No or Delayed 1918 Flu Pandemic?

[MAC161]

Re-read an AH essay by William H. McNeill which mentioned this possibility, and so I wanted to put it to the forum (apologies if it's already up somewhere else):

What if the 1918 flu pandemic hadn't arisen, either in that year or at all?

I have doubts as to the very last; the conditions of the Western Front and the world in general (rapidly shifting populations, increasing inter-connection by ship and rail, and the overstraining or collapse of infrastructure given wartime demands, resource shortages or simple chaos) point to some form of global disease arising, probably by 1920 at the absolute latest. But what might be altered (in WWI, in world politics, in medicine, to name just three) if the pandemic struck after 1918? What does this lead to short-term (Ex: the final CP & Allied operations of 1918, more spec. American participation in these) and long-term (Ex: the eventual peace at Versailles, or elsewhere; the Russian Civil War; Wilson's final years; the formation of the League of Nations; the Warlord Era in China; European and Japanese imperialism)?

Also, if the pandemic is delayed, even if by just a couple of years at most, does this mean it strikes with greater or less virulence and lower or higher death rates compared to OTL?

 

[AH Layard]

In India there was a significant impact with ~18 million people dead, about 5% of the population, and a fall in the birth rate. The medical infrastructure was a shambles, and young people crowded into cities which were transmission centres. This was one of several factors bringing the the independence movement and non co-operation towards the mass population, alongside shortages and price rises and military recruitment during the war.

 

[MAC161]

In India there was a significant impact with ~18 million people dead, about 5% of the population, and a fall in the birth rate. The medical infrastructure was a shambles, and young people crowded into cities which were transmission centres. This was one of several factors bringing the the independence movement and non co-operation towards the mass population, alongside shortages and price rises and military recruitment during the war.

Interesting; how do you think a delayed pandemic would've affected this trend, if at all? More specifically, might such a delay have butterflied or otherwise changed the events of the 1919 Amritsar Massacre?

 

[AH Layard]

Interesting; how do you think a delayed pandemic would've affected this trend, if at all? More specifically, might such a delay have butterflied or otherwise changed the events of the 1919 Amritsar Massacre?

It was already underway and the main focus was economic grievances, it’s very hard to judge the exact contribution of the flu but it was certainly a factor. Perhaps the movement is less powerful and this affects the internal dynamics of Congress as Gandhi had to fight for support against liberals and supporters of direct action: his leadership was never assured.

I suspect with many other societies worldwide it would be very hard to disentangle the impact of the flu from the other massive social changes happening at that point: the global supply shock leading to higher prices and shortages, the associated rise in trade unionism, veterans returning and the loss of life, societies wanting political change in exchange for military recruitment and participation, the Soviet revolution and international radicalism and anti-colonialism. This is one reason why the flu received less public attention then it would warrant in other times and in later historiography, but during Covid historians began to look back and unpick for parallels.