## Facts

- During World War II, a German commander operated in Finland.
- The commander ordered a scorched-earth destruction operation in enemy territory.
- The commander acted after anticipating that Russian (Soviet) soldiers were about to attack.
- The anticipated Russian attack did not occur in the area where the destruction took place.
- Even though no attack occurred, the area showed signs consistent with planned or prepared hostilities, including foxholes and guns positioned in defensive posts.
- The commander was charged with crimes related to the destruction of property.
- The commander defended against the charges by asserting that the destruction was an act of self-defense.

## Issues

1. Whether a commander can justify scorched-earth destruction as self-defense when the feared enemy attack does not occur.
2. Whether visible defensive preparations (such as foxholes and emplaced guns) can support treating pre-attack destruction as lawful self-defense or military necessity.

## Decision

- This Department of the Army digest entry presents a scenario in which a commander destroys property based on an anticipated Soviet attack that ultimately does not happen and then claims self-defense.
- The entry frames the legal question around whether the commander’s anticipation of attack—given observable defensive works in the area—can excuse or justify the destruction.
- The available summary does not provide the name of a specific tribunal, a final disposition, or a detailed statement of the ultimate holding and reasoning beyond the stated facts, charges, and self-defense claim.

## Legal Principles

- In armed conflict, destruction of property is generally evaluated through necessity: the measure must respond to a concrete, expected hostile action or a defined operational need, not a generalized fear.
- When a commander acts on a mistaken expectation of attack, the legality of the action commonly turns on whether the belief was reasonable based on what was observable at the time.
- Indicators of defensive preparation (foxholes, weapons in positions) may be evidence of possible hostile intent or planned fighting, but such indicators do not automatically justify broad destruction of property.
- Scorched-earth measures are commonly tested against limits requiring a close connection to a definite military objective and a showing that the destruction was not excessive in relation to the military purpose asserted.

## Conclusion

United States Department of Army, 246 (1962) is a Department of the Army law-of-war digest entry describing a WWII incident in Finland where a German commander ordered scorched-earth destruction based on an anticipated Soviet attack that never occurred, with the commander defending the resulting property-destruction charges on a theory of self-defense despite only indirect signs of planned hostilities such as foxholes and emplaced guns.
