Influenza's impact on combat effectiveness both Allies and Germany

[John Gilinsky]

Another intriguing angle: what about merchant mariners and naval personnel especially the former? They would have been the perfect carriers of inlfuenza internationally beyond soldiers such as those in the AEF. Does anyone have information on Port of London Health stats for ALL of 1918 or indeed any other major European or North American port such as New York City, Newark,N.J., Halifax,N.S., Quebec City, Montreal, Canada? What about Boulogne, Le Havre and other officially designated BEF ports? Huge numbers of transient migrating soldiers and others also would be good places for spreading influenza.

John

[SFayers]

Since I'm studying the war diary of 46 Brigade RGA at the moment, I thought I'd add this for good measure. The only reference I've found to the influenza is in June 1918. From the entry for the 25th June:

During the latter part of the month considerable sickness in the Brigade (Spanish Influenza)

No related fatalities are recorded for at least one of the component batteries of the brigade during this period, 5 Siege Battery (my grandfather's unit); though many men of the battery were certainly posted sick at this time which, according to my grandfather, resulted in a particular paucity of drivers.

Steve

[akduerden]

Similarly of the 4 war diaries that I have for this period (8th Division CRA, 8th Division Signals Company, 33rd Brigade RFA) only the signals company diary makes mention of large quantities of men sick with influenza (P.U.O) between 24/6/1918 - 30/6/1918 and that the effect greatly impacted there ability to continue training.

Andrew

[Pete1052]

... part of the problem is the sheer scale including unreliability of medical statistics compiled during or shortly after an armed conflict due to a variety of factors.

If the data don't support the theory, does it mean the statistics are wrong?

[John Gilinsky]

If the data don't support the theory, does it mean the statistics are wrong?

No of course not: it might mean poor methodology in that official numbers are automatically seen as accurate without querying the provenance and methods by which such numbers were derived. The reliability of the data comes into question as it ALWAYS should in academic queries.

Beyond poor methodology the data might support another thesis instead of the original one. Again statistics are never WRONG and never RIGHT! They are simply numbers arrived at by varying means of accuracy and reliability (or inaccuarately and / or unreliably).

Hidden numbers or buried diagnoses (already pointed out in previous posts, etc...) all play a part in diminishing or camouflaging the actual seriousness or in fact exaggerating or blowing out of proportion the impact of the initial spring 1918 influenza's impact on especially front line military personnel on the western front. Clearly the typhoid epidemics that ravaged central and eastern Europe played a very significant part in both generating expedient political solutions to intense conflicts (eg. Russo-Polish War) and cementing war weariness.

John

Toronto

[Pete1052]

So what's your point? Did the flu have some previously unrecognized role in the outcome of the war, beyond impairing allied fighting strength by delaying things by two or three weeks?

[John Gilinsky]

Giving sickness and the spring episode of the influenza epidemic its due for causing serious diminuition in both German and Allied fighting strength OR more especially so in the Allied side since the disease was clearly spread internationally by shipping and by 1918 Germany was blockaded effectively thus isolated her on the western side of things. Again very very difficult to prove without exhaustive medical statistical anaylsis including both military and civilian sick rates.

John

[phil andrade]

Giving sickness and the spring episode of the influenza epidemic its due for causing serious diminuition in both German and Allied fighting strength OR more especially so in the Allied side since the disease was clearly spread internationally by shipping and by 1918 Germany was blockaded effectively thus isolated her on the western side of things. Again very very difficult to prove without exhaustive medical statistical anaylsis including both military and civilian sick rates.

John

Let me lift some passages from John Terraine's book To Win a War, which deals with the events of 1918.

From page 84 :

" As the virulence of the pandemic came to its peak in Europe in October, 1,200 people were dying a week in Paris, about 4,000 a week in Britain. But there is little doubt that the Germans, soldiers and civilians alike, suffered more than their enemies, because of the weakening of their resistance to disease caused by years of food shortages and privation. By comparison with a British total of 200,000 deaths by May 1919, over 400,000 German civilians had died, and 186,000 soldiers - a terrible addition to the mortality of the great battles. And probably for the same reason that made the German death rate worse, influenza struck the Germans sooner: by June they had 1,000 - 2,000 cases per division; by July battalion rifle strengths were in some places as low as 200 - 240, company strengths only fifty. The result, it need hardly be said, was a weakening of morale even more significant than the loss of actual numbers, though this was serious enough."

