posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 10:44 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58
I know the English loan was paid off but I can't say the same for the other countries that loaned of the US
Naturally the damage in the old world was immensly more than anything ever seen before and a lot of financial aid and dedication was needed to get
those lands back up to scratch.
I also believe my point still stands that it was in the US best interest to make sure Europe was rebuilt, I have personally worked with (American) log
cutters that most likely ended up in England because of those deals set out, everything loaned came back one way or another.
Also with WW2 a lot of the worlds food supply as well as resources and products were in serious demand, the US economy was the biggest holder of these
comodities with plenty to spare.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is:
1 Yes the USA supplied Europe (at interest)
2 It was strategic more than aid
3 The USA did not rebuild Europe but rather gave all the tools so Europe can do it themselves.
I personally see no problem with what the US done infact it was quite a gesture to make, all the loans were 2% too I believe. You supplied everything
we needed and gave aid when needed but you did not rebuild Europe as far as I ever knew.
As to not be too far off topic
Starvation was a massive problem through-out Europe maybe this is why war prisoners died on such a large scale after the war for instance; rationing
was still done in the UK till 1952-53.... maybe prisoners were last on the list for food. But if food was genuinely stopped from getting to prisoners
of war when it was clearly for them then that is just wrong.
Look up the rights of passage that the red cross had in WW2
Never let judgement get in the way of our humanity