So as I'm sure everyone is aware there's a perpetual debate about the nature of ww2 allied war crimes and the big one that's usually brought up is strategic bombing of urban centers. A key question in the debate is just how effective the strategic bombing was. i.e. perhaps it significantly accelerated allied victory and therefore can be argued to be a necessary evil or on the other hand perhaps it made no significant contribution to victory and therefore hundreds of thousands of people were incinerated and ripped apart for no real reason.
I understand there is likely no consensus on this but what's the state of current research? What other targeting strategies might have the allies tried that was more effective but less lethal? What kind of information did they have at the time that might have led to a different, possibly better, course of action? What do we know about all the various dimensions of this question?
Well, to be frank, in terms of the Strategic bombing of Germany and it's gains it was grossly inefficient. Albert Speer recalled in his memoirs that he was legitimately surprised that the US and Commonwealth Forces largely avoided the sorts of targets which, if neutralized effectively, would have both brought production to a screeching halt when electricity could no longer be produced, and made a terrific mess of things when targets such as dams were destroyed and the surrounding valley flooded.
Furthermore in terms of actually interrupting production, scant little success was found. 1944 was both the year that bombing Germany was most intense, and the year that Germany's GDP reached its peak. The only thing the bombing campaign was routinely successful at breaking was the development of wild, impractical almost mad scientist grade projects such as this thing:
http://s700.photobucket.com/user/fokker_dr1/media/focke_wulf_fw_triebflugel_uno.jpg.html
or this thing:
Practically speaking the only promising design the Germans ever hit on from '42 onward was the ME262, which was handicapped by German High Command's insistence that it be able to do things entirely un-fighter-y like dive bombing (you'll also see this handicap the development of any real large scale bomber.)
The actual advantages of the strategic air campaign was that while it didn't interrupt production, nor really seek out important lynchpins to production such as electrical production, it did make a terrific mess of things, ruin German morale, and force the Germans to recall an incredible amount of equipment and a good deal of personnel just to oppose the bombing campaigns.
Politically speaking this was also important because it kept the Soviets in the war. Stalin wasn't an idiot and while he would be hell bent on retaliating against the Germans, he wasn't going to break the back of the Soviet people to make it happen. Promising thousands and bombers and millions of tons of bombs being dropped on Germany was what the US and the British needed to negotiate with Stalin to keep negotiated peace something he wasn't seriously considering in '42 and '43 when the outcome of the war was still reasonably uncertain.
What other targeting strategies might have the allies tried that was more effective but less lethal?
When your bombs have an accuracy figure below 10% you don't pick targets based on what won't kill civilians. McNamara and the folks in the air force arm of the Army in WW2 considered it a "good" day when 5 square miles of Tokyo or so were burning from their fire bombing (actually, as an aside I highly recommend the documentary where he's interviewed on his life experiences from WW2 up through Vietnam called, "Fog of War.") You saturate and hope that you still manage to hit your target. I haven't read into it much but I can only assume that Speer's observation as the effective head of German manufacturing was founded on the idea that the US and British were squeamish about what would have been a low altitude operation.
This was total war, and Germany (and Japan) had already demonstrated a willful disregard of the sanctity of civilian lives. Germany had raped and murdered it's way across East Germany and they'd actively tried to bomb the British into submission. While brokering peace might have been on folks minds most were more than willing to, proverbially, take WW2 to the mat with Germany if it meant dismantling the country and wider culture responsible for WW2.
What kind of information did they have at the time that might have led to a different, possibly better, course of action?
Nothing. The US (Or was it the British? I forget) did develop what would be the best targeting apparatus of the war for it's bombers, but when you're flying in excess of 16,000 feet off the ground no amount of anything can make sure a bomb with no real guidance mechanism will make it to the intended target without, as a consequence, making your bombers fly lower.
So basically everyone (allies and axis) became obsessed with the idea of strategic bombing after WWI. It was seen as a natural extension of the very successful artillery campaigns from the great War, and an excellent means of keeping away from the rigors of trench warfare. This relatively simple idea of "bomb the whole battlefield that isn't yours" was rapidly expanded into the much simpler concept of "bomb everything that isn't yours", the idea being that a scared, shell shocked populace wouldn't do the factory work necessary to equip a modern army.
This unfortunately meant that when large scale strategic bombing went into effect, and was not as effective as leaders had hoped... The obsession built on itself and the only effective strategy was deemed to be even more severe bombing. After all, do you stop punching your opponent in a boxing match just because he didn't flinch the first time you landed a jab? No, you lay in some body blows and try to wear him down over time.
So, we have the British carpet bombing the mainland at night , the Americans following behind them and trying to aim at targets during the day (with a very low success rate and massive losses of both lives and planes), and the Germans bombing London at large. All of the factories that aren't directly hit (which is the majority of them) continue to operate and the populace at large believes the way out is through, rather than becoming demoralized as tacticians predicted. The European side of the war ends, and the US turns it's attention to Japan, still sure that with enough bombing, other results can be achieved.
So the fire bombing of every major Japanese population center (with the noted exception of some cultural hotspots) begins. It's a crushing campaign, thousands are left with no homes, the country is starving, but still those factories that have a means to produce do so, and the populace at large is sure of victory behind the infallible emporer. Up until the dropping of the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there has been very little of the foreseen success the Americans were hoping to see from the strategic bombing campaign in either front of the war. The complete destruction of two cities with almost no recovery time in between completely changes this. Surrender is almost immediate, and it is shown that "strategic bombing" with the correct amount of brutality and immediacy is effective.
This probable misnomer leads to the extensive use of strategic bombing in the Korean War and the Vietnam War, where it was so heavily used that almost every permanent structure in the country was destroyed. With no homes and massive casualties, rather than being demoralized, the populace joined the army or formed resistance in droves. By the end of the police action, strategic bombing was finally seen to be unsuccessful in the eyes of almost every military commander, at least now that more accurate options were available.
This dubious strategy cost the world millions of lives over decades, with almost uniformly poor results. It sets the stage for the American military to be seen an uncaring international bully at best, and a maniacal macro-murderer at worst. And yet still, pictures of B-52s dropping dozens upon dozens of pieces of ordinance abound in my military offices. It astounds the mind, honestly.
Apologies for my increased bias as I continued through this post, but you did ask for an opinion.
Edit: of not if
