reports, the XX Committee was competent to provide Abwehr their expectations. Via Ultra informants, the XX Committee found out that the Germans thought they had stationed a full army in the North, enlarged by army corps-sized division of U. S military.[10]

Fortitude was applied to work as a fake strategy that would fool the Germans into believing the Allies planned something else. Operation Fortitude was a great procedure of sham carried out by the Allied Militaries to guide the Germans to trust that Pas-de-Calais was the landing place where England and France were neighboring since Hitler and his associates supposed this to be most possible. The objective was also to cheat them that the Normandy arrivals and in the southern part of France were deviations, and that they would actually land in Pas-de-Calais, with the intention of the German military stressing its groups there throughout the arrivals, providing the Allies chance to muster.[11] The means executed for this process were in this manner. Firstly, intentionally allowing the opponent embrace the false secret evidence through interactions with unbiased countries, spies and double mediators. Secondly, crafting unreal armed units in England, occasionally with counterfeit army tanks and inflatable airplanes, engagements of military personnel and heated wireless radio discussions. This cheered the Germans to construct several trenches and strengthen the Atlantic Wall beside the Côte d’Opale.

Two important factors assisted the Allies in this deception. The first factor was Ultra – the name for the intellect established from Bletchley Park. A crack team of code surfs had effectively shattered the German clandestine coding scheme Enigma.[12] The enemies were certain that Enigma could not be cracked, stayed totally uninformed of this reality and their subsequent susceptibility. Therefore, the Allies could confirm the accomplishment of any evidence, or dishonesty, that they established, by interrupting and reading the cracked replies. The second factor was Allied influence of numerous double agents by the MI5, the intelligence organization, under the Double Cross System. Their focus of these mediators was such that the Enemies were totally uninformed that they were being continuously influenced. 

The scope and spread of the whole Double Cross structure was an amazing accomplishment in the account of armed intelligence. In the beginning, there was much conversation if the double mediators ought to be employed for counter-intelligence service or for fraud. Through cautious organization with the XX commission, MI5 managed to attain both by carefully spreading the data supplied to the Abwehr.[13] The significance was a structure of well-ordered leakage of evidence that MI5 denoted to as the Special Means. The Germans unintentionally assisted the British determinations by offering their agents’ with inquiry forms. These forms gave the MI5 and MI6 important statistics on both the formulation for forthcoming procedures and what intellect the Abwehr had. By compelling the representatives to depend on radio sources, after the constraints on communication to and from the British Islands, the surveys and their long replies assisted the interrupt facilities in decoding the German enigmas.[14] The expenditures the Abwehr incurred to their representatives regularly went to support the British intelligence agency determinations. However, the most appreciated influence, by far, was the capacity to misinform the OKW concerning the British objectives. Short-range fraud tactics would have been supportive in the abrupt, tactical field.[15] Nevertheless, the British acknowledged that the mediators and the Double Cross scheme was a long-term, calculated trickery. By recognizing the most reliable German representatives, enlightening them by strengthening their trustworthiness, and by utilizing good statistics, MI5 could alter the progression of the conflict.[16] By establishing the mediators over years of cautious development, the representatives could be detained in willingness and at the clearance of the Service Units for a large-scale fraud that could at the serious instant be of overriding functioning significance.

The key influence of operation Fortitude South was to change the perception of Germans making them believe that the assault would be shorter and occur in the most understandable sea overpass. This targeted to confirm that German resistances and group focuses in that area were the strongest and most effective in the entire Atlantic Wall, and remain weak in the real area of invasion, Normandy. Being the broader part of Bodyguard plan, Fortitude South operation was premeditated to strengthen this certainty. It also pointed to confuse the Germans that the attack of Normandy, when it occurred, would be an indirect attack, with the purpose of that probably after the actual assault, they would still trust that the enemies would majorly attack from Dover area.[17] This would guarantee that they would not sidetrack German militaries from the Pas-de-Calais to offer assistances in Normandy. 

