Carryfast:
Germany had its whole war debt written off by the US we didn’t.
:
Numbers please.
15 billion Marks by 1951 figures just regarding the London Debt Agreement which cancelled half of Germany’s ‘total’ debts both pre WW2 and post WW2.
The remaining repayments were conditional on Germany remaining in trade surplus which explains why Leyland Group was sacrificed particularly the car division.Along with Ford and GM UK in addition to the rest of the UK manufacturing industry.
In addition to the murky issue of UK marshall aid cash being redirected into German industry in the form of ‘foreign investements’.
You know like rebuilding Volkswagen among other smoke and mirrors accounting.When everyone on the ground new and could see that it was new factories and tooling for Germany at our expense.
The truth is the fools running the US government really thought that the Germans would go running to join Stalin with their kameraden in DDR if we didn’t give them everything they wanted and then some.
You really have no idea of the justified bitterness among Brit WW2 vets knowing what was happening to our industries and their jobs in the post war decades and why it was happening.
They weren’t stupid deaf or blind and nor were those of us who regarded them as our mentors and Stokes was one of them.
So tell us where were you actually working during the time in question.Bearing in mind you seem to need and believe Edwardes of all people to tell you how it was.
The same Edwardes who turned Stokes’ plan for an opponent to BMW’s M division into the Triumph Acclaim and who made sure that Leyland was never going to be a threat to the ascendency of the 4th Reich.
The fact is a successful Leyland Group meant a poorer Germany and a net loss to the bankers.You can multiply that across numerous other sectors of UK industry.
Oh God, now we’re talking about 5.0 or 5.4 litre V8s in Granadas, what next? 8 legged racehorses to double their power?
I liked the SD1 styling, very Ferrari Daytona looking. The Vitesse looked the nuts with that big chin spoiler and the BBS style wheels and it was the car to beat in BTCC until the Sierra Cosworth came along, the Sierra being the most successful racing car ever, so it took something a bit special to knock the Rover from it’s throne, not bad for an “abortion” with a live rear axle.
Now let’s compare the SD1 to it’s predecessor, the P6, a run of the mill 3 box saloon, the SD1 was a true advancement, not an evolution, but a different concept altogether, much like the Sierra (again) which revolutionized car design with it’s jelly mold shape, a shape not too dissimilar to the SD1. Rover were actually well ahead of the pack there, unfortunately appalling build quality and poor availability due to industrial action combined with tales of woe from Gordon Honeycomb every night on the news handicapped the SD1 from the word go.
newmercman:
Oh God, now we’re talking about 5.0 or 5.4 litre V8s in Granadas, what next? 8 legged racehorses to double their power?
I liked the SD1 styling, very Ferrari Daytona looking. The Vitesse looked the nuts with that big chin spoiler and the BBS style wheels and it was the car to beat in BTCC until the Sierra Cosworth came along, the Sierra being the most successful racing car ever, so it took something a bit special to knock the Rover from it’s throne, not bad for an “abortion” with a live rear axle.
Now let’s compare the SD1 to it’s predecessor, the P6, a run of the mill 3 box saloon, the SD1 was a true advancement, not an evolution, but a different concept altogether, much like the Sierra (again) which revolutionized car design with it’s jelly mold shape, a shape not too dissimilar to the SD1. Rover were actually well ahead of the pack there, unfortunately appalling build quality and poor availability due to industrial action combined with tales of woe from Gordon Honeycomb every night on the news handicapped the SD1 from the word go.
I think your last paragraph sums it up with poor build quality and constant industrial action , something of which CF has a totally different view to everyone else on. I think the build quality plagued the whole group. You mentioned on another thread that US Volvos don’t have the build quality of the Swedish models maybe it’s the mindset of some countries and their workforces
newmercman:
Oh God, now we’re talking about 5.0 or 5.4 litre V8s in Granadas, what next? 8 legged racehorses to double their power?
I liked the SD1 styling, very Ferrari Daytona looking. The Vitesse looked the nuts with that big chin spoiler and the BBS style wheels and it was the car to beat in BTCC until the Sierra Cosworth came along, the Sierra being the most successful racing car ever, so it took something a bit special to knock the Rover from it’s throne, not bad for an “abortion” with a live rear axle.
