Impacts of the Spanish Flu Pandemic:

How One Outbreak Changed the World

Sophie Spector
A block
Fitzgerald
6/8/2016
 The First World War killed as many as 17 million globally; It is known as the Great War

due to its epic scale and the international European destruction it caused. But, however many

deaths the war is accredited to, it’s largely unknown that it was actually in the years after the

war, that far more deaths occurred. The Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918-19 killed as many as

20-100 million worldwide. This forgotten crisis struck viciously at the very end of the Great

War, at first isolated in troops in Europe, but then migrating worldwide. With such a large

number of deaths, there’s no doubt that the pandemic had a great effect on twentieth century

history. For one, the flu hurt morale and the people’s will to carry on fighting, meaning that it

may have contributed to an international eagerness to end the war. It also was responsible for

depleting military resources in every nation, as well as for halting a final German offensive.

Lastly, it may have had the greatest impact of all at the Paris Peace Conference, where it made an

appearance as Europe’s fate hung in the balance. The infamous Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918

played a unprecedented role in the outcome of WW1, both on the battlefield, the homefront, and

the political level.

The Spanish influenza was the deadliest flu in history, killing a minimum of 20 million

worldwide between 1918-1919. It killed as many people within twenty four weeks as AIDS did

over twenty four years, and it’s estimated that it killed up to ten times as many as died in the war.

WW1 set a perfect staging ground for the soon to be pandemic. Millions of young men were

gathered in Europe, in both western trenches and eastern fronts. To make matters worse, the

virus preferred young adults, and as a result wounded, unhealthy boys with poor nutrition made

perfect targets. After four years of fighting, the war began to reach its final days, and yet, the

public was unaware that another killer was waiting in the wings. The Spanish influenza came in

1
three waves, the first in the spring of 1918. A mild, three day fever was all that resulted from this

strain of the virus and although vast quantities of men were sick, not many paid attention to a

spike in minor flu cases. The second wave hit suddenly, swiftly, and violently, from September

through December of 1918. This was right around Armistice, the last day of World War One,

and while millions of men were being sent home across the globe. Outbreaks began in Boston,

and troops being shipped from this major port city, due to US involvement at the end of the war,

caught this strain and brought it to Europe. There, it exploded, especially in Germany, and it then

caught on in India, Africa, Asia and the rest of the world. In many ways, the war and the

outbreak were closely married and paralleled each other. As men came home from war, they

brought the flu along with them. The deadly strain then spread to the civilian population, and the

majority were killed during the worst nine weeks of this wave. Finally, just as things were

looking up, post war and flu, a final strain hit in the winter of 1918-19. Although this was a less

violent strain, it still had its impact on the Paris Peace Conferences of 1919. These conferences

were where world leaders convened to discuss the war, what the reparations were going to be for

Germany, and, in an essence, hash out the fate of Europe as a whole. This third wave passed

through Europe during these conferences, but, by the end of that winter it was gone, just as

quickly as it had appeared.

There is strong evidence to support that the disease had a major effect on history, given

the severity, breadth, and timing of the outbreak. Although the public attempted to forget about

the pandemic altogether, it is in the last decade or so that the flu has been analyzed in the context

of history, and finally being given the credit it’s due. From what’s been gathered about the

outbreak, there may lie proof that its microbes, and not men, that control history.

2
 It is underestimated how greatly the Spanish Flu impacted the homefront during the final

days of the war, as it was responsible for hurting morale and exhausting the public’s support. By

the fall of 1918, people were beginning to die in large numbers, and newspapers were often filled

with obituaries such as this one, published in November 1918: “Following the deaths of two

sons within four days, father, mother and two other boys died on the same day. Next day the

baby, last of the family, died” (The Washington Post). And civilians had the least access to

healthcare, because all the doctors were deployed on the military front and “By 1918 the armies

and navies of belligerent countries had drained civilian life of a large percentage of doctors and

nurses, leaving citizens at home hard-pressed to secure adequate professional treatment.”

