The Washington herald., 1921-11-21

Back of the question Of popula-
ton growth. need for food and raw
materials, as causes of conflict be-
tween nations lies the influence of
international finance. Struggles over
rights to territory have in recent
years become relatively less impor-
tant as compared with the none
tary balance of trade. Modern war
has become such a tremendously
expensive method of settling dis
putes that in it's last analysis the
present worldwide interest in the
prevention of war is to quite a de-
gree a financial interest.
1t Is commonly asserted that the
international bankers may prevent
or stimulate a war as they desire.
and further. that they are the ones
who most greatly profit thereby.
There is proof of both sides of the
question, some to show that bank
ers have urged diplomats to action
which has resulted in war and other
PROOF that conflict has been avoided
because one of the parties could
not afford it. Viewed in a broad
way. the leading nations are now In
a position where they could hardly
aHord another great war.
The primitive method of collect
ing the cost of the war or conquest
from the victim has been abandoned
by reason of the fact that the vic
tim in many instances has not pos
sessed the means to recompense the
victor. Probably the best example
at hand is the case of Germany in
the present war. who Is able to
make reparation for but a small
part of the cost.
The prospect of war influences
international bankers to be con-
stantly preparing for 1t and to be
the first consulted when there is
any serious thought of starting
diplomatic argument which may re-
suit in break. The gross cost OF
the world war has been estimated
to be over s20s,405 900. 600. of which
about $22, 1000, 900. 900 was in the form
of advances to allies by various of
the participants. leaving a net cost
of more than $4,000. 900, 900. This
cost was SO vastly greater than that
of any conflict in the past and the
materials of war have become so
increasingly expensive that it Is
difficult to contemplate what the
probable cost of another great war
would be. 1t was thought at times
that the financial machinery would
break down before the present war
was completed, but evidently we
have not yet reached the limit of
" ~ ~ fG ,h
During the present generation at
least the lesson of the cost of war
will probably be remembered, but
international finance and national
debt is vague thing to the average
citizen except as 1t is expressed in
the form of taxes. If the universal
policy were adopted to pay off ma
| tional Indebtedness within rea-
sonable time through taxation, the
lesson might not be forgotten, but
the general tendency appears to be
to carry national debts along and
10 regard interest charges only as
the part to be met by current taxa
ton. In the past increases in ma
tional wealth in most of the great
warning countries have been at a
rate that soon offset the national
debt and caused 1t to shrink in i'm
portance comparatively.
Another financial factor which
mas been regarded as influence
against war has been the interna-
tional loans and investments 1t is
estimated that five years before the
great war German investments
abroad amounted to about $1,000 =
100000, and were growing rapidly
Al the same time Great Britain was
estimated to have a total of s14,-
OOO,oOO.O00 in foreign investments
me latter was not altogether in
foreign countries, but some of 1t in
her own colonies, distributed about
as follows: About $4,000, ooO. 900 i'm
the united States and Canada: about
sS'ooo'ooo'OOO in Africa and Austria
IA, with approximately another
s2'OOo,O0O,o00 in Europe and South
America.
The French foreign Investment.
amounting to something like $1,000
ooo'ooo' were more widely scattered
among her colonies and other
countries, Russia leading the LIST
win more than s1.750.0O0, 900. The
foreign investments of the limited
states were much smaller. and
chiefly confined to North ana South
America. anu Sou'h
when the totals of these inter-