WI: Spanish Flu 2.0

What if, towards the end of World War II, a strain of influenza similar in virulence and mortality rates to Spanish Flu broke out? Let's say the timeframe is similar to Spanish Flu; it first breaks out around January of 1945, with the first cases reported with no wartime censorship in some neutral country, say, Argentina, giving it the name "Argentine Flu." It then infects roughly 25% of the world's population and has a 10-15% mortality rate. It lasts about two years. What I'd like to know is:
  • How effective would wartime censorship be in blacking out news of this?
  • What effect would this have on morale on both sides?
  • Would this speed up or slow down the demise of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan?
  • what effect would this have on the postwar world and the Cold War?
  • Would the footing of any nation be improved (by way of being weakened less than its neighbors) in the postwar world?
  • Would this pandemic, like the Spanish Flu, be "forgotten"
 

BlondieBC

Banned
After the first few months, it would not be censored in the west. It would be too hard to hide and it would be so late in the war. Also, there would be lots of stuff in the press on health measures.

It might give the Japanese a little more time, and maybe the Nazi too. When units were hardest hit over the winter (assume winter based like most flus), commanders may cancel offensives. Then in the spring, new men need to be integrated into the units and some of the sick men may need to get back into shape. If i was guessing, i would say you would have a few week delay in launching the spring 1945 offensives in Western Europe.

Most of this is speculation, and depends on the decision of the commanders. Even if 25% of troops are sick, so are your enemies, so a commander may decide to attack even more aggressively.

As to effect, sickness impacts those weaken by hunger and other factors the most, so the USA civilians, Latin America, Southern Africa are likely least impacted. Germany, Russia, China, and Japan are most impacted. The survival rate of those in the Death Camps will be zero for all practical purposes. This will also be true for all those who are malnourished. Soviet POW the Germans have. Survivors of the Siege of Leningrad. Maybe a huge % of Polish people die. I am not a doctor, but i would not be surprised if more than 75% of the Leningrad survivors in OTL, do not make it in this time line.

The USA, Latin America, and Africa would be least impacted, so would be somewhat "stronger" than OTL. If the epidemic changed a leaders decision, then the change decision would be what changed the post war period. For example, the Soviets could have absorbed the losses and kept functioning; but maybe Stalin use the flu as a reason/excuse not to invade Manchuria. This has many butterflies. Maybe the Japanese would not have surrendered if only nuked.

Or maybe the US Navy and Air Force persuade Truman to cancel the invasion, and that starvation + disease will break the will of the Japanese.

If you are writing a time line, this is a great way to eliminate leaders in mass. The dead leaders will cause the greatest butterflies. For example if Stalin dies in January 1945 along with 50% of the command staff (they are very old men), there is a leader ship struggle, and 25% of soldiers are sick, maybe there is no soviet offensive in 1945. Or even a minor civil war.

If both Truman gets the Flu and dies in the winter of 1945, the USA has a new president. Or Hitler dies in February 1945, and the Germans surrender. Etc.
 
I don't have a reference at hand, but wasn't the unique thing about Spanish Flu, that it hit young, healthy people the hardest ?

IIRC it hit the US just as bad as Europe, and killed mostly people in their twenties and late teens.

As I heard it, it's not the flu that kills you, it's your immune system going bonkers trying to eradicate it ...

Now, in '45 Europe is full of under and malnourished people, so it might take a while before the pattern is clear...
 
Top