(Phillips). This would reason that by the the fall of 1918, people were occupied with things other

than supporting the war. The flu made most people, quite literally, sick and tired of war, and, as

Cologne’s mayor and one of Europe’s greatest statesmen, Adenauer, noted “the disease left

thousands ‘too exhausted to hate” (Adenauer). ​ ​During any war, the support at home is key, but

this rang especially true in WWI, the first modern, total war. In this world war, it was the first

time governments around the world realized the important role civilian morale played in battle.

The home front was viewed as another part of the nationwide war effort; an extension of the

battlefield, as their support of the soldiers, their production of armaments, and their donations

were vital to the cause. But people were beginning to get tired and impatient of fighting by 1917,

and the Spanish Flu was their last straw. So by 1918, there was difficulty supplying ample

munitions and food to the war, doctors and medicine were needed on the homefront, and soldiers

were now burdened with receiving letters about their sick families at home. It’s no wonder that,

because of the Spanish Flu, a widespread sinking morale on the homefront soon made everyone

3
eager to end the war. The flu’s impact on the outcome of the war is largely dismissed, but if it

had as large of an effect on the homefront as evidence shows, then it is clear that the flu was one

of the reasons the homefront lost support when it did, and thus, why the the war came to an end

when it did.

The Spanish Influenza struck the troops in Europe’s western front worse than anywhere

else, and as a result it depleted military’s resources, especially in Germany, where it may have

been responsible for indefinitely suspending a final offensive. Although some nations and troops

suffered worse than others, such as Germany, there was widespread damage. Disease has always

been bad news for the military. It drains men, resources, and transportation, it damages morale,

and it makes people permanently weaker. The Spanish Flu was a military’s worst nightmare. Not

only did a high percentage of those who were sick die, but as history professor and well versed

author on the flu, Howard Phillips, points out “those who contracted but did not die of the

“Spanish” flu were ​hors de combat​ for weeks rather than days” (Phillips). The flu was not only

vicious and fast in it’s initial attack, but it lingered for weeks to months. It was very hard to fully

recover to one’s previous self after being infected. So, even of the soldiers who were treated and

survived the sickness, many were unable to fight. This meant that resources- medicines, beds,

nurses, blankets, food, and most importantly, soldiers- were being used up in large quantities,

and for long periods of time. Every nation, not just those on the losing side, was eager to wrap up

the war and get home. However, it is crucial to note that the losing side was hit worse; the

German army was struck particularly harshly by the flu, and it’s believed that the flu may have

gotten in the way of a possible major offensive attack at the end of the war. By October 1918 the

German army began to falter; huge numbers of men were already taken by the flu during the

4
summer and now there was a second spike in cases during the fall. Although the offensive in

question initially made some progress, the so called ‘third phase’ of the German plan was put off

and postponed indefinitely until it was too late to put it in effect. A German commander himself

even blamed the flu for ‘“loss of initiative and ultimate failure of the offensive” (Barry, 171) and

Harvey Cushing, a military doctor at the time, wrote “I gather that the epidemic of grippe that hit

us rather hard in Flanders also hit the Boche worse, and this may have caused for the delay”

(Cushing). Although one offensive strike would not have altered the outcome of the war

drastically, is it possible that the Germans could have turned the war to their side again with a

successful offensive? Or, would it have dragged out the war out longer? These hypotheticals are

unanswerable questions, but they provide interesting theories as to what could have happened

without the Influenza. What is known, however, is that there’s hard evidence to support that the

flu itself was responsible for the failure of Germany’s final offensive, which would have had an

effect on the war to some degree, likely a large one. Because the flu was so detrimental to

militaries across Europe, especially to the militaries of the losing side, it likely played a large

role in how the end of WW1 played out on the battlefield.

On the contrary, some argue that since all sides were hit equally, the pandemic could not

have had any great impact. By the end of the war, yes, all sides were hit fairly. However, within

separate time frames, this claim isn’t true; the morbidity in each country was greatly staggered.

