No stance on your conclusion but your arguments are... poor. "Why was nothing said about the western nation entering the war so late despite what they knew? Isn

No stance on your conclusion but your arguments are... poor. "Why was nothing said about the western nation entering the war so late despite what they knew? Isn't the obvious answer that. Because that’s not justice, merely retribution." No, it's because you're presenting a false dichotomy? It would've obviously come with huge risks, costs, and more deaths. It's not like there was a big red "Deliver Justice" button they could've pressed to deliver justice anywhere anytime for free, and they somehow refused to press it. The world had already been through World War I, and you can imagine they neither wanted to get closer to another one, nor did people want to risk their own deaths or suicide. You can hate the west all you want for not entering the war earlier or whatever else, but at least maybe do it with something a little stronger than a strawman?