"I hereby solemnly declare that we will not conclude peace until the last enemy soldier has left our land."

These words of Emperor Nicholas of Russia, uttered at the Winter Palace on Aug. 1, 1914, were reproduced in the press of Petrograd on the anniversary of the war. A message in the Bourse Gazette on July 31, 1915, printed in all the languages of Russia's allies, says:

F

OR a year past the enemy has been threatening the freedom of the world. We deeply appreciate the self-sacrificing aid of the Allies in exerting a combined pressure on him on all sides.

A firm confidence in victory in a community of worldwide interests and in the final triumph of right fires the spirit of the nation. It has been our guiding star throughout this year of bloodshed. It will serve us in the coming months, maybe years, of this terrible struggle.

Russia greets her allies-France, Great Britain, Belgium, Serbia, Montenegro, Japan, and Italy. All hail to their heroic loyalty and firm determination to stand by her to the end; till light dispels the gloom.

From a person who, although not connected officially with the War Department, is in close touch with the Government officials and is well acquainted with the military situation and the Russian state of feeling, The Associated Press has obtained the following review of the first year of the war:

The end of the first year of the war finds Russia's potential fighting ability undiminished. Her armies are intact, her resources virtually untouched; and the determination of her people, the morale of her troops have only been deepened with the growing realization of the enemy's strength.

This determination is expressed most forcibly in the mobilization of vast industrial resources for the production of war munitions. These efforts are rap

idly lessening the disparity of the combatants in guns and ammunition. Russia does not look for a speedy termination of the struggle, but feels confident of her power to exhaust the enemy.

The campaign on the eastern front must be viewed in relation to the enormous extent of territory over which battles have been waged, from the Baltic to Bukowina. The far-flung advances and retreats here have had no more significance relatively than gains and losses of a thousand yards on the western front. To interpret Russia's temporary loss of territory as German success is to ignore Russia's rôle to engage as great a part of the enemy's forces as possible, to relieve pressure on her allies. Russia's refusal to accept battle in disadvantageous conditions, even though she must temporarily abandon territory, has kept her armies and defensive lines unbroken.

It is the assertion of Russian authorities that every German advance has cost Germany more men, both relatively and actually, than it cost Russia. They regard Germany as now committed definitely to a campaign which is carrying the German armies further and further from their bases; and to abandon this campaign would be disastrous defeat for her. Moreover, it is maintained that not even the territorial ambitions of Germany have been realized, since the German objectives on this front have not been fully attained.

The advance of the Austrians into Southern Russia in the early stage of the war met with full defeat. It was followed by Austria's loss of Galicia. General Ivanoff, at the head of the southern Russian armies, carried on one of the most brilliant offensive campaigns of the war. The present stage may possibly be regarded as an uncompleted repetition of this earlier movement.

Furthermore, the repeated German drives at Warsaw from the west have cost the enemy tremendous losses. It

was only after six weeks of the most intense fighting in the Bzura region due west of Warsaw last Winter that the Germans recognized the futility of attempting to break the Russian front by direct frontal movements. On the other hand, by exacting a heavy toll of lives in rearguard actions during the carefully ordered retreats and by keeping her own army intact, Russia successfully performed her appointed task.

The East Prussian aggressive, which manifested itself periodically, and latterly the Baltic campaign, never have been regarded otherwise than as diversions. A parallel to these movements is found in the Bukowina operations, in their relation to the general Galician campaign. Their chief importance has been to draw men from other fronts, where more serious fighting has been in progress.

While it is understood the fate of the Turkish provinces on the Caucasian front will be determined by the general course of the war, this should not minimize the

genuine military successes Russia has achieved in that distant field. Russia did not desire to expend her strength in Asiatic Turkey, but when opposed by the threatening Turkish advance in December she exerted her power, flung back the Turkish army at Sari Kamysh, and began a series of movements which carried the Russian arms to Van and the approaches to Bitlis and Mush, in Turkish Armenia.

BY THE RUSSIAN MINISTER OF WAR.

This statement was prepared by M. Polivanoff, the Russian Minister of War:

My opinion, in a few words, after one year's duration of this war, unprecedented in the world's annals, is as follows:

The enemy is strong and cruel, and that is the very reason why Russia and her heroic allies must continue the war -should it last for several years-until the enemy is completely crushed. ALEXEI ANDREIEVITCH POLIVANOFF, Minister of War.

O`

VER two and a half million of lives cut short and some five million men wounded, a certain proportion of the latter maimed and partially incapacitated for useful. purposes-this is one result of one year of the world war, according to a statistician who has gone to the sources available for information.

Great Britain's casualties, announced by Premier Asquith in Parliament, amount to a third of a million, including killed, wounded, and missing.

Neither Germany, France, nor Russia makes any comprehensive statement of the kind, but it is obvious that the losses of all three are proportionately much heavier than England's.

