Actually, a high ranking Germany naval officer was tried for ordering unrestricted submarine warfare during the Nuremberg trials and was successfully able to defend against this charge by pointing out that the Allies engaged in the same strategy [1]. The Allies did recognize the hypocrisy of punishing defeated enemies of the same actions they took.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Order_No._154#Nuremberg_tr...

I'm just repeating what is on the wiki page and saying that 70 years ago != today.

I said it's difficult to call something a crime when there is limited existing legal basis. Not that it wasn't a crime. Nor that it was a crime.

Also, definitely IANAL.

Since you said:

> Just pointing out it's difficult to call something a "crime" if there was limited legal basis for it (no international treaty) at the time.

I can't help but wonder if you'd find it equally difficult if someone calls certain actions of the Nazis a crime -- assuming there was limited legal basis for it (no international treaty) at the time, etc.

Or is it only difficult when we're talking about American crimes?

> Or is it only difficult when we're talking about crimes [that have not been prosecuted in a court of law, only the court of HN comments]?

More accurate.