Yes the diagram is not very clear there. I found the pie chart interesting only 17% of the total killed during the war were on the Axis side.......victory has a high price.

The matter of power and why is Europe so militarily weak...

I think that the main reason why Europeans have not been willing to have strong military and to use the military for quite long time is, generally speaking, the long term effect of a post war trauma.
There are other reasons, like belief that the America is to fight ( IMO, its the Europe that should be able to defend itself though ) and lack of understainding that the real threat can be out there. But first things first.

The first deep impact on the Europe`s military effectivness was the World War One. Until the war, the European politics thought of war in similiar way than Americans: a good way of sorting things out if all other means fail. There were some signs that this is going to change, but hardly anyone notived it. The signs like effect of nationalism and ideas of total war against enemy`s nation were shadowed by the romantic wiev of war towards societies: a neccessity, but an adventure as well. World War One was perhaps the only war that started with total enthusiasm on both sides.
However, the war prooved to be brutal, very bloody and pointless. What made thigs worse, its result was indecisive: there was no ultimate victory, just an armistice as both sides were exhausted.
The shock due to the losses and pathetic outcome was one of the reasons why more and more people were asking questions, if war were good idea. Besides, there was a bitter effect of a fact that endless sacrifices resulted in nothing. Here, remember the Germans giving up everything in order to win or at least - sign a reasonable peace.

The result was an outbreak of pacifism and much decrease in a will to fight if necessary. Here, one additional and important remark: until then, the only possible real threat for an European country was OTHER European country, a situation that has little to do with the modern day. It was not a clear situation of America, where the enemies are always out there, not here.

WWII just made the pacifism deeper here and there as again, huge sacrifices resulted in moderate effects. That`s perhaps one of the huge differencies between American and European point of view towards war: boht world wars meant for European a bloodshed, heavy losses and no really good results. Why to suffer, why to sacrifice if there`s no good result to this?
Think of it, as America has not seen significant defeat in history and no victory at really high price.

As for the modern day: I think that one of the reasons why Europeans are so militarily weak is the fact that there`s no clearly visible oponent. I mean, European nations united so there`s a change of perspective - until recently, all oponents were in Europe. For many people, it`s hard to believe that once Germany or other European countries are within the same team, there are some real dangers and that they can be located in some distant parts of the world.
The second thing is, many people think that if matters go really bad, there`s always USA.

Personally, I think that EU has to mount a strong, common military force ready to be used. One of the problems of EU is the fact it reacts so slowly and use bureaucrats where quick decisions are needed. Generally speaking, I think that the very idea of EU is a good example of good idea that has been ultimately badly organized.

But that`s another story.

Okay then Western Europe. That takes out all controversies. The conversation was about the Western Front in Western Europe. Therefore Russia was not part of it. I do understand what you are saying but the conversation is about the West.
So now it's mainly about semantics. If you wish to speak of the war overall then it does include China as well as Japan, Australia, New Zealand and where ever else I missed. My comments to this point concerned one geographical region whether you agreed with it or not.
As I've said twice before CCIP used the term tens of millions. I was responding to him in regards to Western Europe on the Western Front. I can't be any plainer than that.
Fact: The U.S. military lost more soldiers than any other nation on the allied side in the West European Western Front. That is fact. The Eastern Front was not included because it was in the east and not the west.
I'm not disputing that people have had enough of war. I'm saying the best deterrent for war is a strong military. Because you have a strong military doesn't mean you have to be at war.
Here are total MILITARY losses:

