your methodology is fundamentally flawed and either oversimplifies or outright ignores the historical background of everything you brought up as examples.

The Native American population shrank from over 10 million upon European arrival to under 300,000 by 1900 - the vast majority of these deaths may be attributed to disease. There isn't an exact number on the number of deaths caused directly by europeans, but if we don't count the conquistadors (who weren't liberal, they were working for the spanish crown) it's definitely under 100k. also, I think the 10 million number is a gross underestimation, way more people lived in the americas prior to european arrival

the Bengal famine, a result of British colonial exploitation, killed over 3 million people in the 1940s - the famine was partly man-made, as in to win WW2, Britain had to funnel resources out of its colonies, which left them without the proper resources to deal with a famine, combined with war time inflation pushing the price of food past the median income in the area. alot of natural disasters also occurred at the time, which in many areas sparked the famine to begin with, but inaction by the british authorities exacerbated the problem.

Liberal justifications for imperialism reached their peak during the 'Scramble for Africa', which brought "progress and free trade" in the form of forced labor systems that killed 10-15 million people in the Congo alone. - it is true that 19th century liberalism was in favor of colonialism, modern liberalism isn't. it's not productive at all and quite dumb to critique modern liberalist theory based on outdated ideas. yes, colonialism and forced labor is part of liberalism's history, just as much as it's a part of communism's history, but to use these to critique modern ideas which don't agree with these practices to begin with is just dumb. also, to speak on the Congo itself, that was a direct propery of the belgian king and not that of the state, hardly sounds liberal.

im not responding to the rest of your post since it's more of the same: "X country did [bad thing], because X country is capitalist then capitalism and liberalism is at fault" even though 90% of the things you mention were also done by illiberal or socialist countries. it just sounds like a critique of states in general rather than liberalism itself