Estimates published in the English papers derived from indications given in the Prussian official lists of casualties carry the German losses to a total of 3,500,000. This figure largely exceeds the computations made by the German authorities, but even the latter, who may be assumed to desire to put the best aspect possible on the war's cost in the matter of life and limb, admit that Germany up to the end of June had 482,000 men killed and 852,000 wounded.

In regard to prisoners, the Germans admitted a loss of 233,000 up to the end of last month, altogether a grand total of 1,567,000 killed, wounded, and missing.

The German claims as to the number of the enemy disposed of are surprisingly high. Mr. Asquith's figures of 330,000 up to a late date in July were

exceeded, according to German calculations, before the end of June, at which period, according to Teutonic computations, Great Britain had lost 116,000 killed, 229,000 wounded, and 83,000 prisoners, a total of 428,000.

When there is such a discrepancy between the German claims and the British Governmental statements as to British losses the possibly natural inference is that the German claims in respect to other hostile nations, such as France and Russia, which publish no figures to serve as a corrective, are likely to be greatly exaggerated. Consequently the following figures are given for what they are worth, stress being laid on the fact that they are derived from a usually well-informed source:

France Russia Austria Pelgium

Serbia

Turkey

Japan

......

Prisoners & Killed. Wounded. Missing. Total .400,000 700,000 300,000 1,400,000 .733,000 1,982,000 770,000 3,485,000 341,000 771,000 183,000 1,295,000 47,000 160,000 40,000 247,000 64,000 112,600 50,000 226,600 45,000 90,000 46,000 181,000 300 910 1,210 It is interesting to compare these figures, which are based on German calculations, with figures collected by Beach Thomas, a correspondent of The Daily Mail in Northern France. Mr. Thomas says his lists have been compiled on the Continent from the best available figures and checked and counterchecked in every way from both public and private information.

Extreme as the figures sound, the evi

dence given for the Turkish losses, which are the most surprising, is at least plausible. If the total population of, say, Canada and Australia or London and Manchester were wiped out, the loss would have been smaller than the sum of the men recorded as casualties in this

war.

Following are the figures, quoted for what they are worth:

Killed. Wounded.Prisoners. Total. Germans... 490,000 1,636,000 1,880,000 4,006,000 Austrians.. 810,000 1,710,000 1,855,000 4,375,000 Turks...... 95,000 110,000 140,000 345,000 Total...1,395,000 3,456,000 3,875,000 8,726,000 "It is alleged and strongly maintained by the authorities," says Mr. Thomas, "that the proportion of killed to wounded is as 2 to 3, not as 1 to 4, or even 5, which was once supposed to be the ratio. The French and British have the highest proportion of wounded to killed, but it never rises as high as 2 to 1 when the record of the hospitals is complete, and of course prisoners are excluded."

In regard to the German computation of the French losses, it is to be observed that it tallies with the unofficial estimate of the French losses given by the committee of the French Relief Fund, which computed the German losses as something more than double. The rate of loss was calculated to be 127,000 men per month for the French. At this rate of wastage France can go on fighting for another twelve months without any weakening of her units in the field.

W

HEN on June 28 of last year at Serajevo, Bosnia, the bullets of assassin Gavrio Princep felled Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary and his wife, the Duchess of Hohenberg, there resulted a single tragedy whose indirect consequences have since caused countless other tragedies in the lives of millions of people, not only in Europe, but in the remotest parts of the world.

The great world conflict which broke out soon after this murderous attack has placed the pall of mourning over every third home in the belligerent countries of Europe, and has even made its grim presence felt among people of unaffected neutral nations by the untimely deaths of those who may have ventured too near the zones of destruction.

The dreadful slaughter has fallen with especial heaviness on the upper and wealthy classes, and the names of hundreds of people prominent in all walks of life are being continually added to the growing casualty lists. Death knows no distinctions, and in taking victims has leveled all classes, from Prince to pauper. The bluest blood of Germany, England, and France has been poured out in battle. So great has been the loss in British officers in particular, that quite a number of heirs of great wealth among them have passed their entailed fortunes on to babies. Germany has had to give of her foremost families of the ancient nobility, of high Government officials who were serving as volunteers or reserves, of college professors, authors, scientists, newspaper men, artists, actors, musical virtuosi, sportsmen, and other prominent men of business or public life. A similar loss has been borne by France, AustriaHungary, England, Russia, and all the belligerent countries.

Death's harvest among champions in the athletic and sporting world has been

sweeping. It includes names known to followers of tennis, golf, polo, horse racing, pugilism, rowing, running, and track events. Some of these victims had won fame as heroes in Olympic contests. And in their untimely deaths on the battlefields these athletes and sportsmen have covered themselves with glory.

The biggest loss in lives sustained by neutrals occurred, of course, in the sinking of the Lusitania off Kinsale Head, Ireland. A score or more Americans of national prominence had to sacrifice their lives in this terrible disaster. Although deaths of neutrals have occurred to some extent in the fields of military operations, by far the greatest number of neutral lives have been lost, like those on the Lusitania, in the German naval war zone about the British Isles.

