My first response so forgive me for any errors in formatting/forum rules etc.

I cannot speak of the Germans in general - though there are few books that take a look at the process known then as 're-education' of the German civilian population (bearing in mind that this process and its application varied hugely depending on which occupational power you happened to be under. The British and Americans took a very dim view of what the Russians were doing and vice versa) - German prisoners of war (POWs) on the other hand, especially those who were 'rehabilitated' in the UK is something I have spent the last year or so researching for a 10,000 word dissertation and I hope to be able to provide some of the more interesting finds from the archives. I could discuss this topic for hours so questions are welcome!

The British from around late 1944 saw the problem of deep Nazi convictions in those they captured, both to security, and, to those usually outside of the military, as an opportunity/obligation to prevent any kind of resurgent militarist Germany from striking up another world war. To this end they set up a secret division of the foreign office (the idea of political re-education was a flagrant disregard for the Geneva Convention of 1929) and began drawing up plans for how the Germans were to be re-educated in democratic principles and eventually be returned to Germany (repatriated).

The specific organisation of the 're-education programme' varied over time, and as the POW population reached nearly 400,000 by 1946/7, the resources of the foreign office were put under significant strain to organise their efforts and deliver a consistent policy across all camps and POWs. For the most part, however, POWs were first 'screened', given a colour that defined their commitment to Nazism ('White' Anti-Nazis to 'Black' Nazis and the 'Greys' in between who made up 70-80% of the POWs. This then became 'Amplified' and a good 'White', for example was called an 'A+', and a bad Nazi, in turn, a C+) and then segregated depending on the requirements of re-education, wholly 'Black' camps for example were notorious for retaining Nazi structures of authority many months after the war in Europe had ended, which actually led in some cases to 'White' POWs being executed - many held the false belief that that British authorities would protect them, which was not the case (Roderick de Normann's book 'For Fuhrer and Fatherland' is a good source for SS cells in camps). Later as Italian POWs could not be relied upon for agricultural manpower and as the employment of Germans became a 'necessary evil'; screening practices declined (if we view re-education as the aim) and more often than not the War Office had a bigger say over what determined a reliable 'White' than the Foreign Office - though how much we can say the process was scientific or objective to start is a point worth considering. Later too, as the occupational authorities in Germany became involved in determining POW policy, the POWs were being repatriated to them, POWs who showed a 'Pro-Russian' sentiment were noted. I found many examples a likely shift away from the original non-Partisan aims of British re-education towards a markedly anti-Communist objective, coinciding with the onset of the Cold-War.

Besides the occasional viewing of Holocaust footage the actual process of re-education was very light, it depended on where one was and at what time they were captured, most early POWs and especially outspoken Nazis or those who belonged to the Waffen-SS, Luftwaffe or Kriegsmarine, for example, were sent straight to Canada (who also had their own programme, but the British generally dismissed it as insubstantial or inaccurate). POW newspapers were distributed, 'Die Wochenpost' and another (I forget the name), but there are examples where POWs were targeted for reading or contributing to them. They were given lectures by professionals hired by the foreign office, and two colleges/special camps were established for 'courses in democracy' (as vague as it sounds), one for 'White' volunteers, known as Wilton Park, and the other for the youth, the subject of your question, established in Radwinter in 1946. However, less than 1% of the total POWs attended courses at either and it took the personal intervention of PM Attlee for the latter to get past the army. The main issue regarding consistency was obstructive commandants, the leading British officer at a POW camp, who would by and large fail to understand the need to re-educate - they saw political discussion as upsetting discipline, and as the Foreign Office's department often found, its own staff would not hesitate to force their opinions or direct complaints to them about the workings of their camp, a big no no when it came these stuffy army types, who for the most part were given a lot of autonomy regarding non-military tasks like re-education and the internal organisation of POWs.

Besides this, re-education relied almost entirely on integrating screened and reliable 'whites' with the 'Greys' and 'Blacks' and encouraging changes in attitudes. 'Whites', however, were constantly being sent to German for priority repatriation and by late 1947/early 1948 the Germans were sent back together, re-educated or not. The biggest tangible difference to the German attitudes was when they came into contact with British civilians according to Henry Faulk, the man in charge of the British re-education programme, who would later write up his experiences and opinions regarding his work in 'Group Captives'. My dissertation mostly went about cross-examining his statements with new evidence so if you want the official story go with him. As a side note, he really disliked commandants and the War Office's meddling, it is sometimes quite opinionated, at least that's how I read it - but credit to him he is very intelligent and had a great deal of sympathy for the Germans as human beings. He also recorded an interview with the IWM: http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/80009528

Sorry for the long and dry read - this is the short version!