Now let’s compare the SD1 to it’s predecessor, the P6, a run of the mill 3 box saloon, the SD1 was a true advancement, not an evolution, but a different concept altogether, much like the Sierra (again) which revolutionized car design with it’s jelly mold shape, a shape not too dissimilar to the SD1. Rover were actually well ahead of the pack there, unfortunately appalling build quality and poor availability due to industrial action combined with tales of woe from Gordon Honeycomb every night on the news handicapped the SD1 from the word go.
Ironically the Sierra Cossie isn’t the best example if you want to make the case for the hideous jelly mould SD1 when Ford suddenly decided that the three box shape was best after all in the form of the Sapphire now predictably the most sought after example of the type.
I thought you was impressed by the idea of a 4.0 litre 32 valve Sprint based V8 ( obviously in the Stag and 2.5 saloon nothing to do with the P6 ).
While the turbocharged 2 litre 4 cylinder screamer might be ok for impressing the clientele at the local McDonalds in Chelmsford or Chingford it’s no competitor to the BMW’s and Mercs of this world at high sustained autobahn speeds.
Which is why BMW dropped its silly little 2.3 4 pot M3 and got on with motors like the S62 V8 in the M5.
Even the M3 eventually ended up with a proper V8 in it.
While the comparison is moot the SD1 turned into the Honda 800 within 4 years of its introduction anyway.Sounds like the name for a motorbike to me.While you seem to have missed the point that it was Triumph which was supposed to be Leyland’s premium performance division not Rover.The emphasis on premium not the Ford market sector.
There was also nothing in that plan which said Rover should join BMC division.
ramone:
I think your last paragraph sums it up with poor build quality and constant industrial action , something of which CF has a totally different view to everyone else on. I think the build quality plagued the whole group. You mentioned on another thread that US Volvos don’t have the build quality of the Swedish models maybe it’s the mindset of some countries and their workforces
So exactly which Leyland products did you actually own and were familiar with in the day ?.
You just wouldn’t see the type of demand and market for surviving examples of JRT products which we’re seeing since if you were right.
Even BMC’s made decent quality cars before exactly the same blueprint of sabotage taking it down market was carried out.
It was the products.There was only one way to assemble the things with the parts provided.
I get the impression that some here aren’t even old enough to have been working in a 1970’s car or truck factory let alone drive the products in the day.JRT products ( pre SD1 ) were more than a match for anything which the Germans made and the Bedford TM was more than a match for Volvo and Volvo knew it.As for the Roadtrain, like the SD1 and Acclaim/800, a deliberate case of sabotage by the bankers with a lot of help from King and Edwardes, not the workers.
So you won and got your Japanese and Chinese work ethic and BMW ( and DAF for a while ) went laughing all the way to the bank.That ended well for the economy.
Carryfast:
Germany had its whole war debt written off by the US we didn’t.
:
Numbers please.
15 billion Marks by 1951 figures just regarding the London Debt Agreement which cancelled half of Germany’s ‘total’ debts both pre WW2 and post WW2.
The remaining repayments were conditional on Germany remaining in trade surplus which explains why Leyland Group was sacrificed particularly the car division.Along with Ford and GM UK in addition to the rest of the UK manufacturing industry.
In addition to the murky issue of UK marshall aid cash being redirected into German industry in the form of ‘foreign investements’.
You know like rebuilding Volkswagen among other smoke and mirrors accounting.When everyone on the ground new and could see that it was new factories and tooling for Germany at our expense.
The truth is the fools running the US government really thought that the Germans would go running to join Stalin with their kameraden in DDR if we didn’t give them everything they wanted and then some.
You really have no idea of the justified bitterness among Brit WW2 vets knowing what was happening to our industries and their jobs in the post war decades and why it was happening.
They weren’t stupid deaf or blind and nor were those of us who regarded them as our mentors and Stokes was one of them.
So tell us where were you actually working during the time in question.Bearing in mind you seem to need and believe Edwardes of all people to tell you how it was.
The same Edwardes who turned Stokes’ plan for an opponent to BMW’s M division into the Triumph Acclaim and who made sure that Leyland was never going to be a threat to the ascendency of the 4th Reich.
The fact is a successful Leyland Group meant a poorer Germany and a net loss to the bankers.You can multiply that across numerous other sectors of UK industry.
The debts were for loans taken out to pay for war damage, nothing else. It allowed Germany to compete on level terms, nothing more. Which it did, nothing more. Compare their lorries of the 1950s and '60s with those of GB, the other European countries and the US. If your arguments carried any weight, the German machines would have been far superior. They were not.
All of the above took place in the immediate post-war years. You can’t blame the Jerries for the Rover SD1 having a live axle.
