on aurait pu les perdre

08:06 Jun 26, 2017 

and then give it to a native English speaker to revise?

22:54 Jun 25, 2017 

Nikki, yes thank you, I updated my comment after yours appeared.

22:53 Jun 25, 2017 

If I recall other questions correctly, this is an interview appearing in a book.

22:53 Jun 25, 2017 

Good eveing,
The problem with using "them" is that it has to be clear what is being referred to, i.e. the work, not the shells! ;-)

Your point about "touch" is helpful. I think use of "to damage" is the way to go.

22:51 Jun 25, 2017 

Thank you so much for your precious suggestions!

22:49 Jun 25, 2017 

I would suggest "all but this part of the composition and the other side of the wall was untouched," even though it's a double negative, because "untouched" is more of an accepted word in this context than "touched." Or, only this part and the other side were "affected" or "damaged."

For the rest, I defer to Nikki.

22:47 Jun 25, 2017 

I think you could revise the punctuation of your rendering to make it more comfortable to read. You give no indication of context with regard to target reader, context of the original and so on. It is difficult to "pitch" the level of language required, although it reads like an interview or an oral account, as the language is quite informal. I was wondering if this might not be a piece of homework or something similar.

As to the question itself, "... et finalement on aurait pu perdre totalement les Mymphéas en 1944".

I think that "in fact" would be better than "actaully" here, which reads as "by the way", a little bit too familiar, I suspect, in context.

Rather than "them", I would name the work, as does the soruce text.

Finally, "totally" would be best placed after the verb : "we could have lost Les Nympheas completely in 1944."
"Completely" is perhaps a tiny bit better than "totally" here.