Interesting. So by that argument, HIroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and the rest of the strategic bombing of cities during WW2 would be war crimes. Is that what you're saying?
Each must be considered individually. A "war crime" is a further subdivided category entailing specific charges against specific persons for specific acts of unnecessary brutality. It differs from an "unjust" act of war in its specificity and relative isolation around a single perpetrator or set of perpetrators to the event.
I will say though each of the cases you mentioned falls, at minimum, into that gray area between just war and unjust practices in a war. And in saying that I'll even concede that they were strategically convenient and generally helpful to winning WWII. One thing is certain though - not one of them may be clearly cited as a morally just act, which places them all among the less-than-stellar events of WWII as opposed to countless other clearly defined and clearly just actions taken by the allies.
bookmarking
(keywords are of interest too.)