>>3442006>Fucking WEW lad. The comparison was post-war conditions and cold-war conditions in Eastern vs Western Europe you dumb fucking cunt. All of it went through war.Not at all.
80% of the allied casualties were soviets and the rest of the allies made the rest, americans being a small minority.
0.3% of population casualties for US vs 13% for Soviets. That's 43 times more. Zero infrastructure damage to US, while the railways, industrial infrastructure, oil wells of all eastern europe was blown to smithereens.
You can't compare the two. US being a major power even before the war, went through the war relatively unscathed, while europeans were bleeding each other dry.
The "prosperity" of western Europe after the war, was US buying influence and trying to make a showroom of how much better life was on the other side, by siphoning money to Germany and the other allies, while sanctioning the Soviets. In Realpolitik, it was a good plan, seeing the brainwashing still holds strong to this day.
They did the same thing in South Korea that turned from a a bunch of villagers into a showcase for western capitalism. But I guess you believe it was the western values that drove them there, not US funds. If only those western values had turned them so advanced the previous 50 years that ruled the country, before the north overrun them.
They tried the same in Vietnam, only this one didn't work.
And now they tried with Ukraine.
See, the image of the postwar western europe that you saw was artificial to get more countries under US's sphere of influence.
If you don't see this clearly, your view of history and politics is very naive.
>protip: try to find if there exists a correlation between postwar living standards and casualties/population 