I take it you are against Roald Dahl as well as all other folklore and mythology, considering those are all pretty full of gore.
Anyway, I definitely must disagree with you on excluding Grimm. I'm intrigued by your young child choices, though, considering I've not heard of any of them, save for Wind in the Willows, which I don't recall actually reading; and Little Prince, which is not something I'd read to a child--it's too depressing, even if you do understand the symbolism. I read Madeline L'Engle as an older teen and found it far too Christian for my liking. Incidentally, I feel the same about Narnia--the films are fine, but the books... they're full of racism and so forth, and even though I didn't catch it when I read them, sheltered eight-year-old I was, I wouldn't want my child reading them until he understood the flaws and how wrong they are.
I was never fond of Beatrix Potter. It seemed too... well, angry, for me. I read more than Peter Rabbit, but none of them really impressed me enough to remember.
I do like Winnie the Pooh--I have the Tao of Pooh at home, which is one of the books I reread constantly--but being that I like Disney, and got into the books because of growing up on the show and films, I must respectfully disagree. Disney may have broken my trust with Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland (though they made up for AiW with this year's film), but I do not think they 'perverted' Winnie the Pooh at all.
I find it interesting that you exclude Grimm for gore and violence, but laud Russian fairy tales, which are pretty dark in and of themselves. I included Grimm as a primer, but all fairy tales are pretty much on my list, though I'm the kind of parent that would read everything before reading it to my very young child, just to be sure it wasn't too negative or depressing.