The main part of Fortitude South was a secondary military operation called Quicksilver (fake army), the formation of an untrue soldiers, the First United States Army Group (FUSAG), positioned in Southern England commanded by General George Patton. Patton was elected to strengthen the notion that the operation was a main attack, as he was the high-ranking American battlefield chief officer and the one most dreaded by the Germans.[18] To reinforce the deception of FUSAG getting ready to go on board, fake arriving craft were prepared from frame tube, wood, picture and hollow 40-gallon containers. These were persuasive when observed from a far and from the air. The fake military forces were gathered and positioned in harbors and bays at Dover. Big numbers of fake army tanks and trucks were positioned in sets through the south-east England, to imitate soldiers organizing to attack. At the similar period, a massive volume of forged radio traffic was communicated and acknowledged by permanent and mobile entities through south-east England. The move was sustained by the double agents’ regular but cautious ‘leaks’ concerning the cook-up and location of FUSAG divisions.

Plan Bodyguard was a military deception plan developed in 1943 to protect British land from invasion by France.[19] At the helm of this plan was the deception advisor to the British Chiefs of Staff. He came up with a complex strategy to deceive the enemy into attacking from faulty locations. This main idea of the plan was to trick France into using the United Nations operations attacks against Germany in 1942 to attack from secured locations. Based on this, plan Bodyguard was boldly strategic and tactic in nature. On the strategic end, Plan Bodyguard was to ensure that would minimally interfere with the Normandy invasion, the Southern France Invasion and the ongoing Russian operations. On the tactful end, plan Bodyguard was to play by mislead the enemy on the aspects of timing, strength and the purpose of both missions (Overload and Anvil).

With the plan layout in place, supreme commanders in two separate theatres, that is the North-Western European and Mediterranean stayed armed and ready to implement the deception plan.[20] Both commanders trained within themselves and in the theatres with actual war taking place. Under the broad umbrella of Operation Anvil was operation Ferdinand that served the purpose of portraying that the troops sent by the enemy were already intimidated by the Germany Forces. Going by this perception, the plan meant that the plans to attack Southern France had been halted and redirected to Balkan. However, the plan fell short of the expectations placed on compared to another operation named Fortitude. On a separate end, plan Fortitude was still split into two to ease its complexity. Fortitude North and Fortitude South which both had two phases; one to be executed before the anticipated date of attack and the second phase to be actualized on the deception day.

Special Means was a terminology developed to refer to the deceptive methods through which Plan Bodyguard would be executed.[21] The methods here includes falsifying physical locations, the use of fake connectivity, double agents and insecure diplomatic channels. The sub-plan Fortitude made great use of these methodologies. Fortitude North, for example, utilized the wireless transmissions across Scotland and Germany, which the allies perceived as an impossible connection. Fortitude South on the other hand tapped into the use of double agents as planed earlier on. The Special Means were executed as follows; one, physical deception – the troops would lead the allies into the wrong units through setting up fake equipment, and military systems and setting up dummy aircraft landing on fake airfields and decoy lighting. Two, intentional leakage of information through the diplomatic channels to reach uninvolved countries like Germany. Three, there was also use of wireless traffic that resembled actual units to mislead the allies. Four, more than this, the agents sent by German’s intelligent services and controlled by Double cross System were served with false information to enhance the deception plan. Lastly, the plan also involved staged presence of influential figures such as the US’s General George S. Patton and other leaders from phantom groups such as FUSAG.

The double agents was the grand of all the deception channels mapped out in the Bodyguard plan. There was the B1A also called the Counter Intelligence Division M15 that successfully countered the German Agents from Britain. A majority of these were recruits under the Double Cross System. Besides these, plan Fortitude utilized three very important double agents namely; Juan Pujol Garcia (Garbo), he was Spanish recruited by the German Intelligence Unit. His role was to send information from Lisbon to the Intelligence unit. As a double agent, he successfully consistently misinformed the Germans and convinced them until he secured employment by the British. He also recruited lied to have recruited and worked with 27 other agents and was paid for these by the British Exchequer. He exploited this opportunity and served in this position that got him rewarded with the Iron Cross by the Germans and the MBE IN Britain following the attacks. Roman Czerniawski (Brutus) –this double agent was from Poland but recruited by German Intelligence to work as a spy for them. He managed his own intelligence network in France but he swiftly converted into a British intelligence as soon as he got to Britain. Dusan Popov (Tricycle) – this was a lawyer with origins in Yugoslavia. He led a vibrant lifestyle that helped disguise his double agency activities.

