I really don't care if you are convinced. I'm speaking to the issue itself, and if your mind is already made up, then it is..
I think that that is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, old son.
You can say what you did about most of the actions taken by the Allies, however the question here concerns only one particular one...and it is extremely difficult to objectively argue that the attack on Dresden, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, was anything but an act of terror, not something that had a strategic or military value..
So attacking a city descrtibed by an allied POW as "an armed camp" is not of military value?
Attacking a city which the Werhmacht described as having 127 factories and workshops producing high-value military supplies.... is not of military value.
Attacking a major transport and support hub for German military is not of military value.
...... and diverting increasingly rare resources that might otherwise be used to resist Allied and Russian military efforts is not a military objective..
I'm not sure that you are being objective at all, if you claim this.
And what I'm explaining is the judgment of historians, in case you are hoping to argue that I'm just guessing.
I am all to familiar with the writings of "historians". Firstly, what you are doing is appealing to authority, which, in itself, is a major logical fallacy.
Secondly, historians write books in order to get noticed and to sell books. They do not do so by remaining uncontroversial. No historian ever got his name in the papers by simply saying, "They got it right, no argument, let's just move along".
Thirdly, historians have their own bias, their own "narrative" and not all historians choose to put equal weight upon all factors. That includes the ones that you CHOOSE to regard as authoritative, probably because they confirm your own preferences.
.......
So I ask you again, faced with the situation existing at that time in WW2 - including two major enemies that were as yet undefeated. Facing the possibility that millions of your own people would yet be killed, would you deliberately sacrifice your own people just so that you could feel "nice" about not bombing cities?
As I had a bunch of relatives involved in that war - in various theatres - I do not think highly of your callous disregard to their prospects of surviving the war.