The Bataan Death March and the events of the Holocaust were treated as war crimes following the end of the war. However, no Allied actions-including the bombing of Dresden and the use of atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki-were tried as war crimes Why do you think this was the case? Explain
whether you agree or disagree with the decision

"History is Written by the Victors", Winston Churchill.

"What is History, but a fable agreed upon? ", Napoleon Bonaparte.

The quotes above demonstrate exactly why there were few to no Allied actions that were heavily judged upon and incited as a war crime during the era. Both's sides rational thinking are based upon one objective, in that they must do everything that is necessary to ensure their own victory (up to a certain case).

For example, the Bataan Death March was essentially born of the culture of the Japanese people. On top of that, there was no system in which to enforce the rules of war, especially in a all out war like World War II. However, due to the eventual defeat of the Japanese and the Axis Power, the Bataan Death March was placed as a war crime that was answerable by the Japanese government. On the other hand, the US's Biscari massacre of German and Italian troops is seen more of a necessity, rather than a war crime in the day and age.

The point proven above is that war crimes are extremely subjective, especially during and just after the time it takes place, and is judged primarily by the victors of that war. If they were the one's that committed it, it was a necessity, if it was their enemies, it was a war crime. The decision is non-agreeable, in that crimes should be treated fairly, regardless of which side initiated it, but it is without doubt realistic, in that the crimes committed on the winning side is hid as to portray one's own as the saviors of the world.

~

if it were me, i would pick c. c is the best answer because it's basically saying go on a non-violent strike for india