Fortitude North was executed at the Edinburgh Castle. The Fortitude North operation aimed at tricking Germans into anticipating an attack on Norway. This would jeopardize the weak Norwegian troops thereby causing delays on reinforcement of France troops for the defense of the Normandy Invasion.[22] With this, there would be an unnecessary accumulation of military forces in North England and politically affected parts of Sweden. The Fortitude North Operation was planned to use a force that had been set up in the Edinburgh Castle during the 1943 operation Cockade.[23] It was during this military operation that that a British Forth army was staged for an imaginary war as well. Fortitude North heavily depended on fake radio traffic since it was very unlikely that the German military planes could reach Scotland without wave interferences. As well, Fortitude North manipulated double agents and exploited the false information that was in circulation. Apparently, there was misguided information that two agents; Mutt and Jeff who had previously given in had arrived in France. While riding on this wave, media platforms in Britain collaborated by broadcasting irrelevant topics such as football and weddings to troops that did not exist. By the end on 1944, the mission Fortitude North had turned out successful having managed to gather thirteen army divisions for Hitler in Norway.[24]

This preparation set ground for the simulation on Norway invasion that was scheduled for early spring, 1944.[25] It was in this simulation attack that the staged infrastructure was destroyed shipping equipment damaged and military troops dismantled. Ata the same time, the naval activity in the northern shores exacerbated as political pressure heightened.

The Allies decided to halt the operations of the Fortitude deception and to evaluate how effective the plan had been. To establish the efficacy of the Fortitude deception, evidence and information was drawn from ultra-intelligence signals that had been planted in several places in the theaters. One of the key evidences to the fact that Fortitude was a success was a message decrypted. In this message, Hiroshima Oshima, who was a Japanese ambassador, narrates to the Japanese government that according to his intelligence, there were anticipated attacks on several places. A few of those he named were Denmark, Norway, and Western parts of France and even the Mediterranean Coast. He also indicated that there would be attacks across the Straits of Dover. All these places were part of the Fortitude deception and so the message bore evidence that the plan was largely successful.

The allies still maintained the false FUSAG forces in the fields after the day of the simulated attacks. This move was aimed at keeping the German troops in place waiting for subsequent attacks after that of September 1944.[26] Unfortunately, there were no attacks to come up and while in this wait, allied troops had time to take cover in the Normandy war. While on the execution of the Fortitude Deception, two factors revealed that the physical deception may not have been relevance in the entire plan. One was that the troops had not conducted an aerial reconnaissance of Germany and two, there were no German agents in Britain. As well, the controlled leakage of misinformation resulted in communication breakdown that made the information all the more unreliable. This then pointed to the conclusion that the operation’s success was attributable to the German double agents and mainly the false wireless traffic.

The long-standing success of Plan Bodyguard and operation fortitude was manifested through these outcomes. The Germans believed that FUSAG existed way later after the D-Day landings.[27] This was proven by the fact that they reinstated their troops in anticipation of another attack that was never planned. Operation Fortitude was also successful as it saved thousands of lives that could have been lost in the attack. This way, the operation sort of curtain raise for the European liberation. Other key success factors include; British Intelligence resorted to train double agents for the long-term objective of misinforming its enemies. Following the deception, ultra-decrypting machines were installed which strongly indicated the efficacy of the deception methods. The British Air Ministry’s Assistant Director of Intelligence reinforced tactics to retaliate attacks for the radar station attacks. The aggravated rivalry across borders and intensified German Intelligence Infrastructure in the aftermath of the attacks. Lastly, General George S. Patton emerged the best and most feared general to the extent that the Germans believed that he would lead another attack.