For example in May, 3.5% of German troops were sick with flu cases, and meanwhile in France,

only 0.95% were suffering, and in July, Germany reported a staggering 17% ill with flu, while

France dropped down to merely 0.1%. (Phillips). Professor and author Phillips also eloquently

noted that,

5
 “it usually arrived in the German lines after it had swept through the ranks of

their enemies. The influenza virus’ impact was thus not even-handed and so put the

German army at a disadvantage against the Allied forces at key moments of decisive

battles on the Western Front.” (Phillips)

Although flu struck everywhere, the severity and timing of the wave was unequal. A French

officer noted that at the time,“In France, it is benign ... [b]ut across the front, the Germans are

very affected ... [and it is] raging in Germany with intensity.” (Lahaie, p.104). So, although the

flu did make its way through every side by the end of the year, it was not always so fair as the

war was going on. The flu was responsible for draining every army and navy, especially that of

Germany.

The last great impact the Flu made was in it’s appearance at The Paris Peace Conferences

of 1919, where it set up an unfair playing ground between the leading powers and their ability to

argue plans for Germany. The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 was where US President Wilson,

France’s leader Clemenceau, and Britain’s prime minister, Lloyd George, hashed out the fate of

Germany and the other losing countries. France had suffered the greatest damage from Germany,

and the nation was out for revenge. Clemenceau wanted to take back German territory, make

them pay massive, nearly impossible, fines, demilitarize their land, and weaken them as a whole.

Wilson, who was more objective, wanted lesser reparations than those proposed by Clemenceau,

such as equal disarmament in all of Europe, and a peaceful resolution. However, the conference

wasn’t completely fair from the start, as frequently, Wilson was put at a disadvantage; even

before the conference, Wilson wasn’t set up to fight his case fairly. He wasn’t completely

prepared, and with good reason; Wilson’s chief and confidante was sick, along with the chief’s

6
three assistants. This meant that Wilson was left virtually alone to argue and plan. He may have

been able to do this in time, except for the fact that his family was also sick. Although he was

able to get back on track after everyone recovered, this, without a doubt, dented his ability to

argue effectively. Then as weeks passed, the peace conference was starting to turn aggressive, as

Wilson and Clemenceau became increasingly stubborn. Wilson refused to agree to Clemenceau’s

terms under any circumstances, and threatened to walk out of the assembly entirely, but

Clemenceau wouldn’t give in either. On one of the most heated days of the argument, April 3 of

1919, Wilson suddenly began sweating, coughing, and then spiked a 103 degree fever. He had

caught the flu, and was in bed and immobile for 5 days. Meanwhile, the ​rest​ of the nations

agreed to a pact that essentially followed all of Clemenceau’s initial wishes. Every leader besides

Wilson, the only one who was objective enough to make fair demands, agreed on a clause to

make Germany pay large reparations, give back land, and demilitarize, among other requests.

And in a surprising and controversial twist, Wilson, who had previously refused to agree to any

such thing under any circumstances, signed away this paper that set forth the rest of history. Just

five days before, he had threatened to travel back to the states before he would ever consider

agreeing. Any reasonable historian, or any person for that matter, would question how someone

so determined could have given in so easily. What’s often overlooked is that Wilson signed this

while ​still​ recovering in bed. Recall, too, that the Spanish flu symptoms lasted for weeks after the

initial ‘attack’. Those afflicted were sometimes severely fatigued and almost ‘zombie like’ for

weeks after. And it’s possible that this was the case with Wilson, as many of his close friends

stated that the flu left Wilson debilitated, possibly inducing clinical paranoia, and that he had lost

his energy and passion. This would have meant that he was no longer physically or

7
psychologically capable of arguing his side, and he very likely lost his motivation, gave in, while

he was still recovering, leading some to question the impact the flu truly did have at the

conference. And although, as historian and author John M. Barry points out, “It is impossible to

say what Wilson would have done had he not become sick,” it is crucial to note that the

“Influenza did weaken him physically, and, precisely at the most crucial point of negotiations.”

