The Soviets didn't do a very good job at presenting themselves as egalitarian, given the degree to which they were loathed, to which they were feared, and to which they practiced genocide of their own (mass deportations).
Quite possibly the case, but, as I said previously, one cannot assume that those who collaborated during the initial invasions realised the extent of Soviet atrocities during the invasion, nor are they likely to have believed that the repression of the regime was anything other than a temporary state of affairs. Let's remember Hanlon's Razor, after all; don't assume that these people were evil when gullibility is also a sufficient explanation.
Also, the deportations do not constitute genocide, as they were not, in themselves, murders (even if many murders resulted). Nor can they properly be considered a form of ethnic cleansing, because the program did was neither aimed at ethnic Estonians as such, nor was it intended to cleanse Estonia of them. This sort of terminology is very powerful, so it's best to get it right, lest we devalue it.
And the Nazis presented themselves as liberators to the Baltic states. Eventually the deception wore off, but some cannot be blamed for falling for it in the situation.
Well, as I said, there are certainly ambiguities. What I really meant was that the Soviets, for all their sins, at least had something which could legitimately be considered a noble cause, while the Nazis were open racial supremacists. Even if their penchant for genocide hadn't yet been revealed to the general population, their advocacy of ethnic cleansing was well known, having been an integral part of the party platform since the publication of
Mein Kampf.