COST OF THE WAR.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 1984, 31 May 1919, Page 3

COST OF THE WAR.

IN MEN, MONEY AND MATERIAL. Various estimates have been made of the cost of the war, but so far none has dealt with the whole of the bill for the whole of the period, says an English writer. Any estimate outside the official figures of the direct cost —that is, the cost as disclosed in votes of credit, subscriptions to loans, and new taxation —must, of course, be largely conjectural; but it is, nevertheless, possible to obtain a fairly approximate idea with regard to the vaguer tiems of material damage and economic disturbance. There is disagreement even about the direct costs, due partly to the absence of figures from some of the belligerent States, and partly to variations of estimate for the armistice period. There is, however; enough accord to justify a general judgment, and a few mil--liims of difference in the reckoning of expenditure, or a difference in the standards of (he economic value of men's lives, will not vitiate the essential quality of that judgment. What is it we mean by “the cost of the war”? Obviously we mean much more than the amount represented by taxes and loans. What may properly be included arc the direct cost of belligerents and neutrals, the value of the property destroyed, the loss in production by the diversion of men from industry to warfare, and the economic value of the lives that have been lost or rendered incapable of any useful/work. Some writers appear to think that the question of cost in complicated by the possibilities of indemnity and reparation, but these have really little to do with it. No act of compensation can lessen the bill; it simply shifts, or partly shifts, the burden from the wronged to those who have done the wrong. Any indemnity paid by Germany to France, for ins j mice, would lessen France’s own liability, but it would not decrease the cost of the war.

FORTY THOUSAND MILLIONS. For arriving at the direct cost of the Avar there are a number of data, more or less useful, but thov do not

• 11 relate to the same periods, nor .do they cover the Avhole of the field. M. Augustin Hara-mon, in his “Lessons. of the \\ orld War,” said a couple of years ago that if the Avar did not cease before, the close of 1918 the total expenditure might grow to as much as £‘29,000,000,000. That cab •iiiation Avas published before the United States came in, and, moreover, it did not make .sufficient alloAvance for expansion in the subsequent rale of expenditure. Mr Joseph Kit chin has prepared an estimate of: the costs “based on Avhat they Avould haAm been if actual hostilities had lasted until the end of July next.” For eight months of that period the expenditure in armistice conditions Avill he considerably less than it Avould lniA r e been if lighting had continued, and for this reason Mr Kitchin’s estimates of £38,915,000,000 for all (he belligerents may be a little too high. On the other hand, it has to be remembered that neutrals have been obliged, in view of. possibilities, tp spend large sums of money in defensive preparations, and avc shall probably not exaggerate if we put doAvn the total direct cost up to the signing of peace at not: loss than £40,000,000,000. This total is also arrived at by the Federal Reson’e Board of Washington. It cannot, of course, be vouched for, but it is believed to be substantially correct. We have, at least this indisputable fact to go upon, that the public debts of tlio Entente and Allied countries have groAvn since August, 1014, from £4,505,000,000 to £25,350,000,000; and those of (he Central PoAvers from £1,210,000,000 to £14,050,000,000; the increase for all the belligerents, but not im-luding neutrals, being £34,225,000,000. From this sum, however, sltould be deducted the British loans to the Allies and Dominions, and to it there ought to be added the Avar debts of the German States; but these adjustments do not by a. jot affect the relation of national debts to the question of Avar costs. It may be fairly assumed that the figure of £40,000,000000 of direct cost, Avitii its consequent and inevitable burden on (lie next two generations; is approximately accurate.

When we come to the subject of material damage, any satisfactory assessment is much more difficult. In the absence of official surveys, it must lie purely conjectural. What we do know, however, of the havoc uiought in I 1 ranee and Belgium warrants conjecture on the big scale. Other countries—Poland, Lituhania, Eastern Prussia, the Bukovina, Galicia, Serbia, Roumania, Macedonia, the Trentino, and our own East Coast —have also suffered severely. M. Hamon put this devastation down at 2,000 millions, but that was before the last great drive of Marshal Foeh, ' in the course of which the* enemy burnt or blew up every town and village through which he retreated. Fifty per cent, might perhaps be now added to M. Hamon’s figure without exposing it to the charge of exaggeration. Then there is the incalculable loss caused by the removal of pro-, ductive plant, the forced suspension of industry, the interference with the world’s: overseas commerce, the disorganisation of the world’s industry .and finance, ard -.-productiveness, for the time beirfg, of the 50,000,000 men engaged in military and other duties connected with the war or hold iu readiness for warfare. \ CLASSIFICATION OF COSTS. Take the last of these items, and

let it be supposed that only half the number were taken from industrial occupations. Let it be further supposed, in the interests of moderation, that their average productive power over and above the costs of material, labour*, etc., was not more than £25 a year, also that their average period of purely military duties was limited to two years; this -would give us a loss of £SO per man, or 1,250 millions in all. Then there is the capital value of the killed and permanently disabled. Without counting Belgium, Serbia, Japan, and Portugal, the losses in killed were over 5,500,000, and the number of wounded incapable of returning to any occupation from 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 more. Altogether it seems fair to reckon that not fewer than 9,000,000 men between the ages of 18 and 48 have been sacrificed. If we put their average earnings down at no more than 20s a week and their average probability of life’at only ten years,. we get an economic loss of 4.680 millions. This is to value each n an, taking one with another, at £520, whereas some economists put. it as high as £I,OOO. There is the further consideration that the great majority of these victims, if not all of (hem, were potential taxpayers, and that their removal puts a heavier burden on those who are left. We may now sum up these classifications of cost. We have 40,000 millions for direct cost, ■ 3,000 millions for material damage, 1,250 millions, for loss of production, and 4,680 millions as the economic value of the lost; and disabled lives, making altogether nearly 50,000 millions. As a set-off against: the possibility of some overlapping, we may put the indirect costs of diminished trade and financial disturbance. £50,000,009.000, as Momitio said, “is enough; ’twill serve,” fur it is aboui: a-half of the aggregate prewar wealth of the four richest countries —the United S:.;!cs, the Un;te;l Kingdom, German, and France. THE MORAL RECOMPENSE.

From the point of view of ordinary accountancy, the scale kicks !he beam. It is a balance-sheet* ith nothing on the credit side. The material costs are enormous, the material assets are nil. At the very bast the result is a mnr Imlf-nemiy-worth of bread to an intolerable deal of sack. Vast sums have been used for sheer destruction; vast

mibiie debts have been incurred for which there is no corresponding ■properly. Throughout 1 wo-t birds of the world the work of useful production Ims hem. suspenoed during four years, and its place lias been taken by product km for the sP-vF-.-ter of human lives and the annihilation of accumulated wealth. Millions of men have been killed, thousands of millions of pounds have been wasted in order to kill them, towns and villages and smiling homesteads have been swept out of existence, great vessels laden with precious cargoes have been seat to the bottom of the sea, and against all this there is nothing to be sgt that can be reckoned in economic values. But J here is a moral asset lo be taken into account. We may, at least, hope that we have put an end for ever lo the danger of Prussian militarism; but precious though such a consummation may be, it in an insufficient return for such huge and almost intolerable saerilices. If out of the ruins and hecatombs of the last four years there arises a new, brighter and happier world, then the billions that have been spent will not all have been spent in vain. Without such a denouement the world will be bankrupt of hope as well as of money.