Dear Adam,
I prefer to stay away from the tired academic debates on this issue, but
here goes anyway... While not defending the Soviets, you must remember
that the US poured huge sums of money into Germany and Japan after World
War II. Additionally, they both benefited from maintaining small
militaries and as serving a sub-contractors for the US in the Cold War.
Germany for NATO and Japan for Vietnam. Japan being even a more special
case in that it was encouraged to build the economic empire, a Japanese
co-prosperity sphere, that the US before the Cold War had actually gone
to war with Japan to prevent! Japan is especially instructful, for
while Germany had high per capita incomes before WW II, Japan’s were
never really more than one-fourth those of the richest countries. In
other words their 80 years of industrialization beginning with Mejii
were somewhat effective, but never launched them into the first world
until the exigencies of the Cold War gave them the final push (my friend
Gunder may disagree with me on this. We’ll see). I know this is all
rather structural, and I don’t wish to completely deny the role of
agency here, but I do think these are important factors for
understanding the development of these post-WW II areas.
The Soviets on the other hand, had a net drain on their system by having
to spend massively, in terms of their GNP, on their military. We can
argue if this was by choice or necessity.
Bear in mind this isn't a defense of the Soviets, just some factors
which helped propel Germany and Japan's economies upward. Whatever your
thoughts on Wallerstein may be, his concept of "development by
invitation" has some relevance here.
Best,
Jeff Sommers