Well, I'd suppose that the Spanish Flu IFR is partially explainable by way less hygiene, public and private, conspicuously less caloric intake, and the like.
Still, in terms of excess mortality, I do not see a 2020- 'pandemic' (but then again, this is 20-39yo, if one looks at official data for, say, 65+, it's quite likely a sightly different picture).
But the top histogram accounts for all causes mortality in that age group not just 'flu.'
So would include any war deaths etc., right? I'm just trying to get a handle on what Sweden was like during that historical period (1900-1922) for that age group because cause of death is not broken down here from what I can see. I do not know anything about Sweden during WWI.
To compare, Australia's excess mortality for that age group those early years would look similar due to direct war casualties (but starting a bit earlier).
So it would be good to get the breakdown of deaths in the top figure rather than just assuming they were all due to the Spanish flu. Perhaps some historians can chime in here. What was happening in Sweden at the time?
During World War I, Sweden attempted to remain neutral and to assert its right to trade with the belligerent countries. For Great Britain, the blockade was an important weapon, and Sweden’s demand to import freely favoured Germany exclusively. As a result, the Allies stopped a large percentage of Sweden’s trade. This, however, not only affected Sweden’s exports to Germany but also from 1916 caused a severe shortage of food in Sweden. The situation was worsened by unrestricted submarine warfare and by the entry of the United States into the war in 1917. Hammarskjöld was forced to resign; he was followed by a Conservative government and shortly afterward by a Liberal one, both of which conducted a more-diplomatic trading policy with the Allies. In May 1918 an agreement was reached with Great Britain and the United States that allowed Sweden again to import produce from the West, on condition that exports to Germany be limited and that a large part of Sweden’s merchant fleet be put at the Allies’ disposal.
There are obviously other sources available and from a short glance at some of them the britannica "version" seems in line with all of them.
I could not find any mention of Sweden being part of any hostilities during WWI. Seems like they managed to remain as neutral as possible, and thereby no blood was shed. Also, WWI was not fought _only_ in 1918. The war lasted from 1914 to 1918. If there had been any casualties of war during this period I would expect the recorded mortality to be higher over this whole time span, which does not seem to be the case.
However, malnutrition may have played a significant role during the severe outbreak of flu in 1918 .
Malnutrition and even starvation in some places did indeed play part in worsening the consequences of "the Spaniard" as it was called here. When harvests failed, the state paid local potentates to distribute food the the poor, said local potentates being bankers and capitalists meaning they gouged starving families to double their profits. Ain't "market economy" grand?
Initially, Sweden was aligned with Germany/the Central powers but not to the point of joining the war, for that there was no support in any political party or camp. Also, the dissolution of the Union with Norway (or norwegian independence if you prefer) in 1905 was still an open wound in many ways, added to that was the staunch opposition to any kind of military preparedness or ability by the Socialist Democrat and Liberal parties, mainly due to fears that the party of the old nobility, bankers, upper classes and various capitalists might use an improved military to curb the struggle for democracy and civil rights.
So in short, we sat it out due to:
1) Not having a dog in the fight
2) Not having any ability to partake
3) Having had 50 years of gradually increased tensions between workers and farmers vs capitalists, clergy and old nobility
4) Unions and workers having organised "freikorps" practicing marksmanship and conducting drills to show the old regime and royalists that force was a no-go
Remember, we lost 1 500 000 people of working/child-bearing age from mid-19th century to the 1920s, due to migration to the USA. We were in a real bad spot in many ways, almost as bad as after Karl XII's wars, when the shortage of men was so great polygamy was debated as a possible solution.
I had hoped you would weigh in, Rikard, for you obviously know so much more about Sweden than I ever would. Thank you for bringing this up (thereby corroborating my speculations about malnutrition etc.).
Thank you! I knew Sweden tried to remain 'militarily neutral' but one really doesn't know what that means for the people trying to survive. Let's hope our fine author reports back with more info because it is a very interesting scenario to behold.
How affected was Sweden by WWI? Even if not directly, but through disruptions etc.
