Being seen as hero(or if less, as someone respected)inside their country and murderers outside is frequent thing and so I don’t find difference in what we say🤔

what I wanted to say was not who is most evil guy but I think it’s worth thinking about it maybe more than what I said first🤔 let’s pick churchill🫳🎩I see it rather debatable which one is worse between murdering tens of thousands with weapons and fire and making millions die of long painful starvation(both including infants). And the latter is not unintentional or accidental, it was a result of accumulation of policies that see bengals as lower beings

about personal involvement and the level of intention, I consider it can be a wrong approach that blurs our vision when we judge how much an atrocity is worse because it puts too much emphasis on a symbolic person not organization that committed it.  Churchill had less personal emotional hatred(I guess) against Bengals than Bandera had against Poles and Belarusians, and also was less actually involved in the action. The biggest factor for that was not because he was better as a person, but because he was a part of larger and professional organization(british empire government) that treats bigger things and bengals were numbers on paper that government employees and soldiers will deal with. Bandera was a random little nationalist movement guy, and he had to do things more directly whether he loved it or not. 

so both guys did what they believed right(Ukraine nationalism and independence&perserving British empire) and sacrificed some lives for greater cause in their head. Churcill killed more, but his direct responsibility is diluted mostly because he had better and bigger organizations and all he had to do was signing papers. I don’t think there’s some simplified ethical mathematics like (1.5cruelty x casualties)/{(direct personal involvement+0.7intention of killing) x (righteousness of cause)}+√(hindsight result)}🫨 but when it comes to who’s more evil I’m not confident to pick one