I don’t disagree with your point. From a contemporary point of view, there’s no doubt that very few on either side were truly thought of as war criminals. (BTW you also forgot about Maj. Henry Wirz, the commander of Andersonville Prison in Georgia who was executed after the war for the murder of Union POW’s held there). However, from a moral point of view, it makes sense to consider the question. The intentional targeting of civilians is considered to be a war crime by today’s standards. Sherman undoubtedly engaged in such conduct, so he did commit war crimes. I am only considering the question as a moral one, certainly not as a practical matter. What the heck would we do to Sherman anyway if we did come to the consensus that he committed war crimes?
As for the bomber crews, I think you can give them a pass, but possibly hold their leaders responsible to some degree. Targeting factories or other facilities that produce goods for the enemy’s war effort is considered legitimate under the laws of war. Thus, for instance, bombing a factory or sinking a merchant ship carrying war material is legitimate military activity. Unless I am mistaken, bomber crews were never ordered to “go and destroy Dresden”, but rather, “destroy the munitions factory in Dresden.” This is an important distinction for whether or not to hold the crews themselves responsible. The fact that the bombers were not precise enough to destroy only the factory without collateral damage was not the crews’ problem. The leaders undoubtedly hid behind this fact to conceal their true intention, which was certainly the destruction of the city itself. Again, as a practical matter, I would have not expected prosecution of personnel in Allied air commands, but the argument for their responsibility can be made.
stremba:
"As for the bomber crews, I think you can give them a pass, but possibly hold their leaders responsible to some degree." Sorry, but the principle is the same with those bomber-crew leaders as with Sherman's "march to the sea".
In both cases, the purpose was to destroy, not only the enemy's physical ability to support their military, but also their will to fight.
Remember: you don't ever win a war until the enemy gives up the fight.
Giving-up-the-fight is a matter of both rational and emotional choice -- the enemy must, must, MUST feeeeeel defeated, otherwise you'll just have them back at your throat again in a few years.
That was the LESSON #1 from the First World War.
So the question, then and now, is whether an enemy can be forced to give-up-the-fight without having suffered major destruction?
In other words: is there a "kinder and gentler" way to win a war than by killing people and destroying their stuff?
Of course, the Great Moral Minds of our Age are firmly convinced there must be a better way: "smart bombs", "precision guided weapons", "shock & awe", invisible drones, etc., etc.
But, perhaps even you, stremba, have noticed?
When was the last time we truly won a war?
