A belated reply...
I haven't read Max Sterner's work, but I can perhaps presume that he makes the argument that the violence of the state is condoned by a majority of the people of the state - that is, they agree to a set of rules and the punishments ensuing from contravention of said rules.
This is the way a society works. There is no workable complete freedom. We must agree to restrictions so that we all can co-exist. Whether a society is just or not is a matter of opinion. That it is peacful would be a matter of fact.
Justice is a word we use to mean that a certain protocol is used to administer law, due process if you will. If the protocol or process is not applied then however wrong the accused is, they cannot be judged. The cause of the accuser(s) is not just.
So, I am of the opinion that most people would agree that the Nazi persecution of ethnic minorities during WWII was a crime, even one commiited by the state. In this case the state used fear to acquire tacit consent from its people. As for Saddam Hussein, I think there are similarities - gassing Kurd minorities, using fear to gain tacit consent. Was a protocol or process followed that gave the accuser(s) the right to judge? I cannot say. I'd need to study the transcripts.
But you are right to quote Goering; history is written, and justice administered by the victor. Who else is left.
In WWII, the good guys kindda won, in Gulf War II likewise. Time has shown that the Axis powers of WWII are now engaged and respectable members of the world community - as we see it. Will the same happen for Iraq? We are yet to see.
Debbie
A hug goes a long way