My figures are from, in part, some reputable historians of The Great War: Churchill, Horne, Marshall, et al. As for playing loose with the figures, you do not know me well enough to make such a personal supposition. But I do find it interesting that people argue casualty figures, as if 337,000 odd here, as opposed to 500,000 there, is not so bad. What is the point? Does that make war more palatable, that there were only 337,000 odd dead, wounded, missing, as opposed to half a million . . . ?