I condemn the first two, although I wouldn't call the second a "war crime." As for the third, here's a relevant Wikipedia summary: "At the time of the atomic bombings, there was no international treaty or instrument protecting a civilian population specifically from attack by aircraft.[SUP]
[142][/SUP] Many critics of the atomic bombings point to the
Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 as setting rules in place regarding the attack of civilian populations. The Hague Conventions contained no specific
air warfare provisions but it prohibited the targeting of undefended civilians by
naval artillery,
field artillery or
siege engines, all of which were classified as "bombardment". However, the conventions allowed the targeting of military establishments in cities, including military depots, industrial plants, and workshops which could be used for war.[SUP]
[143][/SUP] This set of rules was not followed during
World War I which saw bombs dropped indiscriminately on cities by
Zeppelins and multi-engine bombers. Afterward, another series of meetings were held at The Hague in 1922–23, but no binding agreement was reached regarding air warfare. During the 1930s and 1940s, the
aerial bombing of cities was resumed, notably by the German
Condor Legion against the cities of
Guernica and
Durango in Spain in 1937 during the
Spanish Civil War. This led to an escalation of various cities bombed, including
Chongqing,
Warsaw,
Rotterdam,
Dresden,
London,
Coventry,
Hamburg and
Tokyo. All of the major belligerents in
World War II dropped bombs on civilians in cities."
If that makes the United States a war criminal, then all the countries of World War II are war criminals. So be it, if you like. Why should I condemn the United States for engaging in the same kind of total warfare that everyone else engaged in? I can condemn all of them if you like: shame on all of them for bombing civilians.