The offensive upon German industry itself was devalued after the war by the likes of American economist John Galbraith who, 'as a matter of intellectual honesty' revealed in 1945 that bombing had accelerated rather than reduced production. Yet much of the argument remains speculative, and even where issues might be quantitatively verifiable little effort has gone into their historical verification. The balance of evidence suggests it was not The test for judging bombing is the effect it actually had, rather than the effect it might have had with different priorities and different tactics. On this criterion the impact of bombing was wide-ranging and ultimately devastating for the German war effort. In the light of this it is instructive to see what opinion was a little nearer the time in question, when the need to win the war was paramount and convictions reflected the feelings of those who had either witnessed the results of Hitler's offensives or had been on the receiving end of the Luftwaffe's blitz or, indeed, who had been charged with overcoming the Nazi threat.
All major wars are always against a civilian population in the outcome.
Burn the farms. Destroy the crops. Slaughter the cattle. It was not done deliberately but that was the effect. They were our allies, those people.