Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1918-04-17

In a letter TO the editor of the
Philadelphia Ledger q citizen sign
ing himself l.. L. Montgomery says
it is not good for folks this side
OF the water TO foster illusions about
German losses in the war and this
is how he arrays his corps OF military
statistics to support his case:
Il believe il was Professor Meade,
of the University of Pennsylvania,
who said that the only real optim-
ism in a democracy vas the oDtim-
ism that looked the facts in the face
and took steps accordingly.
The uresent battle on the vest
ern front and the conditions mai re-
volve around it need careful study
by every American so that he may
understand the danger OF being lull-
ed into any false sense OF security.
We read a great deal in the press
about the enormous German losses
and we console ourselves for the Civ
ing up OF so much territory by Zig
Iring losses in the ratio of three to
one or two to one in our favor. And
we feel that such proportions can
only end in me Waterman eK-
haustion and an allied victory. But
from authoritative figures which |
have had given me and from several
analyses made recently. certain facts
stand out that are not generally
known TO TIE average American.
ITO begin. We have greatly over
estimated the extent OF the allied man
power. Estimates of British forces
actually in the field have varied
from 3.225,00 to as high as $780,
600. And yet we see in the second
battle of the Somme continual re-
ports from day II day Of how great
ly outnumbered the British We're.
Probably the British troops actually
at the front were 1850. 900, with an
additional overseas force OF 100000.
That is equivalent to $4,000 men per
mile of front,
we have. so French authorities
state. overest;nated the French loss
es. Giving the French forces at 4
200, 900 men u or TO this battle and
losses o. % Ter cent. there W. nd
remain 100000. This would aver
age about 5000 men per mile for the
line held by the French and Ameri-
cans.
Now as TO the question of rela-
tive losses of the Germans to the al
lies since the war began, taken from
an Associated Press dispatch in
March, 1917, giving figures at the
beginning of the Franco-British Of
fensive in 1917 and covering the
period when virtually all the often
sive fighting had been done by the
Germans, it is clearly shown to
what an extraordinary degree ICON
sidering the great offensive under
taken1 Germany was able to econo-
mize her lei
up to the period March, 1917,
the figures show that in proportion
the Teutonic powers lost only 1,134
men 10. each 1000 lost by the en-
tente armies: that is. in spite of Of
f%ensives the Germans kept their loss
es down nearly man for man. And
we are flattering ourselves with stor-
les of 'massed attacks enemy com
ing on like flocks of sheep could
mt miss them, appalling losses
etc. The German military authori-
ties are not quite SO foolish. They
have an absolute disregard for hum
an life, but they are as good mathe-
maticians as We are.
THE Germans have been abN to
save their man-power in spite Of
their offensives. because of their
great superiority in gunpowder. This
was especially true in 1914. 1915,
1915. II was not so true in 1917, and
it may not be true this year. Prob
ably the gunpowder of the contend
ing forces is now about equal.
We should remember that in the
present battle, even if the German
losses are much heavier in their Of
fensive, we shall have to bear an
equal ratio OF losses in our counter
offensive. making the final losses APP
proximately nan for man
IF it is going to be q fight to a
finish and We are to win, we should
realize just what that means in
terms of man-power, for that is real
~ the only terms to work in. 1t is
entirely g matter Of killing Germans.
The side that can sacrifice the most
men will win.
1T does not seem possible that