https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/AUPress/Books/B_0020_SPANGRUD_STRATEGIC_BOMBING_SURVEYS.pdf
Bombing of cities in Europe/the Pacific produced mixed results unless the target was something major like a railway hub within the city or a factory district. Without precision guided bombs it was inevitable that even targeting purely military installations you're going to get a lot of collateral damage of course, but intentionally bombing civilian infrastructure or homes in the hopes of convincing a people to turn against their government or for a government to surrender almost never produces results. The lone exception being the atomic bombings which were not only completely unprecedented, but also coincided with a complete collapse of Japanese military forces elsewhere and the allies continually floating sweetheart deals to the Japanese via back-channel negotiations.
If bombing civilian targets and laying waste to cities worked then why did the US lose in Korea and Vietnam? Why didn't Britain or the Soviets surrender? Why is Israel still fighting in Gaza? You can't bomb civilians into submission and trying to do so is just visiting needless cruelty on other human beings for no significant military benefit. You can beat your chest and pretend to be an unfeeling monser on the internet and go "YEAH BUT X GROUP DESERVED IT WOOO" but you know I'm right. The US government even acknowledged that bombing civilians is a pointless exercise in revenge and cruelty.