No.
Next question.
It's my understanding that the British had a policy of retaliation for the German bombing of British cities.
Initially, we attempted to bomb only strategic targets:
military and logistical. But bombing was not very accurate
in those days.
Only by people who don't think "terrorism" has a unique meaning. Not everything terrifying is terrorism. Specifically, terrorism is committed by a nongovernmental group for a political purpose. So the Dresden or Tokyo bombings were definitely NOT and never will be "terrorism". Neither was the holocaust, or the killing fields, or the Cultural Revolution, or the forced starvation of the Ukraine.
However, some people then and now consider the WWII nonindustrial civilian bombings to be highly immoral and noncontributable if not counterproductive toward victory. Afterall, why would Hitler care if his civilians are being killed en masse? He was busily doing the same thing--and to greater effect.
The only reason it worked in Japan is that the Emporer had a limit to how many dead Japanese he could stomach. His military government, however, had no limit and would have kept fighting if they had had their way.
Victors are not charged with War Crimes.
Perfectly simple.
No it's not. The very article does so.
Should read: In an age of the modern, totally mobilized fascist industrialized warfare state, when it is urgent to demolish a military machine which employs virtually every citizen, it is hard to overstate the importance of decisive and unconditional victory.