THE COST OF KILLING.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 1308, 8 October 1914, Page 4

THE COST OF KILLING.

Few people, if any, when they read of the tremendous losses in the battles of the present war, ever give thought to the question of how much it costs to kill a man in action. In La Science et la Vie, General Percin, of the French Army, states that he read in an American newspaper that to kill a -'Tan iti modern warfare costs in the (ifighi.-jx:. hood ci 15,00 c dollars. “This figure, seeming to me to be excessive,’’ he says, “I sought to veufy it. My results show that really the newspaper was below rather than above the truth. To get at the cost of killing one soldier it is necessary to divide the cost of the war to one of the belligerents by the number ot men killed on the other side. In 1870-71, France spent about two billions ot francs in the actual warfare, and a billion more in restoring its own property and in payments for injuries caused to others, which it is perfectly fair to include in the costs. Then there were five billions for war indemnity, and still two billions more for interest, loss of revenue, and seizure by the enemy lor maintenance during the German occupation. The last may or may not be a r ost in a given war, so that it hau better be left out of the reckoning. In the same way the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78 cost two billion francs to the Turks, and the Russo-Japanese War, 1905, cost the Russians six billions. In the Frauco-Prussiau war there were 28,600 Germans killed or mortally wounded ; in the Russo-Turkish war, 16,600, and in the Russo-Japanese, 58,600, in the latter instances, of Russians and Japanese respectively. From these figures it is evident that the price per man killed to the opposing side was, in 1870-71, £4,200; 1877-78, ,£3,000; and in 19«5> £4,000, all of the figure* m excess of those named in the American journal. I rather expected when 1 undertook this calculation fo 1 hat the costs were increasing. Ou the one side the engines of war cost more as they are perfected. On the other hand, progress in the art of killing is always surpassed by progress in the art of defence. The result is that the ratio of men killed or wounded in actual battle is continually diminishing. This ratio was 6 per cent, under Frederick the Great, 3 percent, under Napoleon, 2 per cent, in 1870, and per cent, in Manchuria. But in 1870 there were not a dozen great battles. The German armies fought little between Froschwiller and Sedan, and the French little between Sedan and Coulmiers. The fight was taken up again in December, but less sharply than at the beginning. During much of the time men did not kill, but the expenses never ceased. In Manchuria, ou the contrary, they fought nearly every day. The battles were long ones, 15 days at Mukden, 12 at Cha-Ho, and 8 at Liao-Yaug. This increase in duration of the battles compensates for the slight loss in any individual hour of the fight. One may see also why the cost of r. man killed is not higher in 1905 than in 1870."