[themitigating]

You example doesn't make sense for this situation. It's between two people and things they did. However, The OP isn't the US government and hasn't committed war crimes (I assume).

Also your example isn't even whataboutism which is defined as "the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue."

What other accusation or difficult question is being raised in your example? It's person A asking for money he lent to person B back and pointing out what when person B lent him money he paid it back.

[llanowarelves]

Holding another group or person to the same/similar standard is often called "whataboutism" though. I will concede that that is probably misplaced (and malicious) application and not what was originally intended.

That's why claims of hypocrisy against the other party, backed up with examples of the same behavior in other situations from them instead of you, can be cheaply dismissed as "whataboutism".

[themitigating]

Using whataboutism to deflect a claim of hypocrisy is wrong, I'm completly with you on that. However to be even more firm about this, regardless of the intentions of whataboutism, you can't hold citizens of a country responsible for the actions of their government unless they were directly involved.

However... visa V mastercard , using whataboutism is valid in this situation. Bringing up something the US government did in the past to silence the criticism of a US citizen to another countries actions is wrong.

EDIT: Just another thought about your example. There isn't even hypocrisy. Person B lent money to A and A paid it back, then Person A lent money to B and B didn't pay it back.

- B doesn't pay back money

- A pays back money

There's no contradictions in their actions.