New-York tribune., 1922-12-16
.W.r Mad" Ewope


reading the figures presented 10 thC
Senate by the State Department CIV
ing the expenditures Of the various
nations for national defense, Az
usual the chief criticism fell upon
"militaristie" France. A casual
glance AZ the table shows apparently
fabulous sums being spent'-pooI
little broken Austria with s47 bil'
lions, Hungary with twenty-six bill.
lions, Czecho-Slovakia with nineteen
billions, etc. AS published these fig
ures give the impression Of a war
mad Europe. But what are these
billions? How many dollars do these
huge sums Of deprecated currency
really amount to7
A fair comparison is between the
sums spent for actual national de-
fense by the two leading nations,
Great Britain and France, and the
corresponding expenditures Of the
United States. Americans know that
their nation is not militaristic; that
its military expenditures have been
reduced as swiftly as possible from
a wartime level, and that It's army
and navy stand to-day at an ex-
tremely low point Of strength and
cost. What is the comparison? Il
shows that all three nations are de-
voting between Is and 20 per cent
Of their budgets TO national defense.
Great Britain leads with a total ex-
penditure on account Of national
defense Of about s7Ao,oOo,0OO. The
United States comes second with
about s56S. 900. 900 and France third
with S4O3, ,0OO,0 900, or If the cost Of
her army Of occupation be deducted
about sS69, 100000.
Tie figures for Great Britain and
France are based on statistics pub
lished by the League Of Nations last
August and cover the 1922 budget
for France and the 1e22-'23 budget
for the United Kingdom. In the
foregoing totals they have been re-
dueed 70 dollars on the basis Of ~
cents per franc and SAB per pound
sterling, the mean rate Of exehange
for the year 1922 to date. In tae
case Of the United States the hsesl
yesr 1929 Is used.
Inasmuch as no two nations have
the same System Of accounting nor
list identical items under the
heading ARMY and Navy Appro-
priations," such comparison is sub
ject TO certain discrepancies In de-
tail. But the broad facts are fairly
represented by these totals. The
ite-1 n he cost Of the army Of occu'
pauon is q case in point In the
British and American figures this
Charge relatively small one-ii
included. In the French figures the
Rhine army cost approximstes S40,-
00O, 900. All these services are per
formed at the cost Of Germany, In
connection with the enforcement o.
the peace terms, for the benefit Of
the Allies.
France, with her vulnerable east.
ern frontier, must depend upon heI
army for her first line Of defense
Just as Great Britain and the United
States depend upon their navies
Frances army burdens are, there
fore. considerable. Despite this fac
her army charges are only s27Ss
100000, exclusive Of the army ol
occupation, compared with s27o,
600 900 for the United States anC
/ $363, 900 900 for the United King
dom. II, the army Of occupation
charge be added Frances arm!
budget is about ssl9,o0o,oOO. Tx
naval expenditures for the thre'
nations are: Great Britain, s307,
900, 900; United States, s29e,oOO.
600; France. $4,000, 900.
Thus the mythical billions spen
BY "war-madp Europe fade int
very moderate expenditures. Tn
United States. separated from tn
nations Of Europe and Asia by al
ocean east and west, Is seen 70 b
spending from two-hfths 70 three
hfths more Cor defense than l
France, with deadly enemies at he
gates. Is it not time that tn
phariseea ~ Auerica ceased thil