February 17, 1916. 
LAND AND ^^' A T E R 
LAND & WATER 
Empire House, Kingsway, London, W.G. 
Telephone : HOLBORN 2828. 
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1916. 
FIGURES AND CRITICISM. 
THERE are two points which have been 
continually emphasised in the columns 
of this journal by our military critic. 
One is that a just estimate of the military 
situation can only be obtained by constant reference to 
the all-important factor of numbers, especially to the 
enemy's original man-power, to his rate of wastage, and 
thence to his probable reserves. The other is the need 
of sober and authoritative guidance in these matters in 
order that such a just estimate might be accessible to and 
accepted by ordinary civilian opinion. 
The first point, long so amazingly neglected, is now 
conceded by all. Of the second an excellent illustration 
can be found in the misleading effect produced by the 
publication by Mr. Tennant of the German, casualty 
figures without any such sober and authoritative guide 
to their criticism. 
On January 7th this year the Times published an 
article from its military correspondent which contained 
the following passage : 
The military situation of Germany, in spite of her successes on 
land, is not brilliant. Out of some nine million men of 
military age which the writer assumed to be her niobilisable 
total early in the war, she lias probably lost 3,500,000 in 
killed, badly wounded, prisoners, and sick. . . . She 
has suffered, since the war began, an average loss of nearly 
200,000 men a month, and it is probably the loss of men that 
affects her most. If the war preserves in the future its past 
character she must find herself, at some date between May 
and October, imable to maintain her effectives at the front 
with men of a military age, and she is therefore bound, before 
this date, which will be known to her, to force a decision at 
one front or another. 
Our readers will be familiar with the figures given 
above since they are approximately the same as those 
given, and constantly repeated by our military critic ; 
at least they are within the margin of possible error for 
which he allowed. They are based on careful calculation 
and a similar result has been reached along quite separate 
lines of reasoning by several competent authorities in 
Europe. 
Then comes the publication by Mr. Tennant of the 
" official " German figures — official, be it observed, so 
far as the German Empire is concerned, not as regards 
our own War Office. The Tivies military correspondent 
then executes a surprising " volte face " and proceeds 
to demolish his own figures. In the Times of February 
9th he says : — 
" All things considered the net German losses during the past 
eighteen months of war may be approximately estimated 
at 2,627.085 total casualties]^ minus 790,000 wounded re- 
turned to the front, and plus 630,000 invahded and 150,000 
sick in hospital, or on the whole estimate a net loss of nearly 
2,600.000 in round figures, and an average monthly loss of 
a little over 144,000 men."_ 
In other words, he reduces the total German casual- 
tics by nearly a million, and the monthly wastage by 
over 50,000 ! 
This astonishing calculation brings him to the 
conclusion that the Germans must have 2,000,000 men in 
reserve and that consequently their effectives will not 
begin to fail until February, 1917. The climax is reached 
when he accepts the preposterous estimate of 36,000 
German losses for the month of January, to which he 
adds -. "If we dispose of no more Germans per month 
than we did during the month which has just elapsed, 
namely, 36,000, there is no particular reason on the basis 
of numbers alone why we should set any particular term 
on the war ! " 
One could almost afford to leave the matter there ; 
but it becomes more amazing when the writer's own 
statement as to the character of the German lists is 
examined. Here it is : — 
Can we trust these casualty lists ? Up to a point we probably 
can. They arc often belate<], but so are ours. They contain 
many errors which are subsequently rectified, but so do ours. 
They only contain the names of some men Avho have died of 
sickness, probably in the army zone, and omit altogether, as 
do ours, the names of men invalided and the floating popula- 
tion of hospitals and sanatoria. 
Now if it were absolutely certain that the German 
lists were exact and exhaustive, a military critic might be 
quite right to reduce on their authority his own estimate 
by something approaching a third, though it might be 
thought that he could hardly do so without some shock 
to men's confidence in his judgment. But it is obvious 
from the passage quoted above that the writer cannot 
even pretend that these lists are either exhaustive or 
exact. They are " belated " ; they " contain many 
errors " ; they refer to only a proportion of those who 
die of sickness ; and they " omit altogether the names 
of men invalided and the floating population of hospitals 
and sanatoria." 
Nevertheless the military correspondent of tlic 
Times accepts them ; and by a series of wild guesses at 
the missing items, guesses wholly unsupported by any 
kind of evidence and containing the perfectly pre- 
posterous suggestion of fifty per cent, of wounded return- 
ing to their original duties— we know that the real 
proportion in all armies is something between a quarter 
and a third— succeeds in bringing out a figure almost 
exactly the same as the German " ofiicial " figure. 
As we go to press there appears still another article in 
the Times in which the same critic admits that the German 
casualty lists are open to grave suspicion, though he does 
not suspect the enemy of anything so base as deliberate 
falsification. He agrees under pressure, that the number 
of 36,000 officially quoted as the German losses in 
January cannot be accepted ; in which case we are 
entitled to ask what is the value of his conclusion on 
February 9th, based on this same figure of 36,000, that 
there is no reason " to set any particular term on the 
war ? " 
When asked to account for the fact that the " official " 
list of German casualties on all fronts appears to be only 
equal to those of the Allies on the Western front, he 
ascribes it to " the superior numbers and armament of 
the enemy." An explanation which leaves much to be 
desired. 
Finally, he declares that none of the press criticisms 
which he has received give him convincing reasons for 
changing his figures. What, then, was the " convincing 
reason " which produced the startling change between 
his figures on January 7th and on February gth, a process 
by which he brought to life again very nearly a million 
of the enemy ? 
For a detailed examination of the strange methods" 
by which this result is reached, we must refer our readers 
to Mr. Belloc's article in another column. It is hardly 
necessary to emphasise the point which he makes suffi- 
ciently plain that the " so do ours " argument really 
tells not for but against the conclusion arrived at by the 
Times military correspondent. If it be true that the 
figures given by all Governments are belated and contain 
large categories of omission, that is a reason for augmenting 
and not for diminishing thfc additions which we must 
make to the German figures if we are to arrive at a true 
estimate. If the German returns can be shown — as they 
have been shown by a careful comparison with our own 
figures and those of our Allies — to be in certain respects 
exceptionally defective, and if in addition all figures of 
the kind are somewhat defective, then we have two 
allowances to make— one for the normal and one for the 
abnormal defect. 
But the main lesson remains unchallengeable. It 
is the duty of the Government when it publishes such 
enemy figures to accompany them, as the French Govern- 
ment does, by a competent and authoritative criticism. 
§uch criticism would not only enable the public to forn 
a true instead of a false estimate of the facts, but it would' 
prevent or render innocuous such errors as those witl 
which we have been dealing. 
