The only one that's as good as I remember from childhood is Kinder eggs. That chocolate is amazing and waaaay better than we deserved as kids. Still get one for xmas every year although could do without the plastic toy.
Funnily enough I've always thought Kinder chocolate was way too sweet (even as a kid) and I remember being flummoxed by the tagline of Kinder ads (in Italy, but that's where they're from), which was "more milk, less cocoa". Kid me was thinking: "wait! Isn't milk way cheaper than and less delicious than cocoa?". But then again it was probably aimed at health conscious parents...
Cocoa is pretty fat and (at least in Italy) there is a popular belief that it might cause acne.
I think it's also interesting to note that Nutella (also from Ferrero) has a history of being a post-WW2 pure chocolate substitute at a time when hazelnuts were much cheaper and easier to source. It seems to be in the company's DNA to produce chocolate-based confections while touting chocolate as the bad guy.
Cocoa powder is just fat and carbs with basically no other nutritional content but it's not really any worse for you than other sources of the same thing.
The milk is probably the most nutritionally rich thing in your average chocolate bar.
There isn't a European counterpart to American milk chocolate (which mostly tastes like Hershey's) is there? Like, the reason they are different isn't quality, it's that they are different.
Or have you sampled American chocolates that do not try to follow Hershey's flavor and found that they are all inferior?
AFAIK, In Europe the minimum cocoa content for chocolate is 20% while 10% in the US. The US mainstream chocolate handles the lacking cocoa by adding more sugar. Of course you'll find all kinds of boutique chocolates everywhere, but the earlier anecdotes seemed to be about the cheap mainstream stuff.