Up to a certain point. That answer didn't hold up well at the Nuremberg trials. After a point there's also dignity and morality, not just "keeping the job".
Which people? The Europeans were occupied or liberated under effectively caretaker governments. Americans didn't need pacification.
> the agreements that came out of those trials
The trials inspired some agreements. It didn't create any, other than the precedent of holding leaders accountable for crimes against humanity.
They were occupied but they weren't entirely busy: while "low" people were happy to kill ex-Nazi collaborators themselves, it's the post-war governments (all of them, USA's included) who needed, with those trials, to manifest a re-establishment of the rule of law once again. 80 years later we can see it's been a hypocrite farce in every part of it, but it saved lives, those that were worth of living, although spared Nazis, fascists and sometimes communists too.
Do you have a source for this having been the motivation?
I’m admittedly most familiar with the French and American perspectives. Those weren’t concerned with pacification but creating an international sense of the rule of law and legal basis for the occupation and restructuring of those societies.
Plenty? All whistleblowers, and the magnitudes larger group of people who were not able to whistleblow but did instead decided to quit their job for ethical reasons?
that's just winners were punishing losers.
In alternative reality, those who dropped nukes were facing trial in Nuremberg.
Whether it's winners punishing losers, or e.g. the FBI/FDA/DEA/IRS/whatever punishing some company exexutives and employees, the potential for this to be a bad defense remains constant.
Nuremberg had nothing to do with insurrections and revolutions. It also judged the Nazis according to standards that didn't exist when they committed their crimes; the ICC was created after Nuremberg as an imperfect system. Imperfect, however, is still better than nothing.
Like how some well known companies are implicated because of government contracts with that short lived regime in the 1930s
and its like thats not really a deterrent because you don't really know what a government will do, and accountability requires a multi coalition invasion, losing, and subsequent leaking of state records
the threshold for that to occur is so high, like for one, that government has to actually lose, and the one everyone is mad at typically doesn't
makes more sense to contract with all parties in all countries and just collect the checks
I think that specific example is a perfect choice to undermine the specific lesson you were aiming for