We Brits were the first to use concentration camps, during the Boer War (aka African War) of 1899 to 1902, whereby those who were deemed to be a threat to our "British Empire" were interned. The treatment of those interned was similar to that employed by the Nazi's 40 years later, lack of food, medical treatment and poor living conditions. This led to the deaths of tens of thousands of men, women and children, yet most pepole associate concentration camps as being a Nazi invention.
During (and after) WW2, "Bomber" Harris was considered the hero of Bomber Command, who masterminded the Allied bombing strategy. Yet along with the bombing of strategic targets, plans were drawn up and implemented to bomb "soft" targets. Certain towns and villages within Germany, were identified as "should burn well" (due to the construction of buildings being mainly of wood). The U.S employed a similar strategy against the Japanese mainland. The implemenation of these plans, and the resulting fire storms from incendiaries, again cost the lives of tens (more like hundreds) of thousands of men, women and children.
You don't have to be a Nazi to cause extreme suffering and hardship, nor do you have to be German (Hitler was after all, Austrian).
How can you seperate the good guys from the bad guys, when both sides employ plans purely to eliminate the other side with maximum effect, for the least amount of expenditure.
When bombing targets in a flight sim, do you think of the collaterol damage caused by missing (or hitting) your target? Probably not.
It doesn't matter what side you fly for, both sides have the same final objective, whether it's a game or reality.
It's normally the winners who are seen as the good guys, as they have triumphed over evil... or have they?