HKB
Destroyed. Reconstructed Under and working. reconstruction. Factories and works 11,500 3,540 3,812
A much earlier estimate is that made by M. Dubois for the Budget Commission of the French Chamber and published as Parliamentary Paper No. 5432 of the Session of 1918.
[69] A more recent estimate (namely, for July 1, 1921) has been given, presumably from official sources, by M. Fournier–Sarlovèze, Deputy for the Oise. The following are some of his figures:
INHABITED HOUSES
At the Armistice: Totally destroyed 289,147 Badly injured 164,317 Partially injured 258,419 By July 1921: Entirely rebuilt 118,863 Temporarily repaired 182,694
PUBLIC BUILDINGS
─────────────┬─────────┬───────────┬────────┬────────┬─────────── │ │ Municipal │ │ Post │ │Churches.│ Buildings.│Schools.│Offices.│Hospitals. ─────────────┼─────────┼───────────┼────────┼────────┼─────────── Destroyed │ 1,407 │ 1,415 │ 2,243 │ 171 │ 30 Damaged │ 2,079 │ 2,154 │ 3,153 │ 271 │ 197 Restored │ 1,214 │ 322 │ 720 │ 53 │ 28 Temporarily │ │ │ │ │ patched up │ 1,097 │ 931 │ 2,093 │ 196 │ 128 ─────────────┴─────────┴───────────┴────────┴────────┴───────────
CULTIVATED LAND
Acres. At the Armistice: Totally destroyed 4,653,516 By July 1921: Leveled 4,067,408 Plowed 3,528,950
LIVE STOCK
─────────────────────────────┬────────────┬─────────────┬──────────── │ 1914. │ Nov. 1918. │ July 1921. ─────────────────────────────┼────────────┼─────────────┼──────────── Cattle │ 890,084 │ 57,500 │ 478,000 Horses, donkeys, and mules │ 412,730 │ 32,600 │ 235,400 Sheep and goats │ 958,308 │ 69,100 │ 276,700 Pigs │ 357,003 │ 25,000 │ 169,000 ─────────────────────────────┴────────────┴─────────────┴────────────
[70] Even if we assumed that every house which had been injured at all was totally destroyed, the figure would work out at about $7,000.
[71] M. Brenier, who has spent much time criticizing me, quotes with approval (The Times, January 24, 1921) a French architect as estimating the cost of reconstruction at an average of $2,500 per house, and quotes also, without dissent, a German estimate that the pre–war average was $1,200. He also states, in the same article, that the number of houses destroyed was 304,191 and the number damaged 290,425, or 594,616 in all. Having pointed out the importance of not overlooking sentiment in these questions, he then multiplies $2,500, not by the number of houses but by the number of the population, and arrives at an answer of $3,750,000,000. What is one to reply to sentimental multiplication? What is the courteous retort to controversy on these lines? (His other figures are clearly such a mass of misprints, muddled arithmetic, confusion between hectares and acres and the like, that, whilst an attack could easily make a devastated area of them, it would be unfair to base any serious criticism on this well–intentioned farrago. As a writer on these topics, M. Brenier is about of the caliber of M. Raphaël–Georges Lévy.)
[72] M. Tardieu states that, on account of the subsequent rise in prices, M. Loucheur’s estimate has proved, in terms of paper francs, to be inadequate. But this is allowed for by my having converted paper francs into dollars at the par of exchange.
[73] The Lens coal mines, which were the object of most complete destruction, comprised 29 pits, and had, in 1913, 16,000 workmen with an output of 4 million tons.
[74] I take these figures from M. Tardieu, who argues, most illuminatingly, in alternate chapters, according to his thesis for the time being, that reconstruction has hardly begun, and that it is nearly finished.
[75] Francs are here converted at 2.20 to the gold mark and the £ sterling at the ratio of 1:20.
[76] This is exactly the figure of the estimate which I gave in The Economic Consequences of the Peace (p. 160). But I there added: “I feel much more confidence in the approximate accuracy of the total figure than its division between the different claimants.” This proviso was necessary, as I had over–estimated the claims of France and under–estimated those of the British Empire and of Italy.
[77] “Elle avait été le résultat d’un compromis assez pénible entre la délégué français, l’honorable M. Dubois, et le représentant anglais, Sir John Bradbury, depuis lors démissionnaire, qui voulait s’en tenir au chiffre de cent quatre milliards et qui avait défendu la thèse du gouvernement britannique avec une habileté passionnée.”