I understand why you are upset, Beer and I believe you were not intending to say what others might have misunderstood. However, before the animosity reaches a critical state I would like to play advocatus diaboli in regard to the linked post of CalBear.
If I were to go simply by what I see from you, Beer, in that particular quote you can be (mis-)understood as donwplaying war crimes by limiting them to actions committed by individuals.
CalBear's point is not exactly about every Axis soldier being a war criminal but about the institutionalisation of war crimes in the Axis and thus their scale. Note how "All Japanese" and "Heer troops" as designators for Axis soldiers are both linked via appropriate grammar to very real and very tragic affairs and these affairs also serve to somewhat limit the scope. He is not saying that every Japanese soldier used the disgustingly termed "comfort women" and he is using the "Heer troops" not to defame individual troopers but as a shorthand to describe the different unit types that historically lended the Einsatzgruppen a hand or or carried out the "Commissar Order". He is also pointing out how the upper chains of command are complicit in these crimes.
From that perspective Calbear's argument seems to be that from you, Beer, there is no indication of portraying the war crimes of the Axis as an intrinsic problems of Imperial Japan and the Third Reich that can be found at an institutional level and that you are therefore mistakenly obfuscating the genocidal nature of the regimes by limiting the war crimes to indicidual responsibility.
This is enough sophistry from me at this hour and the above is only my conjecture as to how the argument would go. Please understand that I will not delve further into this discussion.