This question hereafter assumes the following for a 'soldier':
1. The possibility of reprisals deters a soldier against categorical resistance to fight for an evil regime, but suppose at least that soldiers could in fact partially slacken without anyone's knowledge.
2. Soldiers truly knew about and comprehended the unnecessary atrocities committed.
3. Soldiers internally oppose their country's wicked ideology and believe in more moral beliefs.
Is it fair and logical to blame soldiers who still fight tenaciously for their vile countries, for promoting evil and protracting the fight against righteousness? Are such soldiers disingenuous? Accordant with 1, virtuous soldiers ought to try to diminish their actions, essentially by 'going easy' on their 'enemy'.
For example, if Erwin Rommel or these U-Boat commanders truly despised war and wanted peace, why didn't they ease off, like Wilhelm Canaris? I ask the same for the Imperial Japanese Forces; why did Isoroku Yamamoto (who opposed fighting the US) not flout his duties as did Sōkichi Takagi? For example, a U-Boat captain could've targeted a stronger area of an enemy vessel to minimise damage to the Allies, or even pretend to a miss, so I don't understand such empathy and forgiveness as follows:
[User 'fatviking' in 2013:] I have no problem whatsoever with this chap's award. He [Reinhard Hardegen] was serving his country in what was a very perilous occupation. ...