I do not believe Dresden was a war crime, terribly as it was. Do you think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes as well?
I lean toward ‘no’ on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, although it is a close case. It certainly preserved more Japanese lives than it took. There was a clear military objective there - end the war at the lowest cost to both the Americans and the Japanese. I am not sure that the fire bombing of Tokyo would not come down on the other side of the equation, however.
Clearly the fire bombing of Civilian areas would be a War Crime under current treaties. The bigger question is whether current standards should be applied to historical events.
I may disagree with the conclusions reached by someone else who has wrestled with the moral implications, but still respect them. The folks on here that I can’t respect are the moral relativists - those who say the events aren’t the determinant, it is the actors that matter.