chapotraphouse

1a) I need your honest opinion: Was executing the (few) Nazi leaders post WWII justified? Yes/no will suffice.

1b) Is it justified to execute egregious offenders of human rights and those who participate in or actively create the conditions for atrocities like mass murders or genocides? For this question, assume the UN definitions are the standard used and assume the people in question are found guilty and all legal options are exhausted on their end to reverse the decision. Do you think it's justifiable to remove people like this from the world? Yes/no again will suffice

The reason those two questions are relevant is because humanity generally agrees that yes, people who commit such crimes should be removed. If that means super forever prison or execution, I'm not sure that part matters, they will be gone from society either way.

The problem with your thought process is you are assuming that the top leadership of the US/NATO powers/EU broadly/AU/NZ (the "West" going forward) aren't guilty of the same crimes for which the historical punishment was death/forever prison.

I don't know if this comes from ignorance (the most likely reason) or willful overlooking of facts. But the facts are, and they are facts, the West has perpetuated and is still perpetuating atrocities that add up to multiple Holocausts over the decades. If the German leaders deserved death for their crimes post-war, then what the fuck do American leaders deserve for actively fueling a genocide in Gaza?

The issue is you are seeking hypocrisy where there is none to be found on this issue. To compare criminals perpetrating crimes (the leaders, militaries, media cheerleaders) with justice being dealt to those perpetrators is flawed.

It would be "hypocrisy" if the statement from communists (just to continue using them since that was one of the original groups. Liberals and communists) was "we condemn liberals for their violence and bloodthirst. It is objectionable to kill a person for any reason including as retribution for crimes they committed." Or something along those lines. That isn't the statement nor can it be genuinely inferred on a broad basis.

In short, you are equating specific, deliberate justice (in the form of targeted executions after some form of trial. Think of Nuremberg if it helps) with the general tendency towards violence and the background of killing that these leaders allow, excuse, and actively perpetrate on a continual basis.

You have not discovered some underlying hypocrisy. You just refuse to acknowledge that liberals are doing the crimes ie they are bloodthirsty. And since I've seriously held back so far on personal accusations, I won't make one now, but I will say this requires the mindset of genocide denialism to even begin to believe that there is hypocrisy on display. It would require the exact same mindset as someone upset over Nazis leaders facing execution. Or perhaps Southern US slavers facing execution post-war. It requires refusing to accept that one side is doing egregious crimes while the other side is advocating for ending those crimes and dealing out legal punishments to perpetrators.