Hardly a fair example, both West Germany and South Korea were propped up by the richest countries on the planet who either owned or controlled most of the worlds resources and at the same time were actively encouraging the downfall of the east and north counterparts.
And North Korea and East Germany were also propped up by their ideological leaders.
???? So where do all these east block billionaires come from? Sorry but please get real, the people were poor because of those nasty people from the west made the west Germans look rich. They were poor because socialism is a pyramid scheme and it doesn't work unless you are at the top. And not just regarding "riches" either, oppression, violence, all veiled and sugar coated under the banner of socialism.
https://www.avforums.com/attachments/img_0377-jpg.877476/
So you admit that capitalist countries were so successful they could prop up others? Nice one.
That was never true socialism, just your common or garden totalitarianism, which always masquerades under some political/religious ideology.
- there's more socialism going on in all modern liberal social democracies such as the UK
True socialism will never work because of one fundamental, Human nature will always have winners and losers. Therefore some will be more equal than others.
So you are saying that individual leaders wallets had a chance against the richest countries & corporations on the planet?
Could the east block billionaires be thieves that stole the wealth after the collapse?And there was no need to apologise for not understanding my point 
A better comparison would be the local greengrocer trying to compete with an already established Tesco, but why are you assuming that me stating that using them two countries was not a fair example is me admitting to anything?It comes across like you see discussion as a competition 
Are you kidding?
They were both supported by very large, resource rich countries.
The two socialist halves of these countries supported by socialist countries ended up much poorer than the capitalist halves of those countries.
If your argument is that the capitalist system was richer and better able to provide support, then you're pretty much making my point for me.
To me it is like a startup greengrocer in the local market trying to take on an already established & aggressive Tesco's.