I don't think it should be treated as a "most destroyed city" contest, but you should really research the scale of destruction in the cities I've mentioned. [1] looks quite comparable to [2], [3] looks arguably worse.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_destruction_of_Warsaw#...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_Wa...
[3] https://i.pinimg.com/736x/2d/10/af/2d10af195da2779dbd4c31ddf...
From [2]: "By January 1945, between 85% and 90% of the buildings had been completely destroyed; this includes up to 10% as a result of the September 1939 campaign and following combat, up to 15% during the earlier Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, 25% during the Uprising, and 40% due to systematic German demolition of city after the uprising"
It's not me underestimating the scale of destruction of Dresden, but rather you underestimating the scale of destruction in other cities.
[1] http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Bombing_of_Dresden...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_destruction_of_Warsaw
It really must have required special kind of ignorance to write this sentence.
If you compare overall damage then Dresden had less than 50% of its building destroyed, while Warsaw had been destroyed in 80%-90%.
It does actually. The only difference is how long it took and arguably Dresden was in worse shape than Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
> I'm not trying to diminish the scale of destruction in Dresden
Well, forgive me.
> but there are many cities other than it that got destroyed in similar, "conventional" way
No, there aren't. That's exactly why Dresden stands out.
> I don't see why it should be treated in a special way.
You really should go and have a look at those before and after pictures then. They are nothing short of incredible.
Warsaw, Breslau or Tokyo (and Rotterdam, for that matter) do not compare even though the destruction there was widespread.