>
> CB: And it grew faster than the capitalist West had when it first
> grew. And after the Nazis-destruction, they had to "start over" ,
> almost. The Nazis didn't just kill people. They destroyed the economy.
>
> So , the Soviet socialist republic , Stalinism even, was a very
> powerful development model. Just think if they hadn't had to fight off
> and defend against the biggest war attacks and war threats in the
> history of humanity.
>
1) Was there any reason for them to retain their conventional arms superiority other than the domination of central Europe?
2) Isn't it easier to grow quickly after widespread destruction?
3) Has anyone done any models of how they would have grown if they hadn't thrown all that money into conventional arms? Quick napkin math makes it seem like, if investment to growth in the non-military sector were held constant, they could have continued to outgrow the West, but that doesn't factor in diminishing returns, civilian spillage from military research, or any economic benefits of maintaining central Europe.