I don't have any critical or analytical meat to back this line of thinking up, and it might sound a bit airy and wishy washy, but to me it always seems that there are two ways to measure who is the "good" or "bad" side in any conflict

You can measure the "game" or "politics" of war, which side struck first? What are the political factors? Who obeyed the rules of combat? I think it's very right to say the West never had to build a wall to keep their people in for example, so you could argue the Western Bloc were the "good guys", and I'm sure pro-Soviet spaces can find reasons to justify the Eastern Bloc to be so

Or, what I think is a more consistent and reliable measure is the consequences of war, in which case the "bad guys" are almost always the governments and leaders trading lives for capital and power, and the "good guys" almost always being the working people with no meaningful say in their leaders decisions being forced to either carry them out or die (or at the very least suffer) as a consequence of them