-- snip --
What I miss in your tallying is how you attribute deaths to the leader's account. There are two problems here: who is to blame, and for whose death?
Clearly, if an army unit opens fire on a group of unarmed civilians, the commanding officer who gave orders is to blame. Arguably, some of the blame can be put on those who did the firing, according to the Nuremberg principles.
Things get much fuzzier when we get to large scale orchestrated campaigns, such as the Holocaust. Blaming Hitler alone is preposterous, because drafting and implementation of that policy requited an enormous bureacucratic apparatus and cooperation of politicians, laweyers, engineers, the military, etc. Yet, inasumuch as the Holocaus is the policy of intentional genocide, the criterion "for whose death" is still clear-cut.
But then we get to things like misguided policies and events that were not intended as genocide. That includes slavery, but also potato famine in Ireland, collectivization in the US, or the various "development" policies directly and indirectly forced by the IMF, Washington, etc. Here the criterion 'for whose death'beacomes really fuzzy indeed.
The US propaganda managed to equate the responsibility with national borders and for a good reason. That makes the US and Western European leaders squeeky clean because most of the skeletons from their closets are buried in the Third World couintries. They learned how to externalize not just the cost of economic development, but the social and human cost of capitalist prosperity as well.
This invisibility of the victims, because of their skin color and geo-politcal location, was aptly captured by George Orwell, himself a colonial functionary, in his essay _Marrakech_.
So the bottom line is to use a truly universalistic criteria to judge all national leaders, instead of ones that are tainted by class or national interests.
Regards,
Wojtek