>>>>>>I "get" the whole American Exceptionalism theme. However, there are other successful nations out there. Germany, for example, was absolutely trashed in WWII but came back to be a European powerhouse. Ditto Japan. Both of them obviously have lessons about rising from adversity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now let's see: who helped rebuild western Europe after WWII? Oh yeah, it was America, wasn't it? I am sure that you are familiar with the Marshall Plan...
>>>>>
>>>>>Some of the same folks that help blow it up - oh yeah it was America wasn't it? - I'm sure you you're familiar with all the bombs we dropped.
>>>>
>>>>During unrestricted warfare, rules go out the window (except nominally various Geneva Conventions etc. in the case of WWII). Carpet bombing or nuking your opponents confers no obligation, legal or moral, to help with rebuilding once hostilities are over.
>>>
>>>hmmmm... well yes I would have to agree that there would be no obligation from a legal perspective - but don't you think there is some type of moral obligation from a humanitarian standpoint for the sake of our fellow humans that were innocent civilians? Maybe not an obligation, but a responsibility?
>>
>>No. Applying "modern" First-world ethics to historical events is anachronistic at best, revisionist at worst. If you can't or won't get into the mind set of the people of the day you won't be able to fully understand why things happened as they did.
>
>Good point - and that is what I was doing.
>
>>No doubt at the time there were many on the winning side who were appalled at the suffering and wanted to help the losers. But almost without exception they realized the importance of rebuilding their own countries and allies first. For example, even with Marshall Plan assistance, food rationing in the UK didn't end until 1954.
>>
>>It's worth pointing out that legal protections for civilians was not adopted until the 4th Geneva Convention in 1949.
>
>Right - and rebuilding these countries with pro-western economic systems was also self-serving.

These days "self-serving" is often used disparagingly. In the case of the Marshall Plan etc. of course it was, and it had to be; there was no way the Allied governments or general populations would accept providing aid to the Axis if all it meant was further hardship for the Allied side. However, even those aspects some might deem "self-serving" were not a zero-sum game, if they helped keep badly damaged states out of the Soviet orbit, or furthered Western policy in the early stages of the Cold War via the Berlin Airlift etc.

If you do think that the "self-serving" aspects of those plans or actions caused harm to the recipients, can you give examples?

>I wonder if this type of practice is still viable in today's world though?

Off the top of my head I can't think of any recent successes, but the world is more complicated and the conflicts are different from the aftermath of WWII.