I thought I already did, in the other thread. Maybe it was in a post or a part you missed. I'll admit that I sometimes write rather long posts - in an attempt to be comprehensive and cover all the bases, anticipating whatever counterarguments might be raised. This may lead people to just gloss through it while claiming later that I "never addressed it," even if it was in a portion they missed.
I went through the calculations point by point, using the date supplied in the link. If you're questioning the data put forth in the website I linked, we can go over that in greater detail if you're so inclined. I haven't checked all his sources and footnotes, but he does seem to have ample documentation.
As for my assumptions, I recognize capitalism as a competitive form of social/economic Darwinism. It's just a variation of the same theme - the strong take the weak - survival of the fittest.
The ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans did it. The Mongols did it. The Persians did it. The Zulu did it. The Aztecs did it. The British and French did it. We Americans of European ancestry did it. The Germans did it. The Italians did it. The Japanese did it. It might be called different things - nationalism, tribalism, capitalism - but they all come down to the same competitive, dog-eat-dog mindset. "Let's stick it to the other guy so we can get more booty." It's all variations on the same theme.
You can dress it up however you want, and after a while, you can work on points for style - like the club tie and the firm handshake. A certain look in the eye and an easy smile.
But it is what it is.
Nationalism and capitalism have that connection and run parallel to each other, which is why I attribute the deaths in WW2 mainly to capitalism.
To understand the causes of World War II, one has to understand the causes of World War I - which was sparked by a confluence of nationalism and capitalism practiced in their rawest form.
Even before WW1, in the 19th century, Napoleon III, Bismarck, and other ostensibly nationalist leaders also advocated an expansion of government social programs to make life better for their people. Such programs might be considered the early forerunners of "socialism," which may have also carried through to the Nazi era. But it was the idea that a nationalist government should be benevolent to its own people, while largely indifferent to outsiders. The Nazis were obviously the most extreme in this particular area.
But that's not really what caused the war. The Germans and Japanese had relatively small territories, no colonial empires to speak of, and had limited natural resources need by modern industries. In contrast, the US had a huge landmass teeming with resources (along with hegemony over Latin America), while the British and French had huge colonial empires across the entire globe. (Remember that these colonial empires initially started out as business enterprises, so the capitalist aspects are planted in the very foundation of "empire.")
So, the Axis Powers feared becoming second-rate powers. Germany was also resentful over the punitive Treaty of Versailles, while Japan and Italy, even though they were on the winning side in WW1, didn't feel they got enough of the spoils. It wasn't just a matter of nationalism - flag-waving, pride, or glory - but it was also a matter of money, resources, and control of the world markets. These are purely capitalistic concerns and goals, and they were more than willing and able to take the dog-eat-dog approach to get what they wanted.
They may have had some aspects of "socialism," although they still had a class hierarchy. But their overriding nationalism suggested that class wasn't really that big a deal, since all pure "Aryans" were of the same blood and the same "tribe," so to speak. They probably figured that Germany's victory would be so great and lucrative that there'd be more than enough spoils to go around that even the working class Germans could live in comfort and relative luxury with a high standard of living. (Kind of like how it turned out for Americans after WW2.)
Internationalist socialism would be an entirely different kettle of fish, since all humans of all nationalities would be considered equal and deserving of the same standard of living as anyone else. There wouldn't be any "other" to make war against, enslave, exploit, or otherwise mistreat.
. Lol! The Good The Bad and The Ugly! 
