I saw this claim https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3ku09p/in_ww2_who_had_greater_industrial_capacity_the/cv1pzom/?utm_content=permalink&utm_medium=front&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=AskHistorians by /u/Georgy_K_Zhukov that the USA was the only country to come out of World War 2 on a stronger footing than it entered, in part because there was little serious fighting on or over its territory. This led me to wonder why the other countries mentioned in the title did not also experience this growth, since they also did not have serious fighting on their territories. Canada in particular I recall had one of the world's strongest armed forces outside the 3 major allies at the end of the war. I am excluding such nations as Turkey here, which declared war but did almost nothing to fight.
I would simply note that I wrote that years ago, and as with any first draft that is hardly going through a proper editing process to catch small, unclear phrases, it has gone through several revisions and repostings given that it is a fairly common question. I've long since edited that specific statement, as you can see here to be clear that I'm speaking of the major powers (Think basically the 'Big Five', any member of the Axis of course being an afterthought), and any member of the British commonwealth forces - Australia, New Zealand, Canada - or the very minor participants, like Brazil, are not part of that consideration in making the statement, which is, if I had to go dig through the sources again, I believe based off of Kennedy. I would still say that even the minor powers didn't experience the same levels of lasting gains in terms of economic power, but to be sure, somewhere like Canada, which similarly was spared from something like the Blitz, was able to experience little of the downside that anywhere in Europe or Asia did.