No. 266.
Mr. White
to Mr. Evarts.
Berlin, March 15, 1880. (Received April 1.)
Sir: Supplementing my dispatch (No. 82) of January 23, last, I have the honor to inform you that, on the 9th instant, at the first sitting of the Reichstag committee on the bill extending and modifying the provisions of the Imperial military law of May 2, 1874, a discussion occurred which materially enhances the importance of the measure. The sitting lasted five hours, and was exclusively occupied with the first paragraph of the bill, which fixes the peace strength of the army at 427,274 men instead of at 1 per cent, of the population of Germany in 1874 (as during the last six years), for the seven years from April 1, 1880, to April 1, 1888.
The minister of war, and gentlemen who represent the government, stated that a material point in favor of the German troops at the outbreak of the war in 1870 was their numerical superiority over the French, who, at that time, had only 260,000 combatants: but that since then the French army has become larger than that of Germany. Each army has been increased by about 143,000 men. In the case of France, however, where the period of military service is longer, the army on a war footing outnumbers the German army on a similar footing by at least 200,000 men. To this must be added the advantage France possesses in having fewer large fortresses to garrison, making the total superiority of the French army 250,000 men. In this comparison the possibility of a Franco-Russian alliance is, of course, not taken into account. It was further remarked by the representatives of the war office, that, although there is no imminent danger of war, Germany has no right to suppose the present situation of Europe a normal one; that the strength of Germany’s neighbors is based on the permanency of their military organization, and that it is the duty of the German Government, without any reference to immediate dangers—be they great or small—so to organize its army that the difference in numbers shall, as far as possible, be obliterated.
It was shown that the increase in the percentage of the peace footing which the government now asks for represents an increase of 100,000 men in the war strength; that the calling in for drill of the ersatz or additional reserve represents another such increase; and that a similar number will be obtained from the lengthening of the time of landwehr service; so that, compared with the war strength under the present law, the new bill will give a virtual increase of 300,000 men in the future war strength of the German army. It was insisted that this is the smallest additional burden which, in the face of the present condition of Europe, should be laid upon the German people. It was pointed out, in reply to a remark by one of the representatives of the opposition, that the nominal strength of the regiments in France, as well as the effective strength of the French army, surpasses the German army in time of peace by 30,000 men, and that the German landsturm cannot by any means compare in effectiveness with the French “territorial army.”
On Friday last, paragraph 2 of the bill which increases the nominal strength of the cadres, and paragraph 3, by which the ersatz Reserves are to be called out to drill four times, the first time for twelve weeks, the second for four weeks, and the last two for two weeks each, were adopted.
[Page 402]The ersatz Reserves, I may explain, consist of the young men who, on account of some minor physical defect, and of those who, because they form the surplus created by the paragraph of the law of 1874, which required, as recruits, a percentage of the then population only, have been debarred from entering the regular army. It was stated, among other things, by the military representatives before the committee, on Friday, that the frontier from Verdun to Belfort was, on the French side, at distances of from 6 to 10 kilometers, studded with forts armed with from 35 to 100 cannon of the heaviest caliber.
With the view, doubtless, of giving additional support, if any were needed, to the proposal of the government, the semi-official Nord-deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung published, on the 13th instant, an article instituting a comparison between the military and naval expenditures of the great European powers. This article, which mentions as its authorities various official publications of the countries referred to, contains the following interesting table:
Financial, military, and naval expenditures.
| Countries. | Years. | Marks. |
| Russia | 1879 | 633,900,000 |
| France | 1880 | 747,300,000 |
| Great Britain | 1879–’80 | 524,600,000 |
| Germany | 1879–’80 | 460,000,000 |
| Italy | 1879 | 243,200,000 |
| 1879 | 224,200 000 |
In France, the article points out, the taxes to cover the military and naval expenditures amount to 19.9 marks per head of the population$ in Great Britain to 15.3; in Germany to 10.3; in Italy to 8.7; in Russia to 7.9, and in Austria-Hungary to 5.8.
In the above calculation the following items are included under the head of military and naval expenditure: Ordinary and extraordinary expenses; the ordinary including the pension lists, which are in part sometimes included in the national debt estimates.
The whole of the military pensions are not included in the Russian and Austro-Hungarian calculations, and as regards Great Britain, it should be remarked that the Indian military budget, which amounts to nearly as much as that for the home country, is not included. The German military and naval budget for 1879–’80 was made up of the following items:
| Marks. | |
| Army | 331,184,910 |
| Navy | 25,122,780 |
| Pensions | 16,987,502 |
| Invalid fund | 33,015,879 |
| Total ordinary | 396,311,071 |
| Extraordinary | 63,728,259 |
| Total | 460,039,320 |
After pointing out that the calculations above given are modified somewhat by the variations in the purchasing power of money in the countries referred to, which is lowest in England and highest in Russia, the article expresses its conclusions as follows:
Taking into consideration these facts, and remembering also that Germany’s military position, surrounded as she is by five other great powers, is one of particular difficulty [Page 403] and danger, it must be admitted that our military budget is not by any means extravagant, and that, while we regret with all lovers of peace that it cannot be reduced, measures must be taken to add to our military efficiency.
I send these official figures in connection with the recent utterances in the Reichstag committee as giving new proof that the emulation between the great European powers in piling up military armaments shows no sign of cessation. It continues, and doubtless will increase. “The end is not yet.” An end can be made in one of two ways: either by great statesmanlike measures for the general disarmament of Europe (and this, judging from the tone of society here, enters into the thoughts of no leading minds at present), or by a war which shall settle the main international questions now at issue and give Europe a chance to rest for a time, with diminished armies.
I have, &c.,