Weirdly, that's how it almost always works out. Didn't work in England, didn't work in Germany, not working in Ukraine. Kinda makes that "though" look silly in retrospect. That's why today we consider bombing civilians to have no military utility.
- NATO in Libya in 2011
- Operation Iraqi Freedom
- Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan)
- US and coalition campaign against ISIS
- Saudi bombing in Yemen have pretty much stalled the Houthis.
- Russia in Syria for the last decade
- France in the Sahel
- The Turks in Iraq and Syria, been going on for almost a decade.
- Israel against Hezbollah in summer of 2006, didn't get the captured soldiers back but did stall the rockets against Northern Israel. And in Gaza in 2014, similar result in stopping the rocket attacks.
- Kosovo in 1999
That's all off the top of my head, though I did have to Google the names a bit. And it's all within recent memory, I remember every one of those conflicts. I'm sure some old timers here will mention quite a few more, spanning further back in time and further geographically.
No one sane is disputing that bombing can have value, but modern military bombing is done with (relatively) precise strikes against militarily useful targets, not indiscriminate attacks on civilians. When Israel bombs a civilian building, it's at least because they think there are Hamas fighters or weapons there.
> Did they specifically work by making the citizens push the government to capitulate?
Additionally, reports of damage to the British capital city was very morale-raising for the Germans who saw mostly the destruction of their own cities. That also has military value.