Historians tend not to make what are called normative judgments on a subject like this. While some choose to discuss facts that may have been overlooked in order to reinforce justifications or lack thereof, my experience as far as historians is that they would prefer to discuss whether or not a story is right, but that consensus on the ethical justifications of an action is a little harder to find.

This would be more a question of jus in bello, which is roughly "right in war", and used to discuss what actions are justifiable during war. I did a fairly extensive write-up on jus in bello and the attacks on civilians here, which may give you some ideas and food for thought. However, I hesitate to go into specifics on this because I'm not sure if the mods would be happy if I did (or if this is the right sub for this question). If they say it is, I'll do a write-up on the subject as well!