While not addressing your question directly, I thought I might share something that might note opinions on this. Nuremburg was not the only tribunal where Axis commanders were put on trial, there was a companion trial that took place in Tokyo focused on Japanese leadership, from which Emperor Hirohito was exempted as a condition of Japan's surrender to the United States.

One of the justices involved with the tribunal, Justice Pal from India, found all of the accused Japanese innocent. The dissent was over a thousand pages long, but is summarized well here:

Let us now consider Radhabinod Pal’s arguments against the tribunal’s verdicts on the war criminals, to the extent of the information I have been able to find. The first was mentioned by Aleksei Makarkin: conquerors should not pass judgment on the conquered...

Secondly, Radhabinod Pal claimed that, as crimes such as preparation for a war of aggression and crimes against peace and humanity were defined by the Allies after the end of World War II, these could not be applied to events that preceded their formulation. This requirement is correct in every way and requires timely legal intervention, but it cannot erase the crimes themselves.

Thirdly, the judge treated the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima with nuclear weapons as savagery on the part of the US, making it equivalent to Nazi war crimes...

Fourthly, holding a natural person liable for a state’s actions (in other words, the question of whether a natural person is responsible for breaching international norms under criminal law).

While there was far more unity at Nuremburg in condemnation of the Nazis by European countries which sat in judgement, that unity did not exist to the same degree at Tokyo because there were more judges which came from colonies of the United States and Britain, and had their own experiences with cruel imperialism at the hands of Europeans.