Of course the average German troops were not responsible for their leaders crimes. Nobody would call Rommel a war criminal, because he wasn´t. But he too was so controlled by the Nazis, that he had nothing to decide. Soldiers in Germany were not even allowed to vote in the Weimar Republic, they were merely receiving orders. It was not the duty to refuse orders if they mean a crime, unlike today. And what would you say about the men who drafted men with the age of 17,18,19, 20 who died then - and have never had the chance to express their opposition against the regime? I say these boys were victims of Hitler, mislead in a war "to defend the fatherland", but actually it was vice versa. I´m sure noone had picked up the gun against the Brits, Americans, French, Canadians if 1. they had known what Hitler did in the East, 2. not a Nazi official had threatened to shoot them if they did not and 3. had known that after Hitlers defeat both sides realized that the enemy is in the East.
The death of young people in war is always tragic. But Michael -- these boys did have a chance to express their opposition. If they were going to die anyway, why didn't they do so in a revolt against Hitler, rather than fighting for him? Hitler made no secret of his intentions in Mein Kampf -- why didn't the average German revolt?
Hmmm.
I like and respect Rommel, but don't forget that he was responsible for the Atlantic Wall and much of the Wall was built by slave labor. I don't know if he is far enough removed from the details of its construction to escape the taint. Maybe it stops with Organization Todt, though.