Evening star., 1952-02-05
Arms and the KremIin

Despite it's ceaseless self -glorincation as q
land that is working only on peaceful tasks
designed to promote Utopian living standards
for its people, the Soviet Union is in fact de-
voting most Of Its energy and substance to its
huge and ever-expanding military machine.
The latest evidence on that score has just been
supplied by the United Nations Economic COM
mission for Europe, and 1t Is evidence that
leaves no room for doubt as to which Of the
worlds major powers takes first prize for con-
centrating on guns and forgetting about butter.
81 Thus, in it's annual survey of European
economies, the U. N. commission has reported
that approximately n per cent OF Russia's 1851
..gross investment" money spent on plants
equipment, etc. was poured into ornaments and
other military channels figure per cent
higher than the total for 1850 BY way Of con-
trast in terms of the proportion OF national re-
sources expended in that manner, our American
outlay last year and the year before was about
10 per cent s39 per cent, respectively, less
than the Soviet Unions.
Such comparisons, however, can at best give
only an extremely rough approximation Of the
relative magnitude Of the American and Russian
efforts. For the U. Ms figures, because Of the
Iron Curtain surrounding the Soviet economy,
are perforce based in large part on guesswork
S0C0oWOA0S 0AV@AO<AGAA
Gated, must be regarded as something involving
a considerable margin Of error, with the error
probably tending to give too conservative q
picture too low an estimate. Of the true scale
Of the Kremlin's military investment Plainly
enough, since the Stain dictatorship Is almost
pathologically secretive with its production
statistics, there is simply no accurate way Of
measuring its program against our own guns
butter operations to achieve massive re-
armament without materially affecting our
extremely high output of consumer goods.
Nevertheless, although 1t is thus impossible
to figure out precise comparative evaluation
Of what we and the Russians are doing, we can
be sure Of this much: That the men of the
Kremlin. are holding down civilian output to q
cruelty low level and that their armament
spending buys much more than ours does In
quantity If not in quality. Among other things,
material costs, wage scales and working standards
in the Soviet Union are not even remotely as
high as in the United States. The people over
there, who have one Of the most miserable living
standards In the world. are poorly paid for what
they produce, and millions Of them are literally
slave laborers. So it IS not surprising in the
circumstances that their dictatorship can pro-
cure military personnel and equipment at an
estimated rate Of or 10 cents for every dollar
We put out for the same purpose.
All this helps to explain why the Soviet
Union. besides maintaining BY far the biggest
land force tn existence, apparently is well ahead
of us at present ia turning out things like tanks
and planes: Although rs productive capacity
In steel OIL electric power, etc, Is still dwarfed
sby that Of the United States ither alone 81
III combination with free Europe e has con-
tnued to hold the lead III the Held of corven-
uonal military power. The reason it has done
50 IS not only that 1t made point Of staying
strong while the West disarmed during the early
postwar years, but also that It has since ruth
lessly put guns before butter by placing its
civilian economy on very short rations.
OF course, assuming that our present pro-
gram Of mutual defense is carried forward with
out letup, we and our Allies will in time
outstrip the Russians in preparedness Mean
while, however, as the U. N. economic report
has shown, the size of the Soviet Unions military
investment is so great, and its grip on its ex-
plotted people so firm, that there Is not the
slightest reason to feel complacent about the
free worlds vast productive superiority. Clearly,
until that superiority is translated into COM
mensurate armed power In being, our side win
continue to be In danger.