> It would only have been a war crime if the city was undefended. There's no treaty or legal doctrine arguing that. That seems to be something you've made up.

> It would only have been a war crime if the city was undefended. There's no treaty or legal doctrine arguing that. That seems to be something you've made up. The generally accepted argument for strategic bombing being a war crime is that it targets civilians which is outlawed by the Geneva Convention. AFAIK that had never been tried in a court but that's the logic. The "it was defended" argument isn't a factor in any legal discussion I've seen.