GERMAN ARMAMENT

Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 142, 17 June 1936, Page 25

GERMAN ARMAMENT

HER RECENT EXPEXDI-

TUBE

EVIDENCE OF STATISTICS

In a letter in your columns Miss Eleanor Rathbone, M.P., alleges as a fact that "Germany spent £600,000,000 to £800,000,000 on re-armament in 1935 alone; perhaps £1,500,000,000 from 1935 to 1936, much of it secretly, while -the Disarmament Conference was still sitting," adding that the object has been "prestige" and "the annihilation of France," writes a correspondent in the "Manchester Guardian." And in her view public opinion, "misconceiving the facts," is "throwing its weight on the wrong side." Presumably she can produce some proof or authority for her alleged "facts"; meanwhile,] however, may I be allowed to adduce grounds for doubting them?

It is, of course, unquestionable that in recent years Germany has spent considerable sums on re-armament. And in its "Commercial History of 1935," published on February 15 last, the "Economist" says of Germany that "the recovery of trade, which began in 1932, proceeded at a slackened pace and was, in general, marked only in . trades favoured by re-armament and public-work schemes." Yet, as I shall proceed to show, an examination of Germany's industrial statistics for the past three years affords no evidence that she has spent on re-armament anything like the colossal sums alleged by Miss Rathbone. The expenditure of £1,500,000,000 in three years by any country upon armaments would involve such prodigious industrial effort as could not be hidden, and it would assuredly be reflected in some unmistakable way somewhere in the country's finances or industrial statistics. For the sum in question is nearly twice the present total annual revenue of Great Britain, 50 per cent, greater than the whole of the capital sunk in British railways, and more than three and a half times greater than the capital sunk in all the authorised gas and electricity undertakings throughout Great Britain put together, and it would have built and armed about 180 35,000-ton battleships or 200 Queen Marys. OCCUPATIONS. The present population of Germany is 67,000,000, comprising 33,000,000 males, of whom 22,500,000 are between the ages of 15 and 65 years; and after deducting 2,500,000 unemployed we are left with at most about 20,000,000 employable and employed males. Of these 5,650,000 are engaged in agriculture, about 8,000,000 in industry, another 4,000,000 in trade and transport, and the remaining 2,350,000 mostly in professional and official occupations. Now, supposing as Miss Rathbone avers, £1,500,000,000 had been expended upon armaments during the past three years, at a progressively increasing rate—or (say) £300,000,000 in 1933, £500,000,000 in 1934, and £700,000,000 in 1935—and that the average wage of a skilled industrial worker was Rm.2000 per annum (or equivalent to £160 at the current rate of exchange), as officially given for 1935, then it would have meant the full-time employment of no less than WOO,OOO ■ men in 1933, 3,125,000 men in 1934, and 4.375,000 men in 1935. At the beginning of the period the official 'unemployment" figure was 4,000,000 and at the end thereof 2,500,000 persons, showing that the industrial revival, which Germany had experienced in common with other nations, had absorbed about 1,500,000 unemployed. So, if Miss Rathbone's allegation is true, there must have been, during the three years in question, such a prodigious transfer of employment of useful commodities for general consumption to that of unconsumed armaments as would have resulted, especially during 1935, in a marked shrinkage in the quantity of goods sold in German shops. Yet, although during 1935 (to quote the "Economist's" review) "the pace o recovery in wholesale trade slackened and in retail trade almost cease °' there was no evidence of any such shrinkage. materials needed. Again, the manufacture of armaments involves chiefly coal, iron, copper, nickel, etc. When finally incorporated into a battleship and its armament a ton of steel will have cost altogether about £230, and, though less for other forms of armament, the average final cost of steel incorporated in them will probably be something of the order of £150 per ton. So if in 1935 Germany had really spent as much as £700,000,000 on armaments probably something between 2,000,000 and 3 000,000 tons of steel would have been involved, the larger proportion of which would not have been ordinary mild steel sections but crucible steel and special steel forgings or castings. And any abnormally large armament production would assuredly be reflected in the outputs of the last-named products. Bearing such considerations in mmd, and that from the post-war "boom year of 1929, when 're-arma-ment" was certainly not at all in the air, iron and steel productions slumped the world over to exceptionally low figures in 1932-33, since which they have steadily recovered, the following comparative figures for (a) Great Britain and (b) Germany and the Saar may be cited as significant in regard to the point at issue:— OUTPUTS OF PIG IRON, STEEL, AND STEEL FORGINGS (million tons), (a) GREAT BRITAIN. 1929. 1932. 1933. 1534. 1935. Pig-iron ... T. 59 3.57 4.13 5.97 6.42 Steel 9.63 5.26 7.02 8.85 9.84 StCel forgings 0.243 0.103 0.14S 0.212 0.261 (b) GERMANY AND THE SAAR. PiE-lron . 15.5 5.28 6.85 10.56 12.65 Steel 18.45 7.23 9.28 13.86 16.15 Steel forgings 0.258 0.115 0.144 0.259 0.337 NO MARKED DIFFERENCE. Such figures suggest no more than that in both cases (a) and (b) iron and steel productions had slumped heavily between 1929 and 1932, but had since substantially regained the ground lost, more so in Great Britain than in Germany. Indeed, except that in both 1934 and 1935 the German production of steel forgings went somewhat ahead of ours, there is nothing suggestive of any marked difference in "armament" production in the two countries. Finally, as supporting this view, the following figures for the total German production of crucible and electric steel and steel castings for the years 1913 (pre-war), 1917 (mid-war), 1929, and 1934 (both post-war) respectively might be cited: — GERMAN PRODUCTIONS OP CRUCIBLE AND ELECTRIC STEELS AND STEEL CASTINGS. (Million tons.) 1913 0.536 1929 0.484 1917 1.841 1934 0.498 These are my reasons for doubting Miss Rathbone's alleged "facts" regarding the extent of recent German ire-armament. Will she oblige by givjing the evidence which she presumably has for them? i —————