This is a bit of an odd request. The short answer is no, there is no historical basis for portraying the axis leadership (at least, for the major axis powers) and policies in a good light. One notable person who has tried to justify some of their actions is Viktor Suvorov (Real name Vladimir Rezun, Suvorov is a pseudonym), whose book Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? attempts to make the case that Stalin was provoking or manipulating the Germans into starting the war deliberately for his own ends, and further that in 1941, the Red Army was poised to strike at Germany in an offensive war, thus making Operation Barbarossa a preemptive strike. It probably won't surprise many that these are not mainstream views.

The closest thing to what you are after, OP, might be a general muddying of "the good guys". There certainly were morally questionable actions taken by the Allies, and the Soviet Union in particular doesn't come away from World War II with its hands clean.

Stalin was an opportunist if nothing else, and after plans for an anti-German alliance involving the USSR fell through, Stalin was willing to cooperate with the Germans instead. In addition to trading on generous terms with the Reich, the Soviets jointly invaded Poland with German (although they waited until the Poles were militarily beaten to sweep in under the guise of "protecting minorities in the East of Poland), and between 1939 and 1941, the following events occurred:

• The Winter War (USSR demanded territorial adjustments; the Finns refused)
• The Annexation of the Baltic States by the USSR (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia were delivered ultimatums, and the Red Army moved in)
• The Annexation of Bessarabia from Romania (this region corresponds to modern day Moldova)

In terms of the Western Allies, the most famous incidents would be the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which have been controversial from day one. Strategic bombing in general is questioned both in terms of whether it was effective, and whether it was morally justifiable. Although the Axis were engaged in the bombing of civilian populations early in the war, once the Allies had gained air superiority, they were capable of ramping up the scale of strategic bombing immensely, to the point that whole cities could be devastated (e.g. Dresden, Tokyo).

The degree to which Britain is responsible for the Bengal Famine of 1943 is another issue, although one that I have not seen a lot of ink spilled over. The general argument goes that after Burma was invaded by the Japanese, the regular food lines were disrupted and the British did not do enough to mitigate the effects of the famine, which would go on to kill several million people.

In any case though, it's impossible to decouple the Nazi regime from its racist, genocidal objectives. It goes beyond imperialism, it goes beyond wartime expediency, it goes beyond neglect, it was a twin-track policy of territorial conquest and systemic extermination that makes the other actors in World War II seem almost angelic by comparison.

Your question is inherently flawed; it associates history with morality. History is the study of events, of what happened, when, why, to/with whom, etc. There is a great deal of ambiguity in history, where causes for events may be unclear or debated, where we may be lacking in appropriate sources or appropriate research, but there is no morality. Morality is a cultural construct, something which varies from place to place, from time to time and even from person to person in the same place in the same timeframe. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' morality, or at least no objective way to define one; this has been the subject of debate for nearly as long as there has been human beings.

If you are a person who honestly believes that the Jewish people are a parasitic organism causing the downfall and misery of honest, hardworking countrymen like yourself and your father and your father's father; if you had, instead of watching Saving Private Ryan or learning about Nazism in a school classroom, grown up being told that the Jewish race is less than human, inherently malicious and bent on destruction- would it not seem natural, good, even, to eliminate them from existence? If you believed that the expansion of your country was the only way to right the wrongs that the international community had done to it twenty years prior at the conclusion of WWI, would you be morally opposed to war to achieve that goal? Morality does not stay constant. It is dependent on what you believe is the correct course of action for individual human beings, collective states and everything in between. I personally believe that we should never apply our modern morality to history, because history is not a critique. It is a study to find out the truth of what happened, and truth is distorted by our assumptions of 'right' and 'wrong'; you cannot simplify the complexities of what motivates men and countries to go to war.

What is evil to you is patriotism and hope to a downtrodden German nationalist who looks around him and sees a decaying economy and weak government. It is the only way for his country, his people, and his family to not just survive, but prosper. The same action is naked, bloodthirsty aggression to a Polish countryman. Morality is a matter of perspective, and though you can try and find some way to light WW2 that makes it less comically black and white, the only real truth is that people are intricate and are motivated to action by so many different emotions and thoughts that reducing it down to a 'good/evil' viewpoint only does a disservice to the pursuit of fact.