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. i will make brainliest and award crazy amount of points! me

The bombing of dresden was an action taken by the British and American allies on Dresden, the capital of Saxony in Germany. This destroyed over 1,600 acres and killed around 25,000 people. The US claimed the motivation for this extreme action to be targeting an area of significance in materials transportation, but it wasn't actually a very important area to the German war effort. Furthermore, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki featured the famous only usage of atomic bombs in a world war - a fact for a very good reason. The use of atomic bombs not only claimed around 130k (mostly innocent civilian) people, but it also destroyed two major cities in Japan and left the areas with innumerable expensive damages and environmental effects from the radiation. The US claims to have resorted to atomic bombs because of Japan's refusal of surrender, but most believe that the usage of such destructive weaponry is unethical and unnecessary. Therefore, do you believe that these actions should be punished? Should the US/Britain have faced penalties and fines from the UN for these actions? Should they have been considered war crimes? Use the facts above to explain. (In this situation I'd argue that the US should have been charged reparations for the damages in Japan similar to how Germany was charged following WWI)