Ellis & Clodfelter Military Losses Facts on File (1993)
* Poland, 1939
o Poles: 66,300
o Germans: 13,110
o [Soviets]: 900 ("Russians")
o [TOTAL: ca. 80,000]
* Denmark/Norway, 1940
o Ellis
+ Germans: 3,692
+ Norwegians: 2,000
+ Danes: -
+ [TOTAL: ca. 5,700]
o NWHA [http://www.nwha.org/news_1Q2004/news_page9.html]
+ Norwegians: 850
+ British: 4,000
+ French and Poles: 530
+ Germans: 1,300
+ [TOTAL: 6,680]
* France 1940
o French: 120,000
o Germans: 43,110
o British: 11,010
o Belgians: 7,500
o Dutch: 2,890
o Italians: 1,250
o [TOTAL: ca. 185,000]
* Balkans, 1941
o Yugoslavs: ?
o Italians: 38,830
o Greeks: 19,000
o Germans: 3,674 (K+W) [A total of 34,040 Germans were killed in the Balkans to 31 Dec. 1944]
o [TOTAL: ca. 160,000]
* Greece, 1940-41 (according to Gilbert, A History of the 20th Century)
o Italians: 13,755
o Greeks: 15,700
o Germans: 2,232
o British: 3,712
o [TOTAL: ca. 35,400]
* Eastern Front, 1941-45
o Ellis
+ [Soviets]: 11,000,000 ("Russians")
+ Germans: 2,415,690 (K+M+POWs, incl. SS troops, to Dec. 1944. Another est. is 1,001,680K + 1,287,140M = 2,288,820 in Field Army only, 22-June 1941-10 March 1945.)
+ Romanians: 381,000 (as Axis). 170,000 (as Allies)
+ Hungarians: 136,000
+ Poles: >40,000
+ Bulgarians: 32,000
+ [TOTAL: ca. 14,000,000]
o Clodfelter
+ [Soviets]: 7.5M to 12.0M ("Russians")
+ Germans: 1,001,000 kia
+ Romanians: 300,000 d.
+ Hungarians: 200,000 d.
+ [TOTAL: ca. 11,251,000 ± 2,250,000]
* North African Desert, 1941-43
o Ellis
+ Italians: 20,720
+ British: c. 7,000 in W. Desert + 6,230 in Tunisia
+ Germans: 12,810
+ Americans: 3,620
+ Australians: 3,150
+ French: 12,920 (all casualty types)
+ New Zealanders: 6,340 (incl. k. in Italy)
+ S. Africans: 2,100
+ Indians: 1,720
+ [TOTAL: 57,350, excl. French & New Z.]
o Clodfelter
+ British Commonwealth: 35,476 KIA
+ Germans: 18,594
+ Italians: 13,748
+ [TOTAL: 67,818]
* Italy, 1943-45
o British: 89,440 (K+W)
o Germans: 59,940 (KIA only, incl. SS troops, to Dec. 1944. Another est. is 46,800K + 208,240M = 255,040 in Field Army only, June 1941-10 April 1945.)
o Americans: 29,560
o French: 8,660
o Canadians: 5,400
o Indians: 4,720
o Poles: 2,460
o S. Africans: 710
o Brazilians: 510
o [TOTAL: ca. 125,000]
* China
o Chinese: 3,211,420 (all casualty types)
o Japanese: 388,600
o [TOTAL: ca. 1,200,000]
* Pacific, 1941-45
o Japanese: 685,230 Army & Marines + 414,880 Navy [=1,100,110]
o Americans: 55,060 Army & Marines + 36,950 Navy [=92,010]
o [TOTAL: ca. 1,192,120]
* NW Europe, 1944-45
o Ellis
+ Germans: 128,030 (KIA only, incl. SS troops, to Dec. 1944. Another est. is 80,820K + 490,260M = 571,080 in Field Army only, to April 1945.)
+ Americans: 109,820
+ British: 30,280
+ French: 12,590
+ Canadians: 10,740
+ Poles: 1,160
+ [TOTAL: 292,620]
o Clodfelter
+ Allies: 186,900 KIA, incl. 135,576 USA
+ Germans: 263,000 combat d. + 56,000 died as POWs [incl. died of wounds]
+ [TOTAL: 505,900]
* SE Asia
o Japanese: 210,830
o Indians: 6,860
o British: 5,670 (incl. POWs)
o Americans: 3,650
o Australians: 1,820
o Africans: 860
o [TOTAL: ca. 225,000]

In your last comments I'll agree with you but for one exception:
I'd have to say that huge sacrifices saved the Jews and Slavs from annihilation and the European continent from enslavement. I wouldn't call any of that moderate effects.

Good post. :up:

Like the UK, water, lots of water.