" 
 :::*You fucking racist idiot, the very fact that it was only ~100bn and that had been so delayed and it had been given under such conditions is the very point of it being negative for the interests of Greek people, tipping the scale enomoursly for the interests of the creditors, even that is, if one limits oneself to a framework of a supposedly, a so called mutually agreed upon, amicable agreement and exclude a Grexit etc..Has for example the Greek debt become sustainable after and because of the program? Fuck no! It's even worse! (It's e.g. more or less the same in absolute terms and has skyrocketed in relative ones.) Have the consecutive DSAs (and assumptions thereof etc.) been reasonable or even sincere? Fuck no! (Even the supposedly achievable end-result of the program(s) would be e.g. a debt level equal to the one Greece entered the crisis with in the first place!) And so on and so forth. 
 ::::Note: the interests of the European taxpayers have indeed been sacrificed, be they Greeks only if one refers to them only, cause Greek taxpayers belong to the set of the European taxpayers, or Greeks and Germans and..., cause among things European (or rather EZ) taxpayers in general have been lending Greece more and more, again and again money to pay the banks etc., kicking the can of the Greek insolvency further down the road and making thus things worse.Note: I won't even bother to comment on the Greek entry into the EZ. There are plenty of arguments, facts and citations available at the relevant section you have to deal with and argue against if you could... 
 :::* 
 ::::Even if common sense sided with you, which it doesn't, it very often sucks in economics, especially during macroeconomic crises; watching someone supposedly teaching ex cathedra others economics by invoking ""common sense"" is very commonly guaranteed to be ludicrous. The conditions for example you've stated are not necessarily unsustainable by themselves for a country nor do they necessarily require the changes you're alluding to; they're missing for example the context of the debt being mostly external, for all practical purposes in a foreign currency because of the monetary union, and that they've followed a global crisis which caused a sudden stop to the capital inflows to this country (and to other countries of said monetary union); capital flows and stops/flights in a very flawed monetary union that have in fact been repeatedly regarded by many scholars, economists, analysts,... as the very cause of the problem/crisis itself in the first place.That means even if common sense dictates something true, it does not follow that it dictates what you're claiming it does.Greece for example could have unilaterally defaulted and exited the EZ and then dealt with a different set of consequences and problems. Or Germany and the rest of the surplus North could have reflated or differentially inflated in relation, with respect to the South/Periphery making the adjustments needed by or the austerity demands on Greece and the rest of the South/Periphery much softer, much milder. Or the austerity dictated on Greece could have been much less or much more frontloaded. And so on and so forth.The relevant decision tree or game has thus many (more) branches, nodes, paths etc., the possible worlds, the alternative possibilities are virtually endless compared to the specific and supposedly necessary story and sequence of events you're advocating. 
 :::*The very reason I've been arguing for a proper context and/or against a simplistic and misleading definitive bullet list or summary of causes etc. or ... (against which I have to remind you, cause for some strange reason it seems that you've forgotten, others have argued too) is exactly because Wikipedia is supposed to present a NPOV, to present the scientific, scholarly, etc. consensus view or as many views as possible, if there is no consensus on the subject at hand. I've cited and quoted e.g. at least one such respectable source that argues that Greek interests have been sacrificed in favour of the one of the creditors. That means that this has to be included. If other such sources disagree on this or even claim that e.g. it was not the Greek but rather the German or the Danish or... the Martian interests that have been sacrificed, or that ..., that's fine, let them be included too, as some of them , for that matter, presently are, and as and about which for example I've have congratulated and thanked Danish Expert, inspite of, that is, my different view on the subject.There are many POVs in such a complex, multifaceted and long issue, that's what I've saying from the beginning. So what I can't allow you to do, be it as an interested