(Barry, 387). One might object here that Wilson’s incident was due to a stroke, and that the flu

really didn’t have much of an impact at the conference. However, this is a common myth,

perpetuated by mid-century historians. It has only been in recent years that historians have

looked closer at his symptoms: Wilson had suffered from a high fever and congested coughs- in

no way was this a result of a stroke. Even the white house doctor himself stated that ​“[t]he

president was suddenly taken violently sick with the influenza at a time when the whole of

civilization seemed to be in the balance.” (Grayson). ​ The flu most definitely arrived at the

conference uninvited, and it most definitely had a negative impact on Wilson’s argument. If this

is the case, as evidence would lead one to believe, it’s plausible that the flu was largely

responsible for the wreck of German reparations. The Spanish Flu’s appearance at these

conferences weakened the only leader with objective claims, meaning that the outcome of the

conference- massive reparations that lead to the rise of fascism and economic crisis- was largely

in part due to the Flu.

The Spanish Flu pandemic, without a doubt, impacted the outcome of WW1 and its

subsequent history, by means of exhausting the public and the military, and later, political

officials. The fading morale at home ​did ​have a large effect on the war, because the support of

the homefront was vital and closely linked to the battle front. Meanwhile, the flu had an even

8
greater impact on the troops on the front lines, and consumed their resources, including the

number of capable men. It had an especially brutal impact on Germany, which ended up on the

losing side, and it halted their last major offensive. Lastly, the flu is the only plausible

explanation for Wilson's sudden agreement to what were otherwise unfair terms, which set forth

the devastation of German reparations. Through previously ignored evidence, one can find

statistics and first person histories that support that the Flu may have been the greatest

determinant in the outcome of World War One. Research on this long forgotten pandemic can

provide some answers, but what will remain unclear, is how the war would have turned out, and

how the twentieth century would have turned out, had this pandemic not happened. It is

unsettling to consider that undetectable viruses, of which mankind has no control over, have

made way for some of the largest and most devastating events throughout history, and it’s even

more unsettling to consider that another pandemic is not a question of if, but when.

9
 Works Cited

Adenauer, Konrad. ​The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague in History​. New

York: Viking, n.d. 174. Print.

Barry, John M. ​The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague in History​. New

York: Viking, 2004. Print.

H., Phillips, and David Killingray. ​The Spanish Influenza Pandemic of 1918-19: New

Perspectives​. London: Routledge, 2003. Print.

"Three Brothers Die in Three Weeks." ​The Washington Post​ Nov. 1918: n. pag. ​ProQuest

Historical Newspapers [ProQuest]​. Web. 7 June 2016.

10
 Bibliography

Ashan, Salehya, Dr. "How Did WW1 Change the Way We Treat War Injuries Today?" BBC.

BBC IWonder, N.d. Web. 1 May 2016.

Barry, John M. ​The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague in History​. New

York: Viking, 2004. Print.

Bergen, Leo Van: Medicine and Medical Service, In: 1914-1918-online. International

Encyclopedia of the First World War, Ed. by Ute Daniel, Peter Gatrell, Oliver Janz,

Heather Jones, Jennifer Keene, Alan Kramer, and Bill Nasson, Issued by Freie

Universität Berlin, Berlin 2014-10-08.

Best, Nicholas. ​The Greatest Day in History: How, on the Eleventh Hour of the Eleventh Day of

the Eleventh Month, the First World War Finally Came to an End​. New York: Public

Affairs, 2008. Print.

Byerly, Carol R. ​Fever of War: The Influenza Epidemic in the U.S. Army during World War I​.

New York: New York UP, 2005. Print.

Dehner, George. ​Global Flu and You: A History of Influenza​. London: Reaktion, 2012. Print.

Gilman, Larry. "Influenza Pandemic of 1918." Infectious Diseases: In Context. Ed. Brenda

Wilmoth Lerner and K. Lee Lerner. Vol. 1. Detroit: Gale, 2008. 442-448. In Context

Series. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 3 May 2016.

