[bradclark1]

Whole Western Front was secondary in losses and amount of soldiers involved to the Eastern Front. Plus, you`re forgetting the scale of the conflict which makes your statement sound... well, strange to say the least. Besides, you`re forgetting civilian loses. Just one example: true, Poland lost just about 160,000 men in the military. I undersand, that over 5 million civilians, including Jews doesn`t count, right?
The Red Army had much more casualties throughout the war than the American army. USSR lost approx. 25-27 millions and it wasn`t the only country that suffered really heavy loses.

Not strange. I specified Western Front. You also forgot China who lost slightly more than Russia. CCIP was talking specifically about Europe and it's losses (thats what I gathered anyway). No European country lost tens of millions of people so no, Polish civilian losses weren't tens of millions. I'm not downplaying civilian losses, I'm saying it wasn't tens of millions. The word tens to me means more than twenty million. The American armed forces had a bigger loss then most of the European military forces in WW2. Considering we weren't even threatened by the Axis powers our military losses count for a hell of a lot.
You are correct the U.S. has not had a foreign invader since 1812. The U.S. did not have to get involved in any European war yet we did. And it's doubtful that Germany would have lost either war without U.S. involvement. Am I suppose to feel guilty because we didn't loose millions? I'm not. We volunteered in each war.
I was answering specific questions. If you don't like my answers I'm sorry. What I answered is facts to those questions. Tell me where I'm wrong.

Now think how such expierience could change the people`s minds towards war.

What has that got to do with having a strong military as a deterrent to aggression?

It`s good that there`s at least one nation not willing to give up and fight when necessary. I`m absolutely serious about this one. Just please keep in mind what could affect the other`s people view.

I appreciate that but peoples views doesn't change the reality of a stronger military.
I will say this however because you really don't hear anything about it. Male populations. I can't speak about Poland because I haven't seen any data on it.
Even prior to WW1 the German male population has been on the rise while France's was on the decline.
WW1 devastated France's male population and put a good dent in the GB's but Germany was able to recover better than GB. By WW2 France"s male population was still on the decline so could they have fielded a bigger military? I don't believe so. That is one of the reasons that today France has such a huge Muslim population because they were needed to fill out the working manpower and militarily put a lot on it's Foreign Legion. German losses from WW1 and WW2 account for Germany's large Turkish population.
Great Britain had mobilized virtually every eligible adult male and was stretched to the breaking point which put a dent in Monty's ability to perform to expectations.
So. Could WW2 have been avoided? I don't believe so. But it is ammunition for fielding as big a military as possible so it doesn't happen again.