• humble peat digger@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Completely different situations. One country had to recover from complete devastation and bootstrap everything from scratch, could not rely on anyone and had to fund and support allies with that.

    While other European countries were barely touched it could benefit from US funding which was in itself completely untouched and benefited from the collapse of the entire capitalist competition worldwide.

    • Tja@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      The ussr was much less devastated than Germany, and it didn’t support allies, it received support first and exploited colonies later.

      • humble peat digger@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Not true. Majority of ussr most economically valuable areas were destroyed.
        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kPVo9w79D6w

        Ussr provided major military assistance to china Korea, vietnam, African countries fighting for freedom.
        Also look up comecon.
        Also who do you think was responsible for reconstruction of half the germany? It was ussr most which was also half destroyed itself.

        All of this was a much higher burden on ussr than US which was left intact.