Why do we have to prove pictures when there are enough evidence from other sources to show Heer involvement in shootings or reprisals? Again I don't agree that merely because it was legally not a crime this makes the act in itself justified or morally acceptable. Some specific examples would be useful since it is clear a sizeable portion of the Heer's high command in 1941-42 did know of the order. As I said however the Commisar order is one example from many illegal/immoral orders issued around that period. Just because that order was not passed on does not mean we can pretend that the Heer's officers were not aware of other orders, the shootings and the general nature of the campaign. Being unable to show emotion is not the same thing as being unable to connect cause and effect. They failed to appreciate that their thoughts after the war merely perpetuated the belief that their only regret was to loose the war.