No they were not. Even the Japanese will tell you that.
Regardless, how can anyone say that modern warfare methodology doesn't virtually constitute an inherent war crime? Even with the best of initial intentions, all modern combatants seem to be incapable of not escalating to very morally shaky tactics in pretty short order. Gone are the days when even defensive warfare could even potentially be directed solely at combatants. But this is due to tactical choices, not inherent issues concerning legitimate self-defense. Modern warfare, as practiced for at least 100 years, is virtually incapable of being conducted in a moral fashion. I believe that everyone willingly partaking of the blood-lust that leads to atrocities will have to answer for them. I certainly believe that everyone involved in the decision to use atomic weapons against civilian populations in an already-defeated Japan, having already met his Maker, was, shall we say, rendered "uncomfortably speechless" at that portion of his particular judgment. Maybe God was more merciful to them than they were to their victims, but I'm glad that I definitely won't be put in the same hot seat for those same actions! I have more than enough to answer for already!
This is the Religion Forum. I am interested in hearing a religiously-based defense of the deliberate killing of civilians in wartime, from a Christian perspective. One that would make Jesus proud to give full approbation to it. I strongly suspect that there will be no such defense forthcoming that does not engage in disingenuous mumbo-jumbo.
Unconditional surrender was from Roosevelt and caught everyone, including the allies by surprise when he announced it at the Quebec Conference. Whether it was the right policy or not is a rich matter for debate, but it was a first in modern war.