Just a small note, Nazi Germany was gone by the time of the Nuremberg trials.

Not exactly your question, but related: there were also Tokyo War Crimes Trials, and it was pretty common to regard those trials as illegitimate in Japan, because it was seen as applying retroactive justice. It's in fact still pretty common to regard them as unfair, and among right wing Japanese, it's standard to regard them as unfair and illegitimate. It was also seen as Westerners imposing their laws on Asians, and as part of the narrative, it's emphasized that the one Asian judge at the trials, an Indian judge, Radhabinod Pal, found those on trial to be not guilty, while the other judges, westerners all, found them guilty. In fact, Judge Pal was chosen for the tribunal at the last moment, so that the tribunal wouldn't look like it was Europeans against Asians. While those who objected to the Nuremburg trials are generally dismissed as radical Nazi-sympathizers, and today, the horrors of what the Nazis did are such that you don't find people lamenting the unfairness of the trials, but rather you find a heroic narrative of bringing evil-doers to justice. But it's quite different in Japan. When the U.S. occupation of Japan ended, and the Japanese were handed back control of the prisons, they freed all of those in prison for war crimes.

You can read more about this issue, here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/31/world/asia/31memo.html?_r=0

If you want to read even more, read this: http://www.japanfocus.org/-Nakajima-Takeshi/3627

I think the two cases make an interesting contrast, but I don't see people examining and comparing them.