> to the British War Cabinet in 1945 [...] we have persuaded the outside world to lend us upwards of the prodigious total of £3,000 million. The very size of these sterling debts is itself a protection. The old saying holds. Owe your banker £1,000 and you are at his mercy; owe him £1 million and the position is reversed.
Curious. That leverage lies in hope of some repayment, yes? But my very fuzzy recollection (surfed a tome on financing WW2 years ago), is the US "loans" were made without informed hope of repayment - it was just politically unacceptable in the US to say that up front. So while there were assorted small post-war repayments (often non-monetary - leases and such), the bulk was written off. Does the size of an unrepayable debt affect negotiations on the size of a token repayment?
Curious. That leverage lies in hope of some repayment, yes? But my very fuzzy recollection (surfed a tome on financing WW2 years ago), is the US "loans" were made without informed hope of repayment - it was just politically unacceptable in the US to say that up front. So while there were assorted small post-war repayments (often non-monetary - leases and such), the bulk was written off. Does the size of an unrepayable debt affect negotiations on the size of a token repayment?