>>11621989>that had a completely untouched by war population
War is an exogenous shock. Like natural disasters, if it's having a noticeable long-term effect on your economy, then you had deep structural issues anyway. And vice versa. Ireland, Turkey, Latin America, etc. sat out the war to no economic gain. The UK was far less damaged than its continental rivals, and yet found itself the sick man of Western Europe. Japan was behind before the war, had every aspect of national power smashed, then came to rival the US and Western Europe in ways which would've been utterly inconceivable a few decades earlier. >Could have easily had been solved by increasing computerization
Computerisation (which they also severely lagged in) isn't going to magick warehouses into existence, or a trucking/rail network to quickly and losslessly get food where it needs to go, on time. It's not going to keep crops from rotting in the fields when the harvesting system staggers, or be noticeably more effective than the other capital investment initiatives that had been done for agriculture. >mostly barren wastes,
Loaded with raw materials in abundance.> they also had to shoulder the burden of rebuilding
That's an exogenous shock, and if you do it right, like Western Europe and Japan did, you rebuild using modern techniques and get better performance than you had before. They got reparations from East Germany, Manchuria, and Korea, and generously rejected the Marshall Plan on behalf of their entire sphere. >trying to maintain defences against an aggressive west
Soviet posture in Germany was oriented around powerful strikes to the Rhine and beyond; NATO posture was not a mirror of that. >you couldn't get this in the west at all
Up to secondary schooling was free everywhere; the cost burden for postsecondary generally wasn't high. Even the US had massive government subsidies for it. >not in a superior degree
It seems to be. Nobody offered a premium for Soviet education.