Well, I'd suppose that the Spanish Flu IFR is partially explainable by way less hygiene, public and private, conspicuously less caloric intake, and the like.
Still, in terms of excess mortality, I do not see a 2020- 'pandemic' (but then again, this is 20-39yo, if one looks at official data for, say, 65+, it's quite likely a sightly different picture).
But the top histogram accounts for all causes mortality in that age group not just 'flu.'
So would include any war deaths etc., right? I'm just trying to get a handle on what Sweden was like during that historical period (1900-1922) for that age group because cause of death is not broken down here from what I can see. I do not know anything about Sweden during WWI.
To compare, Australia's excess mortality for that age group those early years would look similar due to direct war casualties (but starting a bit earlier).
So it would be good to get the breakdown of deaths in the top figure rather than just assuming they were all due to the Spanish flu. Perhaps some historians can chime in here. What was happening in Sweden at the time?
From britannica: https://www.britannica.com/place/Sweden/Policy-during-World-War-I
Policy during World War I
During World War I, Sweden attempted to remain neutral and to assert its right to trade with the belligerent countries. For Great Britain, the blockade was an important weapon, and Sweden’s demand to import freely favoured Germany exclusively. As a result, the Allies stopped a large percentage of Sweden’s trade. This, however, not only affected Sweden’s exports to Germany but also from 1916 caused a severe shortage of food in Sweden. The situation was worsened by unrestricted submarine warfare and by the entry of the United States into the war in 1917. Hammarskjöld was forced to resign; he was followed by a Conservative government and shortly afterward by a Liberal one, both of which conducted a more-diplomatic trading policy with the Allies. In May 1918 an agreement was reached with Great Britain and the United States that allowed Sweden again to import produce from the West, on condition that exports to Germany be limited and that a large part of Sweden’s merchant fleet be put at the Allies’ disposal.
There are obviously other sources available and from a short glance at some of them the britannica "version" seems in line with all of them.
I could not find any mention of Sweden being part of any hostilities during WWI. Seems like they managed to remain as neutral as possible, and thereby no blood was shed. Also, WWI was not fought _only_ in 1918. The war lasted from 1914 to 1918. If there had been any casualties of war during this period I would expect the recorded mortality to be higher over this whole time span, which does not seem to be the case.
However, malnutrition may have played a significant role during the severe outbreak of flu in 1918 .
Malnutrition and even starvation in some places did indeed play part in worsening the consequences of "the Spaniard" as it was called here. When harvests failed, the state paid local potentates to distribute food the the poor, said local potentates being bankers and capitalists meaning they gouged starving families to double their profits. Ain't "market economy" grand?
Initially, Sweden was aligned with Germany/the Central powers but not to the point of joining the war, for that there was no support in any political party or camp. Also, the dissolution of the Union with Norway (or norwegian independence if you prefer) in 1905 was still an open wound in many ways, added to that was the staunch opposition to any kind of military preparedness or ability by the Socialist Democrat and Liberal parties, mainly due to fears that the party of the old nobility, bankers, upper classes and various capitalists might use an improved military to curb the struggle for democracy and civil rights.
So in short, we sat it out due to:
1) Not having a dog in the fight
2) Not having any ability to partake
3) Having had 50 years of gradually increased tensions between workers and farmers vs capitalists, clergy and old nobility
4) Unions and workers having organised "freikorps" practicing marksmanship and conducting drills to show the old regime and royalists that force was a no-go
Remember, we lost 1 500 000 people of working/child-bearing age from mid-19th century to the 1920s, due to migration to the USA. We were in a real bad spot in many ways, almost as bad as after Karl XII's wars, when the shortage of men was so great polygamy was debated as a possible solution.
I had hoped you would weigh in, Rikard, for you obviously know so much more about Sweden than I ever would. Thank you for bringing this up (thereby corroborating my speculations about malnutrition etc.).
Thank you! I knew Sweden tried to remain 'militarily neutral' but one really doesn't know what that means for the people trying to survive. Let's hope our fine author reports back with more info because it is a very interesting scenario to behold.