Would you classify the war crimes trials after World War II as "victor's justice" as well? Crimes were committed. unspeakable crimes in many cases, but had the Allied powers not won then those crimes would have gone unpunished. So was having those who committed those crimes forced to answer for their actions also "victor's justice"? Also a bad thing in your eyes?
“Would you classify the war crimes trials after World War II as “victor’s justice” as well?”
Ah, the old General Eisenhower loved General Lee; General Lee was the same as a Nazi; therefore General Eisenhower was a Nazi argument.
That is where you are headed and I’m not buying it.
This is a tangent......that said in some cases, yes. There was clearly some "victor's justice" going on. For example Alfred Jodl's conviction for "waging aggressive war". He was carrying out the orders of his internationally recognized head of state. By this logic several American generals could have been convicted and executed for various wars America has engaged in.
Another example is Karl Doenitz. He waged unrestricted submarine warfare. So did everybody else.....but the Allies forbade defense lawyers from pointing out examples of the Allies doing the exact same things as the Axis did. His lawyers were clever and managed to get around that by arguing that waging unrestricted submarine warfare was the international norm in WWII. Admiral Nimitz wrote a letter to the court on Doenitz's behalf saying that the US Navy had done the exact same thing (which it clearly had) in the Pacific War. Doenitz's lawyers managed to get him sentenced to only 10 years in prison for......nothing.
Most of the other convictions were fully justified.