Dresden was a civilian town with no military significance. Why did we burn its people?

[leveymg]

40. You might want to read C.P. Snow who explained how strategic bombing probably prolonged the war

Snow was on the Scientific Committee that advised Churchill, and was a dissenting voice against terror bombing, which is what he called it, as well. He stated there was an inherent anti-working class bias behind the allied strategy of intentionally targeting the residential neighborhoods in German cities surrounding plants and railheads.

He argued that bombing of working class neighborhoods of large cities was only marginally effective in breaking German civilian morale. Furthermore, construction of hundreds of heavy bombers -- useful against civilian targets but largely ineffective against troops in the field -- also had a steep opportunity cost. Snow pointed out that the same resources if put into production of a larger number of fighter-bombers, far more effective against troops and armor, would have destroyed the German Army much faster.

So, the strategy of strategic bombing actually ended up costing many Allied lives. See, Science and Gov't, The Godkin Lectures.