[zb]
anorak:
The debts were for loans taken out to pay for war damage, nothing else. It allowed Germany to compete on level terms, nothing more. Which it did, nothing more. Compare their lorries of the 1950s and '60s with those of GB, the other European countries and the US. If your arguments carried any weight, the German machines would have been far superior. They were not.
All of the above took place in the immediate post-war years. You can’t blame the Jerries for the Rover SD1 having a live axle.
We also had war WW1/2 damage.Where were our debts written off to the tune of 15 billion Marks.
You also conveniently missed the bit that Germany’s repayments were conditional on it remaining in trade surplus.Another luxury we didn’t have obviously because for Germany to have trade surplus with us and the US meant a trade deficit with Germany for us.
The content of the articles is clear in that regard.
Yes the Rover had a live axle because BMW and Merc used semi trailing arm IRS just like Triumph.
So that competition obviously had to go.
Followed by rear wheel drive soon after.
We can bet that DAF also fit into the same plan some how and that’s why the TL12 ended up in the Roadtrain instead of RR.
Carryfast:
Germany had its whole war debt written off by the US we didn’t.
:
Numbers please.
15 billion Marks by 1951 figures just regarding the London Debt Agreement which cancelled half of Germany’s ‘total’ debts both pre WW2 and post WW2.
The remaining repayments were conditional on Germany remaining in trade surplus which explains why Leyland Group was sacrificed particularly the car division.Along with Ford and GM UK in addition to the rest of the UK manufacturing industry.
In addition to the murky issue of UK marshall aid cash being redirected into German industry in the form of ‘foreign investements’.
You know like rebuilding Volkswagen among other smoke and mirrors accounting.When everyone on the ground new and could see that it was new factories and tooling for Germany at our expense.
The truth is the fools running the US government really thought that the Germans would go running to join Stalin with their kameraden in DDR if we didn’t give them everything they wanted and then some.
You really have no idea of the justified bitterness among Brit WW2 vets knowing what was happening to our industries and their jobs in the post war decades and why it was happening.
They weren’t stupid deaf or blind and nor were those of us who regarded them as our mentors and Stokes was one of them.
So tell us where were you actually working during the time in question.Bearing in mind you seem to need and believe Edwardes of all people to tell you how it was.
The same Edwardes who turned Stokes’ plan for an opponent to BMW’s M division into the Triumph Acclaim and who made sure that Leyland was never going to be a threat to the ascendency of the 4th Reich.
The fact is a successful Leyland Group meant a poorer Germany and a net loss to the bankers.You can multiply that across numerous other sectors of UK industry.
The debts were for loans taken out to pay for war damage, nothing else. It allowed Germany to compete on level terms, nothing more. Which it did, nothing more. Compare their lorries of the 1950s and '60s with those of GB, the other European countries and the US. If your arguments carried any weight, the German machines would have been far superior. They were not.
All of the above took place in the immediate post-war years. You can’t blame the Jerries for the Rover SD1 having a live axle.
[zb]
anorak:
You can’t blame the Jerries for the Rover SD1 having a live axle.
You can if you’re CF
You can if you realise the implications of a deal which says that Germany’s already reduced debt repayments were conditional on Germany maintaining a trade surplus.You know like the banks need people to buy German not British or they don’t get their money back.
Then also invest loads in German industry win win.
The last thing the bankers wanted was a Brit BMW 5 series competitor, let alone a V8 powered M535/M5 competitor, in the form of the still good looking three box styled, semi trailing IRS, Triumph, already established before the 5 series even hit the roads.
Bonus points if Rover and Triumph could be taken downmarket to the point of no longer being relevant to their respective customer base = more BMW or GM and Ford Germany customers and Ford and GM UK production could then be transferred to Ford and GM Germany.
As for the stupid Americans let’s now close down GMC trucks and flog it to the Swedes and let’s make the Taurus American Mondeo.Following the Edwardes MO.
Here ya go CF, which one? The BMW is a 335i X drive, 3.0 turbo, 8spd auto with M performance engine, suspension, brakes, interior and exterior, the Mustang is a 5.0, 6spd manual with the performance package.
[zb]
anorak:
You can’t blame the Jerries for the Rover SD1 having a live axle.
You can if you’re CF
You can if you realise the implications of a deal which says that Germany’s already reduced debt repayments were conditional on Germany maintaining a trade surplus.You know like the banks need people to buy German not British or they don’t get their money back.
Then also invest loads in German industry win win.
The last thing the bankers wanted was a Brit BMW 5 series competitor, let alone a V8 powered M535/M5 competitor, in the form of the still good looking three box styled, semi trailing IRS, Triumph, already established before the 5 series even hit the roads.
Bonus points if Rover and Triumph could be taken downmarket to the point of no longer being relevant to their respective customer base = more BMW or GM and Ford Germany customers and Ford and GM UK production could then be transferred to Ford and GM Germany.
As for the stupid Americans let’s now close down GMC trucks and flog it to the Swedes and let’s make the Taurus American Mondeo.Following the Edwardes MO.
In contrast to my usual flippant stance, I think these points merit respectful questions:
I thought the Marshal Plan was funded from the US Treasury, not from the banks? Even if the US Government borrowed the money from the banks (all money being on a market, from which state and private loans can be made), surely they would guarantee the loan from their own funds? They would get a lower rate, than if the banks were lending money directly to a war-torn wreck of a state?
As I interpret it from your statement, Germany would not have to be massively in surplus with the RoW. As long as it did not go into a debt-funded decline, the lender would be happy. That’s normal, just like paying the mortgage. You can’t get a mortgage on a cardboard box.
By the 1970s, there were numerous competitors to Germany’s car industry. Even if the US Government and/or banks wanted to protect their investment in it by foul means, why would they attack Britain’s car companies? They were knackered anyway. Germany’s engineering industry was far ahead of Britain’s, long before the wars.
newmercman:
Here ya go CF, which one? The BMW is a 335i X drive, 3.0 turbo, 8spd auto with M performance engine, suspension, brakes, interior and exterior, the Mustang is a 5.0, 6spd manual with the performance package.
There’s only ever going to be one choice there and it ain’t the…BMW even though ideally I prefer four doors.
That’s just having developed a strange habit in my old age of stamping on the brake pedal with my left foot for the non existent clutch when driving autos never did it when I was younger, let alone always absolutely hated the things regrdless.Hence the XJ12 with a 5 speed manual.
The Mustang is absolutely savage, it wins hands down on looks and the noise it makes OMFG. On paper it wins on performance and it’s considerably cheaper too. The BMW new was only $3k less than an M3 with all the options it has, I know, there are some strange people about.
However in the real world the BMW is the faster point to point car as it’s performance is easily accessible, the Mustang just wants to kill you! A high speed run in the BMW is effortless, in the Mustang it requires 100% concentration, you get a dry mouth and sweaty hands and are grateful to be alive at the end of the journey.
On the right road on the right day you would have to spend some serious cash to better the Mustang experience, as an everyday car though, the BMW is the better car to drive, but it doesn’t matter which one you buy as there are elements of both that make you wish you’d bought the other, if only you could have both…
I thought the Marshal Plan was funded from the US Treasury, not from the banks? Even if the US Government borrowed the money from the banks (all money being on a market, from which state and private loans can be made), surely they would guarantee the loan from their own funds? They would get a lower rate, than if the banks were lending money directly to a war-torn wreck of a state?
As I interpret it from your statement, Germany would not have to be massively in surplus with the RoW. As long as it did not go into a debt-funded decline, the lender would be happy. That’s normal, just like paying the mortgage. You can’t get a mortgage on a cardboard box.
By the 1970s, there were numerous competitors to Germany’s car industry. Even if the US Government and/or banks wanted to protect their investment in it by foul means, why would they attack Britain’s car companies? They were knackered anyway. Germany’s engineering industry was far ahead of Britain’s, long before the wars.
Firstly it’s clear that repayments based on the condition of trade surplus by definition means that Germany’s industry has to out perform its competitors in terms of both domestic and export sales for those repayments to be made.
Governments have no money only the banks have the money put there by depositors and investors and tax payers.
In the case of Germany it isn’t difficult to understand that a return on German investments and those investments then helping Germany to cover otherwise defaulted debt was a win win for the creditors.
While like wise helping Germany’s competitors was vice versa lose lose.
It’s also obvious that the US was never going to make itself a large European competitor in Germany’s home European markets for that reason.It also thereby obviously had no intention of allowing us to get ahead either.
That’s even before the geopolitical premise that the Germans had to be kept happy to stop the threat of Communism in Europe.
By the 1970’s exactly which European ‘competitors’ and products directly threatened BMW, Mercedes, Opel, and Ford and GM Germany in Europe and in the UK domestic market.
The above explains a lot of what we saw happen.A programme of sabotage by stealth.
Fortunately for Jaguar it wasn’t competing as effectively in the mid range premium sector which the Germans wanted to concentrate on most.With Lyons having luckily bet the farm on XJ6 and XJ12.
But Rover and Triumph were with 2.5 PI, and Rover P6, and some of the Essex products like the Granada Mk1 of Sweeney fame which the Germans would obviously have hated seeing on the tv.
So Rover and Triumph had to go and Ford and GM were transferred.
Taking out our truck manufacturing sector being a bonus.
Don’t you ever think if three box styled rear wheel drive 6 and 8 cylinder mid range premium products were supposedly so bad why did BMW base a business plan on exactly that.
Let alone a new max weight truck design for the 1980’s being lumbered with a 12.4 litre motor capable of no more than 270 hp.When a 12 litre one, with the potential of 400 hp at less engine speed, was handed over by the same government owner as Leyland, to a loose engine supplier. After first going to a firm not usually even connected with commercial vehicle component supply.
newmercman:
The Mustang is absolutely savage, it wins hands down on looks and the noise it makes OMFG. On paper it wins on performance and it’s considerably cheaper too. The BMW new was only $3k less than an M3 with all the options it has, I know, there are some strange people about.
However in the real world the BMW is the faster point to point car as it’s performance is easily accessible, the Mustang just wants to kill you! A high speed run in the BMW is effortless, in the Mustang it requires 100% concentration, you get a dry mouth and sweaty hands and are grateful to be alive at the end of the journey.
On the right road on the right day you would have to spend some serious cash to better the Mustang experience, as an everyday car though, the BMW is the better car to drive, but it doesn’t matter which one you buy as there are elements of both that make you wish you’d bought the other, if only you could have both…
Ideally I want four doors, grew up with there ain’t any substitute for cubic inches, I want three box styling, it absolutely must have a proper manual box with a proper clutch and IRS.
Triumph 2.5 upgraded with 4.0 Rover V8, maybe 4.0 litre 32 valve Triumph V8 to follow and Jag XJ12 with 5 speed manual and then Triumph make the VXR8 before Holden do and let Ford get on with doing what Ford do best volume products is where I see Stoke’s idea of Leyland going.
As opposed to the Edwardes’ reality.
Which leaves the question if Stokes really said Triumph performance division only and Rover executive products only.How did we end up with the Acclaim the 800 and Jaguar running for the hills.More like Heath said this is what I’ve said that you’ve said and I’d rather you didn’t argue about it.
I thought the Marshal Plan was funded from the US Treasury, not from the banks? Even if the US Government borrowed the money from the banks (all money being on a market, from which state and private loans can be made), surely they would guarantee the loan from their own funds? They would get a lower rate, than if the banks were lending money directly to a war-torn wreck of a state?
As I interpret it from your statement, Germany would not have to be massively in surplus with the RoW. As long as it did not go into a debt-funded decline, the lender would be happy. That’s normal, just like paying the mortgage. You can’t get a mortgage on a cardboard box.
By the 1970s, there were numerous competitors to Germany’s car industry. Even if the US Government and/or banks wanted to protect their investment in it by foul means, why would they attack Britain’s car companies? They were knackered anyway. Germany’s engineering industry was far ahead of Britain’s, long before the wars.
Firstly it’s clear that repayments based on the condition of trade surplus by definition means that Germany’s industry has to out perform its competitors in terms of both domestic and export sales for those repayments to be made…
I’ll address the points one at a time. Trade Surplus means just that. A trade surplus of ein pfennig would be sufficient to invoke the clause you quote. By stipulating a trade surplus, you are asking for a guarantee that the firm does not make a loss, that is all. You are not insisting that the competition is driven out of business.
I thought the Marshal Plan was funded from the US Treasury, not from the banks? Even if the US Government borrowed the money from the banks (all money being on a market, from which state and private loans can be made), surely they would guarantee the loan from their own funds? They would get a lower rate, than if the banks were lending money directly to a war-torn wreck of a state?
As I interpret it from your statement, Germany would not have to be massively in surplus with the RoW. As long as it did not go into a debt-funded decline, the lender would be happy. That’s normal, just like paying the mortgage. You can’t get a mortgage on a cardboard box.
By the 1970s, there were numerous competitors to Germany’s car industry. Even if the US Government and/or banks wanted to protect their investment in it by foul means, why would they attack Britain’s car companies? They were knackered anyway. Germany’s engineering industry was far ahead of Britain’s, long before the wars.
Firstly it’s clear that repayments based on the condition of trade surplus by definition means that Germany’s industry has to out perform its competitors in terms of both domestic and export sales for those repayments to be made…
I’ll address the points one at a time. Trade Surplus means just that. A trade surplus of ein pfennig would be sufficient to invoke the clause you quote. By stipulating a trade surplus, you are asking for a guarantee that the firm does not make a loss, that is all. You are not insisting that the competition is driven out of business.
The amount of debt repayments were clearly based on proportionality with the amount of surplus.IE money that Germany had ‘earn’t’ by definition net of trade deficit.Obviously one pfennig of deficit then no payments at all.One pfennig of surplus then one pfennig of repayment.
Your case is looking weaker.Catastrophically so.How long before the case for the prosecution of Stokes collapses.
Edit I’ll quote the article I posted.
‘’ It was agreed that Germany’s repaymemtS could only come out of trade surplus’'.
It’s obvious that one pfennig ain’t going to pay all of those ‘repaymentS’.
‘‘For creditor countries it meant that if they wanted to be repaid they had to buy west German exports.’’ ( Why if meeting the total repayment schedule only meant providing one pfennig over trade balance in Germany’s favour ? ).In which case why the need for trade surplus why not just trade balance would have cut it ?.
‘‘This effectively meant that creditor countries had to restructure their economies as well’’.
( Why if it was only a matter of a pfennig over balance ) ?.
You know like handing Rover and Triumph’s ( and Dagenham’s and Luton’s ) market share to BMW and Ford and GM Germany.
Carryfast:
Edit I’ll quote the article I posted.
‘’ It was agreed that Germany’s repaymemtS could only come out of trade surplus’'.
It’s obvious that one pfennig ain’t going to pay all of those ‘repaymentS’.
‘‘For creditor countries it meant that if they wanted to be repaid they had to buy west German exports.’’ ( Why if meeting the total repayment schedule only meant providing one pfennig over trade balance in Germany’s favour ? ).In which case why the need for trade surplus why not just trade balance would have cut it ?.
‘‘This effectively meant that creditor countries had to restructure their economies as well’’.
( Why if it was only a matter of a pfennig over balance ) ?.
You know like handing Rover and Triumph’s ( and Dagenham’s and Luton’s ) market share to BMW and Ford and GM Germany.
As you present it, it seems that Germany was gifted a cheap loan, with a clause designed to regenerate the shattered country, so that the payments would not be so onerous as to perpetuate the damage caused by the war.
Britain also had a sum from the Marshal Plan, at a peppercorn interest rate, IIRC, from the last time this subject cropped up on here. Were GB’s payments conditional on a trade surplus?
Carryfast:
Edit I’ll quote the article I posted.
‘’ It was agreed that Germany’s repaymemtS could only come out of trade surplus’'.
It’s obvious that one pfennig ain’t going to pay all of those ‘repaymentS’.
‘‘For creditor countries it meant that if they wanted to be repaid they had to buy west German exports.’’ ( Why if meeting the total repayment schedule only meant providing one pfennig over trade balance in Germany’s favour ? ).In which case why the need for trade surplus why not just trade balance would have cut it ?.
‘‘This effectively meant that creditor countries had to restructure their economies as well’’.
( Why if it was only a matter of a pfennig over balance ) ?.
You know like handing Rover and Triumph’s ( and Dagenham’s and Luton’s ) market share to BMW and Ford and GM Germany.
As you present it, it seems that Germany was gifted a cheap loan, with a clause designed to regenerate the shattered country, so that the payments would not be so onerous as to perpetuate the damage caused by the war.
Britain also had a sum from the Marshal Plan, at a peppercorn interest rate, IIRC, from the last time this subject cropped up on here. Were GB’s payments conditional on a trade surplus?
It was actually a 50% debt write off even debt run up between WW’s 1 and 2.
With the remaining 50% payable being conditional on it only being taken from Germany’s trade surplus earnings as I said 1 pfennig of trade surplus one pfennig of repayment.Otherwise no repayments at all.
That’s a lot more than just a cheap loan and obviously no such luxury for us.By Germany’s standard we obviously would have made no repayments.It was clearly a Germany specific deal made to look after Germany at our expense.We effectively repayed America for Germany’s war debts and British industry and its workers paid the price.
