To my knowledge, unlike Hiroshima or Nagasaki, Dresden was not of military significance. Berlin was, and I certainly don't dispute the necessity of bombing there (and Berlin was devastated -- I lived there for a year in the '70s, and even then, 30 years after the end of the war, the destruction was incredible).
One last thing: I'd just like to point out that the same German newspaper quoted in this article, Bild, has endorsed President Bush:
"Bush has learned the lessons of history. Good words do not help against violent fanatics, only military strength. With him, as opposed to Kerry, there is no waffling," it said."With Bush, we know what to expect. No one knows what John Kerry stands for and where he wants to lead America -- and the world."
Noting widespread opposition to Bush in Europe, Bild said that history had proved another conservative Republican US president, Ronald Reagan, to have been on the right side of history.
"We thank him for the end of the Cold War and reunification. It is very possible, that we will also be thankful to George W. Bush one day," it said.
EUROPE'S BIGGEST NEWSPAPER ENDORSES BUSH (GERMAN TABLOID PAPER CALLED BILD)
At the time, no one was truly sure that it wasn't.
After all, the Ardennes offensive had arisen in an area that the Allies thoight was pacified and demilitarized - the Wehrmacht was very successful in concealing ordnance and vehicles and escaping detection for months.
In February 1945 the Allies did not have the time or the troops to gingerly investigate Dresden. What they had was a strategically importnat city on nthe Elbe river, a main artery of eastern Germany, which would serve as an ideal staging ground for a new offensive.
The fact remains, Dresden would be intact today if the Nazi government had surrendered to the Allies and Dresden would not have been bombed as hard as it was under any circumstances if the Nazi government had not been launching strategically useless rocket attacks on the UK.