the bataan death march and the events of 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.

The actions like the bombing of Dresden or the dropping of the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not treated as war crimes mainly because of two reasons, one being that they were attacks on the aggressor countries, and the other being that the courts that were charging for war crimes were pretty much in the hands of the winning side.

I personally do not agree with that, as in those attacks the main victims were civilians that had nothing to do with the war, so by any logic that is a war crime. Also, the effects of these attacks were long lasting, and even nowadays there's consequences from some them as they have a long lasting radiation. Any attack on innocent people with deadly weapons is a war crime, thus those should have been put in the same ''bucket''.

bibliography and citations to credit the sources hope this you if not my deepest of apologize ^w^

the federal constitution of the united mexican states of 1824 was enacted on october 4 of 1824, after the overthrow of the mexican empire of agustin de iturbide. in the new constitution, the republic took the name of of united mexican states. it was replaced by the federal constitution of the united mexican states in 1857.