No less than ten Princes of German royal houses have already fallen on the battlefield. The very first of these to lose his life was William, the reigning Prince of Lippe, shot before Liége last August by a Flemish carabineer, who had stumbled on the royal reconnoitring party, killing, at the same time, another Lippe, the nephew of Prince William, who was accompanying his uncle on a tour of inspection. Still another Lippe, Prince Ernest, met his death on the field of battle a month later. In the death of

Prince Frederick of Saxe-Meinigen, who An

served as a Lieutenant General and was killed at Namur in August, 1914, by a shell, the Kaiser's eldest sister lost her brother-in-law and heir to the SaxeMeinigens. The Prince was one of the most accomplished men of the empire, having rare gifts in music and art. The second son of Prince Frederick of SaxeMeinigen, Prince Ernest, only 19 years old, was wounded at Maubeuge, the last of August, dying a few days later in the hospital. The youngest sister of the Kaiser, Princess Margaret, the wife of

Prince Frederick Charles of Hesse, gave her second son, Prince Maximilian, to the Fatherland. He was but 20 when slain, on Oct. 12, in France, in the engagement near Mount Descats.

The Kaiserin and the Queen Mother of the Netherlands have lost a relative in Prince Wolrad Frederick of WaldeckPyrmont, who was felled by a bullet while on patrol duty in France. Others of the German royalty killed in action are Prince Otto Victor of SchoenburgWaldenburg, Premier Lieutenant of the Life Guards Hussar Regiment; Prince Henry of Reuss, son and heir to Prince Henry XXVII. of Reuss, and Prince Adelbert of Schleswig-Holstein and Sondeburg, whose niece married the Kaiser's fourth son, and who was a General of cavalry.

In England the only royal Prince who has fallen is Prince Maurice of Battenberg, the son of Queen Victoria's daughter, Princess Beatrice, and her German husband, Prince Henry of Battenberg. Prince Maurice, who was 23 and a Second Lieutenant in the King's Royal Rifle Corps, met his death at Ypres the last week in October.

Of the Romanoffs in Russia two have died in the present war, Grand Duke Alexander Michaelovitch, brother-in-law and cousin of the Czar, and Prince Oleg, a son of Grand Duke Constantine. Grand Duke Alexander was killed in the fighting at Miandoab, Persia, last January. In the Fall of 1913 he had visited America and was a guest of Mrs. John Astor at Beachwood, Newport. The affair which cost the life of Prince Oleg was a dashing cavalry charge on the Niemen last October, gallantly led by the Prince, who was carrying a standard at the time he received his mortal injury.

Strangely enough, no members of the royal house of Hapsburg have lost their lives since the death of Archduke Francis Ferdinand just before the outbreak of the war. The toll among Austrian titled families, however, has been just as heavy as in other countries. In Belgium, Prince George de Ligne, who had joined the Belgian colors as a volunteer, was killed during the fighting early last August.

The list of peers and titled English

who have laid down their lives is a long one. To this unexpected development of the war in England, the re-establishment of the prestige of the aristocracy-berated for a decade by Lloyd George, and bereft of political power by Prime Minister Asquith-has been due. The gallant conduct of the British officers in France and Flanders has been carefully used as a reminder to the middle-class Britisher that the aristocracy may have its good points. Most of the names of British nobles who have lost their lives in the service of their country are more or less familiar to the American public. Lord de Freyne, the fifth Baron and Captain in the Third Battalion of the South Wales Borderers, and his brother, the Hon. George Philip, Lieutenant in the same regiment, were killed in battle last May. Lord de Freyne served as an enlisted man in the United States Army in the Philippines, and succeeded to the title in 1913. Killed

in action in Flanders on Oct. 30 was Lord Worsley, the eldest son of the Earl of Yarborough and a Lieutenant in the Royal Horse Guards.

A great fighting name is recalled by the death last Fall in Belgium of Captain Lord Richard Wellesley, greatgrandson of the "Iron Duke" of Wellington. Captain the Hon. Henry Lyndhurst Bruse, husband of Camille Clifford, the so-called original "Gibson Girl," was killed at Ypres in December, while seving with the Royal Scots. Lord Grenfell's twin sons, Captain Riversdale Grenfell, V. C., a great polo player, and Captain Francis Grenfell, were both killed in France within a few months of each other. Sir Richard Levinge, a great Irish landowner and prominent sportsman, was killed while serving as a cavalry officer. Sir Robin Duff, a Lieutenant in the Second Life Guards, lost his life in France about three weeks after succeeding to the title and estate of his father, Sir Charles Asheton-Smith, classed among the richest men in England.

One of the very first distinguished Britons to fall was the young Lord Charles Nairn, who had been a personal member of King George's household, and