I'm not sure I follow the idea that this specific argument has been settled long ago when it's been a major topic in a lot of the history research ? From the longtime popular myth of SS bad Wermacht ok , the legal defense of "following orders" to researching what a Police Reserve unit from Hamburg did in Poland to the endless academic and artistic musings on what ordinary German citizens knew, didn't knew or should have known, the level of knowledge about the Final Solution internationally at specific dates & the level of collective complicity, legal or symbolic.
Most of the disagreement here seems to be between a closed and open definition of a Nazi really. I can see arguments for both and the latter isn't that egregious, especially considering the Nazi purposefully established a distinct regime that the army was serving.
I mean as long as we can agree that many a German, regardless of convictions or awareness, perpetuated or was complicit in war crimes, ethnic cleansing and a variety of other horrible deeds, I'm not sure it's a huge issue.