On page 207, describing the miseries of the German Home Front, he wrote:

" And upon these starving, weakened distracted people the scourge of influenza fell unabated; on 15 October over 1,700 died of it in Berlin....."

A very stark testimony to the more severe ravages of the pandemic for Germany : although I have to say that I find his figure of 186,000 military deaths very suspect : not deliberate falsification, more likely assuming that the total German military death toll from disease for the entire war alluded only to this influenza. All the same, it suggests that the disease made a terrible impact on Germany.

Phil.

[Martin Bennitt]

Agence France-Presse filed the following story last week, which says among other things that although Germany was badly hit Italy got it worse. cheers mb

Health-flu-history-Europe

1918 flu pandemic killed 2.64 million Europeans: study

PARIS, April 30, 2009 (AFP) - The 1918-19 pandemic of "Spanish flu" killed around 2.64 million Europeans, according to a French study, which says that despite its name, the pathogen probably originated outside Europe.

Writing in the latest issue of the journal Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses, the investigators believe the virus killed 1.1 percent of the European population at the time.

Overall deaths increased by 86 percent when the virus went on the rampage, says the study, which is based on mortality figures in 14 countries amounting to roughly three-quarters of the European population in 1918-19.

But the toll varied enormously from country to country, according to the team from the National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm).

Excess mortality rates in the 14 countries were highest in Italy, where they were 172 percent above the norm, followed by Bulgaria and Portugal (102 percent), Spain (87 percent), the Netherlands (84 percent), Sweden (74 percent) and Germany (73 percent).

This was followed by Switzerland (69 percent), France (66 percent), Norway (65 percent), Denmark (58 percent) Scotland (57 percent), England and Wales (55 percent) and finally Finland, which had the lowest increase in mortality, of 33 percent above normal rates.

Spanish flu, a novel strain of influenza against which there was no immunity, has been described as the biggest plague of the 20th century.

It is so named because of the belief that it originated in Spain before spreading into northern Europe.

It was transmitted like wildfire among troops in trenches and camps on the Western Front of World War I, and returning US and Canadian soldiers brought it back to North America, where hundreds of thousands more people were killed.

How many people died has been hugely debated, as have the origins of the virus.

A US estimate in 1927 put the worldwide death toll at 21 million. Another published estimate in 1991 put it at between 24.7-39.3 million, while a paper in 2002 ventured a count of up to 100 million.

As for the source of the virus, various investigations have pointed at a huge British army base in northern France and the United States, as well as Spain.

Another theory is that the virus came from Asia, which would explain why the pandemic started in the European summer, which is usually the low point of the flu season.

The new study, though, says the virus is unlikely to have originated in Europe.

When a lethal pandemic erupts, mortality shows up in waves that radiate out from the geographical source.

But the data suggests that "all the European countries reached simultaneously their epidemic peaks," in October to November 1918, according to the authors, led by Severine Ansart of the Universite Pierre et Marie Curie in Paris.

"Our findings can provide clues to the origin of the pandemic and do not make plausible a European origin," they say.

The study found 1.98 million excess deaths recorded in the 14 studied countries during the 1918-19 pandemic. When these figures are extrapolated for all of the European population, the figure reaches 2.64 million.

[John Gilinsky]

Thanks PJA and Martin for your contributions and "facts" (tempted to say statistics here!).

If the virulent strains of influenza did indeed originate in the animal species specifically pigs - the largest concentrations of such animals would have been most likely in the United States and North America generally whose farmers due to high war prices for foodstuffs, government pressures to furnish Britain and Allied soldiers in particular with meat and other foodstuffs and lack of proper animal husbandry techniques would also most likely have led to larger than normal pig herds and farms. The consequent increase in the animal population combined with amongst other factors overcrowding and other unknown factors (eg. longer hotter summers and longer harsher winters? during 1917 - 1918 than normal) may have laid the breeding ground or made viral infections that much easier to originate and certainly spread. Little is noted by the way due to the disruption and collapse indeed of 4 empires of how influenza impacted on central and eastern European peoples. It is distinctly possible at the very least that the infamous typhoid epidemics' death rates in these latter parts of Europe were fuelled and/or camouflaged by influenza as well. Mass refugee migrations and released POWS are just two factors that definitely spread typhoid but almost certainly also spread influenza in eastern Europe.

Keep the contributions coming please!

John

Toronto

[Pete1052]

Again very very difficult to prove without exhaustive medical statistical anaylsis including both military and civilian sick rates.

