RUSSIAN LOSSES.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 34, 9 February 1905, Page 2

RUSSIAN LOSSES.

fTo the Editor> Sir, —In your leading article on the above you truly say there must be a limit to the capacity of the Russian army to accept defeat after the alleged great losses at the battles of Sha-ho and Hun Rivers. Taking the last two battles, the Russians are supposed to have lost over 100.000, a»d I find on turning over the newspaper files the Russians are supposed to have lost in killed and wounded and prisoners 230.000. These figures include 504300 at Port Arthur, ac the entire garrison is lost to the Russians- Uovr, the carrying capacity of the Siberian railway, according to exparts, is about 25,000 per month when troops are being despatched, so if we allow that 250,000—« liberal estimate— hare been gent from Russia duTing the war, and thai; 100.000 were there before the war, we get a total of 350,000 men. Deduct casualties, and 20,000 as garrison I for Vladivostok, leaving a balance of J 100,000. Alter conceding a liberal percentage of wounded to rejoin, how can KuropHtkinV, army noxr nnraber 300,000. the latest Japanese estimate? And what about the aiek? Arc there no diseases i7i the Russian army? There cannot have bceu. if the "Times' :, estimate is correct, for xhjz Japs, have killed or wounded practically the entire Russian army. Wlveu we consider the present position of the Russian army one can only comic to the conclusion that the Russian losses have been grwitly exaggerated. Of eaurse partictiUrr regiments In these battles have lost hcjrrfly, but as ths battles ure fought over a wide area particular sections may imagine that as their kisses were great so it mast be all along the front, but experience fccllfi us differently. Ar tie Yam, for instance, part of Uis Rustucas looked on while the other Ist were beisg cut to pieces, and further the Japanese had one regiment In the last battle praetteiilly destroyed. But despite ell tMa, if the. Russiens si ill lost all that is reported, then considering tiio pssltiwa they still hold, Qeaeral. Kurepatkia's J aimy musl rs?ii: oue of t.'> 0 ueveii ! wonders of i_h? wfa-kl,— I a«e, ci... j "JiATSED OF !im. GLABSToNK." ; iT<» th 3 Editor.) j Sir, —So iiiticii is he iiiau." of iiio i I esjweision I useiw—"i hs t .,: .;;.'. tsia«it ' J s»laße,";that U ] v ;;- ; :i j<«,! plain te two gr ii:u: j njy hatred \i?.s not of him ijVr.ioaiiiy. imfc ■ as a politician aaq dLdL-escjiii. m ; a. man with the .wiieie of iiio t-'aie-aiei party, I looked upen Mr. Glcca»«kii p^ the greatest enemy Kiiffiand r.sd. es tho... jaiost mischieypiis and j statesniuu wko tgu haid. oaice, and. as !

sndt I hated him. But I had bo perFoaal nequaiatahce with/hiaipi&d never spoke to hiln, or had any ebiTespondence with him in my life 7 and-do not remember to have heard him speak. I make tins explanation, which really seems to mc quite unnecessary,, for the immense majority of your reallers. But two or three seem to think that I entertained un-Christian feelings of hatred for a man who, in his private capacity, had not, as Lord Beaconsfield saicL "a single redeeming fault."—l am, etc., R. H. BAKE WELL. P<meoßby road, February 7. P.S.—As a specimen of what a man has to bear wfao dares to speak out in Aucklend, I may mention that yesterday I received a very dirty envelope containing my letter to you respecting the overcrowdiag of traiucars, and written across it, in an excellent handwriting. the touching words. "Shut up, you b fool." This is chewing, as showing that the letter struck home. I have suffered so much from illness lately that I was afraid my articles and letters might have 'lost some of their vigour, but it appears that I need not be apprehensive on that point. j