It was baffling for me to find in the German litearture that the early historiography after the war was obviously drawn up under the effect of legal requirements which gaves to German reesarch quite a definite direction. In the Transition Treaty (Uberleitungsvertrug) of 1954, Article 7 (1), it is bindingly laid down that "all judgments" (Urteile) from the Nuremberg Trials "remain valid and effective in every regard according to German law and are to be treated accordingly by German courts and authorities." Included, as an integral part, in the text of the judgments of the main Nuremberg Trial of 1946 is an exactly 200 pages long account of the German war and pre-war history from the perspective of the Soviets, the Americans, the British and the French. The "findings of fact" that lay at the basis of these 200 pages of "German history"--this should be mentioned here--could, in accordance with the standards of the court, come into existence even without evidence or against the the evidence produced by the defense. The doors were thereby opened for the subjective view of the victorious powers. In 1954 with Article 7(1) of the Transition Treaty, this account of "German history" from the victors' perspective was recognized by the (German) Federal Government as "in all respects valid and effective" (rechswirksam und rechtskraftig) and thus as binding for German courts and authorities.
Included among these authorities are the regional ministers of culture who examine and authorize the contents of the school history books, and the federal and regional offices and institutes which are devoted to contemporary history. So it should come as no surprise that the most school history books and a remarkeable number of the publications of the offices and institutes and that time and still today adhere strictly to the "German history" that the victors in Nuremberg in 1946 forced upon us.
In a footnote, the author mentions a point of contention regarding the authorities included in this treaty, which the Wiki page on the Transitional Agreement sums up: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cberleitungsvertrag#Rechtsfolgen_aus_Artikel_7_Abs._1_des_%C3%9Cberleitungsvertrags:
"Contrary to the claims made by revisionists who allude to an Allied codification of history, Article 7 of the Transitional Treaty has no effect on the teaching content of the ministries of culture, nor does it prohibit the modification and resumption of judgments and procedures of the occupying powers or any other restriction on the author Unity of Germany regained full sovereignty."
Of course, however, if a kangaroo court and its judgments are considered binding and valid, then the narrative with it is also, and that means any government documents on the topic are necessarily going to reflect that, including government-run German schools. So in spite of that schools and school texts were not specifically named, they are included by extension under "German authorities," thus German schools and media continue to reflect this.
So keep that in mind next time you see some fool say that "Germany freely admitted" its crimes. A bayonet at one's throat does not produce sincere admissions of guilt, nor does a stacked-deck dirty kangaroo trial find facts.
That should be obvious to people in that only Germans were convicted of war crimes when very clearly war crimes were committed on all sides. That was no war crimes trial - it was a political show trial for public consumption and propaganda effect, and as a tool for forcing a defeated nation to accept a narrative which was and is advantageous to its conquerors.