Salty downvotes are delicious. Tears from people who can't explain how a power could have developed and deployed the bomb first but not won the war.

I didn't downvote you, but in this very article itself that these comments are discussing, the German scientists talked about how it's possible that even if Germany had developed the bomb, perhaps all they would've been able to do is destroy London and a few other cities but still lose the war.

No one needs to explain it because it's irrelevant. It's about that winning does not make war crime or crime against humanity magically stop being war crime or crime against humanity. To reduce to absurd for the sake of example, if US develops a weapon that allows it to kill the entire population of China and uses it in a war then US can't possibly lose that war but it would still be an unthinkable crime against humanity and the punishment should be appropriately severe (it's an absurd example so I can't even think of what it could be, probably US should stop existing or the entire government be put in whatever the IRL equivalent of Azkaban for lifetime).

But who prosecutes the winners? Answer with irl examples; while I agree about the shoulds and oughts, how has it been and how is it really?

Who prosecuted the US for Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings?