A very simple way to finance a war is to increase the public debt: the problem is that you have to win the war, to pay that dept with the "loot" taken from the defeated powers.
If you lose, your population won't obtain its money back [the public debt can be consolidated] and you will have to pay the war expenses of the victors.
Lend-Lease although dwarfing anything else in scale was in essence a subsidy to, i.e the financing, of an ally or friendly power to allow them to fight a war. In the case of the US, to fight a proxy war until they were ready to or had the motivation to participate themselves--both practices as old as organised warfare itself. England and later Britain subsidised allies or at least enemies of enemies in just about every European War from the 100 years war onwards. A full third of Britain's expenditure in WW1 (and most of its post war debt) was subsidies or irrecoverable loans made to co-belligerents. Lend-Lease was not as free as is made out in popular myth--not to Britain and the Empire at any rate as, by the time the Treaty was actually signed, Britain's freedom of action to trade was severely curtailed by US supervision, pre-war trade preferences and protections for the Commonwealth and Sterling bloc were removed and intellectual capital was transferred either freely or at rock bottom price. The real cost of this was only obvious post war and together with Bretton Woods giving the US effective control over British and everyone else's monetary policy provided the "loot" that paid for America's War--not of course on its own: the massive expansion of US industry and agriculture during the war killed off any lingering remains of the Depression and created a prosperity that didn't start winding down for twenty years.
The Marshall Plan was not a wholly altruistic move either.
In the immediate aftermath of the war European economies were moribund, the place was largely smashed flat, infrastructure clapped out and agriculture a fraction of its pre-war norm and three years after the end of hostilities stubbornly refused to recover. For the USA it was no good having 50% of the world's production capacity, the opportunity of free markets for US goods if there was no one to sell to because they had no money. Marshall aid maybe did not cure Europe's doldrums, but certainly was the major driver for European recovery and, not a small advantage, allowed the US to "steer" individual countries economic policy.--So another win.
And now imagine a world where neither Lend-Lease nor the Marshall plan ever existed. Great Britain received BY FAR the most Lend-Lease and Marshall Plan aid during and after the war. Ex post facto carping does you no credit.
Indians are worried about Pakistan because the Government of Pakistan practically means the Pak Army and Pak Army has plenty of trigger-happy generals who would like to avenge three successive defeats in conventional wars.
I was rooting for the British from the “git-go”. So, apparently, were President Reagan and his Secretary of Defense, Casper Weinberger. They let Haig and Kirkpatrick do ther thing but the real substantive aid was on ts way.
yes, there are agreed terms of national sovereignty over any land. It's like the deed to one's house or land, it's just a piece of paper, but then one can still be prosecuted or jailed if one burgles. Saying "i don't care about anti-theft laws" is no defence. Argentina as a nation-state itself recognises the process and claims to sovereign land, even if it disagrees with UK ownership of the Falklands. I'd imagine it would defend its right to own the Pampas if Brazil or Uruguay ever invaded it, using the same "evil" agreements on sovereignty that all nation-states including itself adhere to....
And the only international law is what defines national sovereignty in the first place.
Yeah. Too bad the Argies never owned the Falklands. That might mean something if it were true, but it isn’t. The smallest class in the Falklands High School is a review of Great Argentinian Military Victories.