The problem of using these examples second world countries "pulling one up by their bootstraps" to parallel the situation in third world countries is that they are not similar examples. In East Germany rapid development had less to do with a collective willingness amongst the people but important changes in Soviet policy and massive aid from West Germany. These countries all succeeded because of favourable lending and generous aid from wealthy countries. The success of German independence has less to do with German spirit for change than it did with a marked change in soviet policy. By 1989 Gorbachev has decided that no longer would Russian tanks stop eastern bloc domestic changing. In both Hungary and Czechoslovakia the government had decided to not shoot their own people but instead listen to their demands for change. This happened during the Prague spring in 1968 and for over half a year a new government was installed and reforms were made to implement a more democratic version of communism. This was answered by Czechoslovakia being invaded, the government overthrown, and a more repressive one installed. This was the official policy to any country that moved away from the soviet model and the only reason why this did not happen in Eastern Germany was because the soviet decided to stop propping eastern bloc governments. Once the East Germans realized that the government no longer had soviet assurances the entire situation changed.

When unification occurred it had been a dream for 45 years in Germany and being one of the richest countries in the world they were more than able to fulfill it. The East German economy went into a serious recession but by pouring billions of marks into the east it was able to raise roughly to the same quality of life as the west. All the countries you mentioned succeeded because there was the political willingness within the country but more importantly rich foreigners were waiting eagerly to invest, give aid, and develop the country.

Eastern Europe and the Baltic do not have the same history as Africa or other third world countries. The soviet domination of these countries seems to unjust because it goes against their long history of independence. When the eastern bloc crumbled there were many western Europeans who felt a collective fraternity with the Baltic and eastern European people and were willing to forgo profit in the name of nation of building. All these nations you mentioned are all now part of the European Union. They have succeeded because there has been genuine change from within but also largely because there has been a financial system set up that is highly favorable to their development.

The way that the EU has treated Greece has been despicable but that is because it has been the exception in EU policy. Most loans in the European Union have been highly favourable to the borrowers in the idea that it is in the best collective interest for each country to succeed. The loans against Greece have been criticized because they are no longer being treated as a European partner but administrated in a way akin to structural adjustment programs of the IMF. The SAPs are one of the only third world countries can raise revenue for nation buildings. The loans have large stipulations attached to them that east bloc countries did not have upon joining the EU.

There does have to be changes internally but these countries to succeed but we also have to realize that the global economic system is unfavourable for their development. The lending programs that raised Western Europe after the Second World War and Eastern Europe after the cold war have never been available to third world countries. Third world countries are not defined by their poverty but instead their non-aligned status. Since the end of the cold war there has been less willingness to altruistically help third world countries because they are no longer valued and courted as potential allies against communist aggression. There does have to be changed from within and this is not a question with easy answers but they are not comparable the rapid rise of east bloc countries. The four Asian tigers also had rapid development but that was also because of massive loans and aid from the west to protect against the specter of communism. All the successes of rapid development since the end of the Second World War have been the product of massive aids and loans that are not available to the third world.