Please calm down. Firstly, I said that 100k was the median for Tito, not the lowest estimate, the lowest I've seen that was 60,000. The NYT reported it to be 70,000. I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm wrong, but I'm telling you the truth; that honestly is the lowest death count I've seen.
AFAIK the most detailed account of those killed does in fact reach some 70 000 people, but these were mainly collaborators who refused to lay down their arms when Nazi Germany itself signed it's capitulation and instead chose to fight their way towards British positions and surrender in Austria.
Most of these people worked with the nazis and brought about their own ethnic clensing agendas into action. Killing them, while clearly a criminal act, is not the equivalent of killing democrats and socialists in Chile where the regime came to power specifically to surpress them. I'm pointing out that why for most of it's existance Yugoslavia wasn't a supremely opressive regime as you had tried to describe it. Your original claim was that the median claims were between 100 000 and 250 000 and I guess reading that as 100 000 being the low estimate is a mistake on my part. I have never seen a serious respectable and relatively unbiased historian reach anywhere near those numbers. Furthermore, many of these killings of collaborators were not ordered by the regime (and there are surviving orders by Tito that killings should be ceased) but the culprits were almost never tried by the authorities, thus legitimising the murders post facto.
most Right wing dictatorships left you alone too if you didn't challenge the state
Aside from those who happened to be of wrong religion and ethnicity as we saw in Guatemala, South Vietnam, South Africa and even Australia for example (or SFR Yugoslavia's successors and predecessors.).
Mao ON RAW NUMBERS would have killed more people
Again, parroting inflated numbers. Plenty of deaths were caused by mismanagement during a hunger and deaths of those people were not an aim nor a tool of Mao's regime. This is not the same as chalking up the deaths caused by the hunger that was used as a tool by Stalin's regime in the 30s and towards whose victims the Soviet regime showed criminal negligence to Stalin. An equivalent would be to claim that Churchil killed 2 million people in Bangladesh because there was a famine there during his term.
I hate defending Mao, I consider him and Pol Pot the worst of all Cold War strongmen, but Hitler's RAW NUMBERS are unmatched in history by any single criminal figure and claiming anything else should be considered to be nazi apologism IMO.
Cold War is often portrayed as two equally amoral sides
In my opinion it was the Americans who were the amoral side in this war. They were the ones to support the rise of jihadism and to support Pol Pot AFTER he had created a living hell in Cambodia just to spite their communist enemies. OTOH the Soviets usualy supported regimes that aligned with them ideologically and that's not amoral, that's just ruthless and cruel when you take into account that those regimes were usualy dictatorships. You mentioned Tito as some horrible mass murderer, but his regime would not have survived without American aid.
As for WW2 not being white and black, almost no war ever is and nobody is denying that Stalin was a mass murderer, that Britain had an empire built on horrible exploatation and that the US regime was ok with having a whole race be second class citizens. Despite all that, the Nazi and Japanese evils reached such heights that WW2 was much more black and white than the Cold War and possibly any other war in history.
If I am mistaken, I'll say it right now: sorry.
You are mistaken and you should be sorry for serving to spout numbers fabricated to create the illusion of there ever being a greater evil in history than fascism.