That's the logic of your conclusion. It's very leftist and European. It means that any “civilian” killed in a war who is not directly related to the prosecution of the war is a murder and a war crime, and that the troops, the commanding officer, and the commander in chief who ordered the operation wherein the death occurred should all stand trial as criminals. Preferably, I suppose, under the auspices of some “international” tribunal.
WW2 was fought as a “total war,” meaning that the enemy population centers were targets. It was the axis powers who inaugurated this strategy.
I believe that US civilian and military leaders were justified in using any means in order to destroy Nazi Germany and fascist Japan. The hideousness and utter cruelty of these regimes and their political philosophy made their eradication a necessity if human liberty and Constitutional government were to survive.
That's my position.
I strongly dispute the assertion that this is leftist conclusion. Leftists justify the killing of the innocent, or shall we say noncombatants, in theory and in practice, all the time: they kill civilians, captives, class enemies; they deny there is any objective moral law which would classify this as murder; they assert that anything can be justified by consequences, especially (in their "long" view) "progress," a "better human future," and "the judgment of History."
As for the distinction between innocent and guilty being a "European" thing, I will accept that label, if by that we mean these distinctions are at the heart of the moral tradition of the Christian West.
I think maybe you have conflated the collateral deaths of civilians (which are foreseen but not intended), with the deliberate targeting of civilians. These two things are not the same and not even similar. It is a point very important in the thinking of Western Civilization; one which the U.S. affirmed in the U.S. Army Field Manual, and one which the Allies insisted upon at, for instance, Nuremberg.
It is true that the Axis power initiated the policy of total war involving the murder of civilians. That is one of the main reasons why we say the Axis powers were morally depraved.
It is hard to see what "human liberty" means if innocent persons have no right to life. The whole moral justification of a good soldier (I'm thinking of my son, who served in Iraq) and their leaders, is that their intention is to shield the innocent, and smash the aggressor.