it's fair compared to the standard solution of fully cutting the value in half making everyone lose half their money for good or the other alternative of politicans not making necessary unpleasant decisions and in turn making everyone lose their savings, rent and more through a hefty inflation

is it grate, no, obviously not

but it probably the best thing they could do, or at lest relatively close to it

like ware economics are tricky as while they boost economy, especially on paper, they also hollow out a countries economical foundation and avoiding a huge crash when transitioning to peace economy is really really hard

I mean why do you thing the US government helped rebuild (west) Germany after WW2? Good will? German immigrants insisting on it? Maybe on personal level, but not really on governmental decision making level. But what it did was to help them avoid a huge post war economy crash by directing overproduction/monetary value from the US into west Germany. (It also helped in the cold war to not have a weak potentially failing state at the border to the Soviet union, helped geopolitical, and gave them a very huge influence in Europe for decades to come, much much more then they otherwise would ever have been able to get. So a win win win for everyone involved. Still moving monetary value from the US out of it to avoid a huge post ware economy crash was a huge part of it. Through you could argue the US is permanent stuck in a partial war economy and as such their move from war economy wasn't to peace economy but to partial war economy and as such less dangerous, but that is a totally different topic.)

Not everything which is necessarily and in context of the issues of a specific time one of the more fair solutions is fair in other times or good, or liked. But taking things out of context never helped.