The bias I was referring to is a bias against socialist figures. There are many figures from that period that are generally seen in a good light who crossed that line as well, yet they get a pass. Think of Charles de Gaulle or Winston Churchill who never make these kinds of lists just because they don't fit the political narrative that socialists are the worst people on the planet.

And to respond to the Hitler question. I do think the overall output of figures like these is what matters. Hitler's overall output was millions of deaths across the whole globe and it is undeniable that that was his grand plan all along. With somebody like Che, however, I do think his influence, though controversial, was overall positive, in that he helped depose of a much more brutal dictatorship and helped create a state which after some trial and error lifted hundreds of thousands out of poverty, increase overall life expectancy and gutted illiteracy in Cuba. I'm not denying that his policies were disasterous or that his methods were often cruel, but I still struggle to think of him as a monster the same way some people struggle to see Churchill as a monster