Gilman, Larry. "Influenza Pandemic of 1918." Infectious Diseases: In Context. Ed. Brenda

Wilmoth Lerner and K. Lee Lerner. Vol. 1. Detroit: Gale, 2008. 442-448. In Context

Series. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 3 May 2016.

11
GrrlScientist. "Influenza: How the Great War Helped Create the Greatest Pandemic Ever

Known." ​The Guardian​. Guardian News and Media, 30 July 2014. Web. 10 May 2016.

H., Phillips, and David Killingray. ​The Spanish Influenza Pandemic of 1918-19: New

Perspectives​. London: Routledge, 2003. ​Questia School​. Web. 10 May 2016.

Herman, Jan Kenneth. "Medicine, World War II." Americans at War. Ed. John P. Resch. Vol. 3:

1901-1945. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005. 108-110. Gale Virtual Reference

Library. Web. 3 May 2016.

"Influenza Epidemic: Did the Influenza Outbreak of 1918–1919 Have Much Impact on the

United States, and Why Is It Historically Neglected?" History in Dispute. Ed. Robert J.

Allison. Vol. 3: American Social and Political Movements, 1900-1945: Pursuit of

Progress. Detroit: St. James Press, 2000. 95-101. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 3

May 2016.

"The Influenza Epidemic of 1918." ​National Archives and Records Administration​. National

Archives and Records Administration, n.d. Web. 10 May 2016.

"Influenza Pandemic." ​New Articles RSS​. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 June 2016.

Kelly, Evelyn B. "Medical Advances During War." Science and Its Times. Ed. Neil Schlager and

Josh Lauer. Vol. 6: 1900 to 1949. Detroit: Gale, 2000. 352-354. Gale Virtual Reference

Library. Web. 3 May 2016.

Lloyd, Nick. ​Hundred Days: The Campaign That Ended World War I​. N.p.: Basic, 2013. Print.

MacDougall, Heather. "Fear, Flight, Frustration and Dedicated Service: a Brief History of

International Disease Control Activities, 1918-2008." Forum on Public Policy: A Journal

of the Oxford Round Table (2008). Academic OneFile. Web. 10 May 2016.

12
Marks, Stephen P. "Medical Experimentation." Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against

Humanity. Ed. Dinah L. Shelton. Vol. 2. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005.

669-675. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 3 May 2016

"Medical Experiments: Should Data Derived from Nazi Medical Experiments Be Used by

Contemporary Scientists?" History in Dispute. Ed. Tandy McConnell. Vol. 11: The

Holocaust, 1933-1945. Detroit: St. James Press, 2003. 146-154. World History in

Context. Web. 3 May 2016.

"The Paris Peace Conference: January 18, 1919–January 21, 1920." ​Global Events​: ​Milestone

Events Throughout History​. Ed. Jennifer Stock. Vol. 4: Europe. Farmington Hills, MI:

Gale, 2014. ​World History In Context​. Web. 10 May 2016.

Phillips, Howard. "Influenza Pandemic." ​New Articles RSS​. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 June 2016.

"A President's Illness Kept Under Wraps." ​Washington Post​. The Washington Post, 03 Feb.

2007. Web. 06 June 2016.

"Science and Technology of WWII." Science and Technology of WWII. National WWII

Museum, N.d. Web. 03 May 2016.

Smallman-Raynor, Matthew, and A. D. Cliff. ​War Epidemics: An Historical Geography of

Infectious Diseases in Military Conflict and Civil Strife, 1850-2000​. Oxford: Oxford UP,

2004. ​Questia School​. Web. 18 May 2016.

"Treaty of Versailles." ​Gale Encyclopedia of American Law​. Ed. Donna Batten. 3rd Ed. Vol. 10.

Detroit: Gale, 2010. 101-102. ​Opposing Viewpoints in Context​. Web. 10 May 2016.

13
"Vaughan, Victor Clarence 1851-1929." American Decades. Ed. Judith S. Baughman, Et Al.

Vol. 2: 1910-1919. Detroit: Gale, 2001. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 3 May

2016

"Was World War I Good for Medicine?" NATO Review. N.p., N.d. Web. 03 May 2016.

14