In light of these, operation Fortitude turned out to be one of the most successful deception plots of the 20th century. It performed exemplary in coordination supported by good coverage on the target areas. Besides this, the operation managed to balance and utilize the tools of double agents, fake wireless traffic and physical deceptions. Another highlight of the operation was that the allied were able to access and decrypt information and tailor the plans to suit what the Germans believed was going to happen. The move further informed action preceding the attack thereby allowing for smooth coordination even after the attack. In the plan Bodyguard, the Garbo 8 June message impacted the operations of the D-Day attack a great deal. The message not only reinforced preparation processes but it also capitalization the building of trust between Abwehr and OKW. It was with this profound message that M15 and the XX Committee were able to compel Germans into entrusting their intelligence to men that later worked with their enemy. Truly, all the strategies and components of the plan Bodyguard came together and worked for the success of the deception plan.





[1] Sun Tzu. The Art of War. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963), 66.

[2] Ibid., 198

[3] Ronald Lewin, Ultra Goes to War (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1978), 63-64.

[4] Howard, Michael. Strategic Deception in the Second World War (Originally titled Strategic Deception, Volume 5, and British Intelligence in the Second World War). New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1995) 3 -4.

[5] Ibid., 3-4.

[6] Hesketh, Roger. Fortitude, the D-Day Deception Plan. (Woodstock, New York: The Overlook Press, 2000). 14.

[7] Kahn, David. Hitlerís Spies. (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1978) 367.


[8] Kahn, David. Hitlerís Spies. (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1978) 367.

[9] Ibid., 367.

[10] Hinsley, British Intelligence in the Second World War, Abridged Version (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 118.

[11] Harris, Tomas. GARBO: The Spy Who Saved D-Day. (Richmond, Surrey, England: Public Record Office, 2000) 9.

[12] Ronald Lewin, Ultra Goes to War (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1978)



[13] Harris, Tomas. GARBO: The Spy Who Saved D-Day. (Richmond, Surrey, England: Public Record Office, 2000) 9.

[14] Lewin. R, Ultra Goes to War (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1978) 48.


[15] David Irving, Hitlerís War (New York: Avon Books, 1990), 638.

[16] Ibid., 9.

[17] Hesketh, Roger. Fortitude, the D-Day Deception Plan. Woodstock, New York: The Overlook Press, 2000). 17

[18] Andreas L. Nielsen. The Collection and Evaluation of Intelligence for the German Air Force High Command, (Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: United States Air Force Historical Research Agency Document Number K113.107-171 [1955]), 201.

[19] Hesketh, Roger. Fortitude, the D-Day Deception Plan. Woodstock, New York: The Overlook Press, 2000), 17.


[20] Wladuslaw Kozaczuk, Enigma, How the German Machine Cipher Was Broken, and How It Was Read by the Allies in World War Two (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1984), 272.

[21] Bertram Ramsay, Bernard L. Montgomery, and Trafford Leigh-Mallory, Operation OVERLORD, Cover and Diversionary Plans (Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: United States Air Force Historical Research Agency Document Number 505.61-62, 1944), 1.

[22] Brown, Anthony Cave. Bodyguard of Lies. (New York: Harper/Collins Publishers, Inc., 1975) 460.

[23] Ibid., 460.

[24] Brown, Anthony Cave. Bodyguard of Lies. New York: Harper/Collins Publishers, Inc., 1975) 460.

[25] Hesketh, Roger. Fortitude, the D-Day Deception Plan. Woodstock, New York: The Overlook Press, 2000). 17

[26] Ibid., 19.

[27] Howard, Michael. Strategic Deception in the Second World War (Originally titled Strategic Deception, Volume 5, and British Intelligence in the Second World War). New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1995.





Andreas L. Nielsen. The Collection and Evaluation of Intelligence for the German Air Force High Command, (Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: United States Air Force Historical Research Agency Document Number K113.107-171 [1955]), 201.

Bertram Ramsay, Bernard L. Montgomery, and Trafford Leigh-Mallory, Operation OVERLORD, Cover and Diversionary Plans (Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: United States Air Force Historical Research Agency Document Number 505.61-62, 1944), 1.

Brown, Anthony Cave. Bodyguard of Lies. New York: Harper/Collins Publishers, Inc., 1975.

Harris, Tomas. GARBO: The Spy Who Saved D-Day. Richmond, Surrey, England: Public Record Office, 2000.





Related Samples

WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, how can I help?