Skittles
The fact that Dresden was razed in 1945 puts end to that perspective. Even the staunch Churchill himself questionned the nature of the attack (admittedly having approved it previously).
Churchill questioned the nature of the attack, and advised about concerning attacks to military only targets as a means of distancing himself from the raid. Churchill may have been a wartime leader, but he was also first and foremost a politician.
Politicians, as we know are masters at ordering people to do all sorts of things -- some of them morally bankrupt; then distancing themselves from the orders they give. The blame was placed squarely on Harris
(who deserved part of the blame, but certainly not all of it)
Chugalug2
So what are you saying Beags, that the RAF should not have killed German civilians, or that it should not have killed so many?
The problem with the way Bomber Command was used was that civilian deaths weren't an unfortunate result of the bombing; they were largely the primary goal. Sure by burning down a whole city you'd wipe out some industry, but as Winston Churchill said, they were bombing cities largely for the sake of increasing terror under a pretext.
Most of this was inspired by General Giulio Douhet who felt that to win a war, one should bomb cities and population centers, destroy industrial targets and kill lots of civilians and terrorize them so they'd rise up, overthrow their leaders; then surrender.
It's kind of ironic that the international laws such as the Hague Conventions were created to reduce civilian casualties in war and people like Giulio Douhet, Hugh Trenchard, Arthur Harris among others sought to maximize them.
seafuryfan
The sacrifices and destruction resulting were understood by most of the population at the time, all the more so after the raid on Coventry.
How many people died at Coventry?