Is it possible that a modern statistical analysis of the medical data might reveal that major trends were taking place that were not recognized at the time or in the hindsight of the studies of the 50 years afterwards? If so, should modern historians accept the new adjusted figures instead of those that were compiled during the war? I'm inclined to doubt that modern researchers could derive revised numbers of casualties within the armies or belligerent nations that would be significantly more accurate than those that were recorded at the time. In any event, I'm skeptical that data on the flu pandemic contain the basis for any bold new theories on why the war turned out the way it did.

[John Gilinsky]

Disagree with your point about the seeming inability of modern historians to re-evaluate what happened or the degree of severity of impact or lack thereof. Re-examining the actual statistics IS possible with modern technology. I have digitally photogrpahed one of the largest Canadian military home hospitals' patient registers in 15 minutes tops (thousands of patients recorded). German, French and American to name just a few participant's hospital records survive and are accessible IF one knows where to look, has the time (read money! ) and is very very careful in how one gathers and sifts through such primary materials. Reliability and validity for such medical stats are thus reachable in a lifetime (but only just such now - perhaps in another 20 or more years entire libraries will fit on the current ipods) AND the software to sort, categorize and statisfy such raw data will also be available. Being daunted by the sheer scale and making presumptions will not be tolerated in historical circles (my crystal ball prediciton) in another 25 years or so due to technological capabilities.

John

Toronto

[Al Parsons]

Can't really comment on John's original question, which I thought was a very interesting one, because my extensive ignorance of The Great War extends to this subject.

But, Martin Gilbert in his overview history, "The First World War", had some interesting comments on the American experience overseas. Page 437 - "Behind the lines, a new spectre had begun to haunt soldiers and civilians alike. Starting in June, in both India and Britain, influenza began its epidemic, and then pandemic course. Reaching the Western Front, it was to wreak its havoc there. More American soldiers were to die of influenza in France than by the bullets of the enemy".

And then, to illustrate, he mentions in a footnote on the same page: "The total number of United States soldiers who were killed in action in 1917 and 1918 was 48,909; those dying of influenza exceeded 62,000".

Interesting. Typically, American fatal casualties in The Great War are cited at about 110,000-120,000, I believe. As far as I know, the U.S. is the only country to include in its KIA figures those who died from the flu.

[phil andrade]

Can't really comment on John's original question, which I thought was a very interesting one, because my extensive ignorance of The Great War extends to this subject.

But, Martin Gilbert in his overview history, "The First World War", had some interesting comments on the American experience overseas. Page 437 - "Behind the lines, a new spectre had begun to haunt soldiers and civilians alike. Starting in June, in both India and Britain, influenza began its epidemic, and then pandemic course. Reaching the Western Front, it was to wreak its havoc there. More American soldiers were to die of influenza in France than by the bullets of the enemy".

And then, to illustrate, he mentions in a footnote on the same page: "The total number of United States soldiers who were killed in action in 1917 and 1918 was 48,909; those dying of influenza exceeded 62,000".

Interesting. Typically, American fatal casualties in The Great War are cited at about 110,000-120,000, I believe. As far as I know, the U.S. is the only country to include in its KIA figures those who died from the flu.

Gilbert is wrong. The influenza death total cited for US soldiers includes those who died at home. On the Western Front itself, American deaths from disease were fewer than half the total who died in battle, although, it must be said, this total was outrageously high compared with the British, who lost 190,000 killed in battle and fewer than 14,000 died from disease in 1918.

Phil.

[Al Parsons]

Gilbert is wrong. The influenza death total cited for US soldiers includes those who died at home. On the Western Front itself, American deaths from disease were fewer than half the total who died in battle, although, it must be said, this total was outrageously high compared with the British, who lost 190,000 killed in battle and fewer than 14,000 died from disease in 1918.

Phil.

Any thread on the elusive topic of battle casualties is likely to cause far more heat than light. It is interesting, though, that the U.S Defense Department seems to think that there were 53,402 "battle deaths" in WW1 and 63,114 "non combat deaths". Of course, the discussion over definitions and who should or should not be included in each category could go on forever. A "non combat" death would appear to relate to someone not killed in combat but what do I know. I strongly suspect that that number of 63,114 includes a huge number killed by the flu pandemic.

[phil andrade]

Yes, that is right. It was Gilbert's assertion that disease killed more American soldiers than battle on the Western Front that I felt compelled to challenge. US combat fatalities were well in excess of 50,000 : about 23,000 died from disease overseas, and about 40,000 at home, from 'flu.

Phil