LAND AND WATER. 
February 3, 1916. 
1 
Shielc 
Miles 
as the Aiistrains could sparo ; in the second place because, 
they are fairly familiar to all those who follow the war at 
all carefulU'. 
What is really important in this campaign of attrition 
is the estimate our Allies make of the enemy forces the\' 
have drawn to this front, and the figures of prisoners. 
General Cadorna does not hesitate to give the total 
Austrian forces between the Trentino and the Adriatic 
at twelve corps. Opinion most favourable to Italy has not 
hitherto mentioned anything like that figure. In the 
columnsof Land AND W.\ti:r six have been suggested as a 
minimum, and'just possibly ten as the very outside maxi- 
mum. The general (and woithless) " conversational " 
estimate — if 6ne may use the term — has put the Austrian 
figures ridiculously low ; five corps or less. 
General Cadorna's high estimate is to be accepted 
with little reserve, for the Italian higher command is 
alone in a position to judge the matter, and its accounts 
have always been moderate and restrained after the 
fashion happily set by all the Allies, perhaps better 
followedbyltaly than by any other. But even if we do not 
admit the full complement of the corps mentioned, we 
are dealing with something not far short of 400,000 men. 
And considering the excellence of the Italian heavy 
artillery, the immense rate of munitionment which \tsS.y 
(to the great increase of her prestige) has successfully 
maintained, and the now notorious precision of Italian fire, 
we can judge upon the analogy of all other fronts what 
wastage in enemy strength these figures mean. The 
Italian front has not cost Austria in the eight months less 
than 200,000 men dead loss — probably more. The 
number of prisoners alone in Italian hands is over ;50,ooo. 
It will be no surprise when the official histor\- of the war 
comes to be written from collattxl documents, if the total 
enemy wastage due to Italian effort does not prove to 
exceed a quarter of a million upon this front alone. 
That is most admirable \\T»rk, and when we think of 
quahty as well as quantity it means even more. All 
these months, at any rate since July. Austria has been 
able to send her best units to this South-Western front 
of hers. It is these that have been bioken and harried 
after such a fashion, and we must bear in mintl in leadint^ 
such figures what they mean for the future. 
How will that front look when the opening year 
permits more general offensives ? When the rearma- 
ment of Russia is accomplished and when Austria-Hungarv 
will be s)ibject to the imperative need of finding some men 
from somewhere to fight uT>on two fronts at least and 
more probaoly upon three ? 
Of the really significant documents issued in the last 
five months, this is perhaps the most significant. 
I would refer my readers in particular to the full 
account published in the Morning Post of Monday, 
January ;ust, with its two excellent and detailed mai^s. 
A Further Note upon Mr. Tennant's Figures. 
My readers will remember that the figures gi\-en by 
Mr. Tennant in Parliament — which were no more than 
the German totals as given by the enemy himself — were 
subject to very grave criticism and were, indeed, mani- 
festly erroneous. In connection with this, of which the 
analysis made will convince anyone who followed it, 
there has appeared a new piece of evidence which is 
conclusive ; though that really was hardly needed, for 
probably no one took the original figures 'seriously. 
It will be remembered that in Mr. Tennant's figures 
the total gross losses (not net) of the Germans for the one 
month of December (excluding sickness) were given at 
about 11,000. It will also be remembered that the well- 
deserved sarcasm of one of our principal military writers 
was quoced in connection with that absurd figure. 
The new piece of evidence to which I refer is the 
evidence of the British losses during the same month. 
They are now officially given as just short of double 
the German losses ! Over 21,000. 
One has but to mention so ridiculous a contrast to settle 
the credibility of the first set of figures. 
The British forces during the month of December 
have no casualties in action of any appreciaolc size save 
upon the French front. They have no fighting in 
Salonika, none in GalHpoli, none in Egypt. Of all the 
very large proportion of British forces in the East only 
the quite small body in Mesopotamia was engaged af all. 
The forces on the French front were engaged in no 
considerable actions. The whole period was one of lull. 
Those forces are mainly responsiole for the figure of total 
casualties for December— which we know upon the Eng- 
lish side to be very accurately kept and up to date. 
"The German armies in the field were during the 
same month continually engaged. There was some 
lighting in the Balkans (on no very large scale it is true), 
very heavy fighting indeed, with very high casualties, 
on the southern part of the Russian front, and the usual 
measure of activity upon the French front. The German 
forces engaged during that same month and often engaged 
in ver\' heavy and expensive operations, numbered some- 
thing between four and five limes the British forces 
engaged, and we are asked to believe that their total 
losses were only half as many ! 
The thing is, of course, manifestly ridiculous, and 
it is perhaps a waste of space to allude to it again, bin if 
anyone is still in doubt as to the valuelessness of the 
original figures given this argument should, I think, 
convince such a one. 
The total German losses during the month of Decem- 
ber, counting the sick, permanent and temporary, may 
have been a good deal below the usual average, for on the 
whole it was a month of lull save for the rather heavy 
i 
