Legal knowledge of Johann Radmann

Very good film overall.
I find it strange, however, that the criteria to differentiate the various levels of responsibility are never discussed.
Why does Staatsanwalt Radmann consistently considers all nazis and soldiers as culprits ? It is obvious that most of the population of Germany was only a remote accomplice to the actions of the Wehrmacht, the Gestapo or the SS, to the extent they did not say "No !" to them, but on the other hand they did not now much about them, and could not be expected to oppose a system which had provided them with economic well being and national pride.
Amongst those who knew (and this was a small minority in Germany), they were soldiers, such as Hauptstaatsanwalt Haller, who never committed atrocities. He commanded a submarine and probably killed many enemy soldiers, as his job commanded, but he probably never acted outside the "laws of war". The occupied French population knew very well the difference between the Wehrmacht and the SS or the Gestapo !
So even within the great mass of soldiers and army officers who killed other soldiers obeying orders (this was war after all), very few committed war crimes as was the case in Auschwitz and the other concentration camps. The 8000 involved at Auschwitz, plus the others involved at other camps, were on the other hand not all guilty, a the trials later demonstrated. So I find it strange that Radmann ignored these differences all together and was so devastated to hear his father was a registered nazi. That did not make him a war criminal, and Radmann of all persons should have known the difference. Plus his boss (Fritz Bauer) repeatedly put him back on the right track. I understand the need for absolute and non negotiable values that haunted the dreams of a young German in the 50'S, but as a jurist Radmann should have been able to quickly gather his wits and his law lessons, and put things in perspective. The film was more dramatic because of this choice by the author, but it would also have benefitted from a clear description of these issues, which were the central focus of the Auschwitz trials in Frankfurt. In particular, there was a golden opportunity (missed) to discuss this when Haller tells Radmann that he was a submarine commander, but not registered as a nazi. Radmann should have replied to him that this dis not make him a war criminal, nor a common criminal. I was waiting for such a reply, also when he discovers Gnielka's role in Auschwitz. The line never came, which makes Radmann a potentially dangerous jurist.

Another aspect I had difficulty with was the silence supposedly kept by all knowledgeable people. I spent some holidays in Germany back then, in 58, 60, 61, 62 and 63, and never got the impression that people did not know or did not speak about the atrocities committed by the SS and the Gestapo. No one I met made a secret of their possible involvement in the war (although as a Frenchman I tended to avoid the subject out of courtesy for my hosts). Clearly there were ex nazi networks at play, but the total silence described in the film ???

Of course we all get the benefit of a sort of hindsight, with many reconciliation strategies used later in South Africa, and other places, so the benefits of openness appeared clearly. But to me the unwillingness to face the dark aspects of the war was not such as widespread matter in Germany as described in the film.