I certainly don't disagree with your assessment of Stalinists - and if anything, the modern history of asia is undertaught in schools. In high school, they only got up to world war two, with the U.S. gloriously beating the nazis, then they skipped everything after that. But I think your list of % killed is an awfully poor argument to generalize that fascists are better than Stalinists. First of all, you left Germany off that list. My mother grew up in nazi germany and got her town bombed and saw large numbers of people get killed or starve to death. I don't know what percentage of the 1938 german population was killed, but I'd expect it was at least 20-25%.
Secondly, you attribute all the deaths in vietnam and cambodia to the communists, failing to set aside a category for civilians killed by the U.S. in vietnam, and civilians bombed or starved to death in Cambodia in the pre 1974 era. Incidentally, the United States gave aid to Pol pot, both indirectly by making the khmer rouge relevant and popular when we were bombing the shit out of them, and later on directly, so that they would aid in defeating Vietnam. What about a category for countries like Zaire where while not traditionally 'fascist', Mobutu sese seku, who the CIA installed after murdering and laughingly disguring the dead body of Lumumba, caused the extreme poverty and disease and starvation deaths of untold numbers of his people. Actually, you could group the majority of African nations and areas of India/bangladesh etc. into a 'rightwing victims' category because most of their problems (which result in millions of very real deaths every year) stem from imperialism of the past, and more subtle imperialist pressures of the present.
So basically - right wing authoritarianism = bad, left wing authoritarianism = bad. It's pretty inane to favor one over the other because both are quite unnatural states of human society.