Re: What IF: ... Japan had more Oilers for Dec.7'41 ?

On Aug 28, 6:35=A0pm, Stephen Graham  wrote:

> > Why would I care where it originated when I already knew that the NEI
> > had the world's supply pretty much "cornered" =A0in 1941 ? Peru or
> > Hoboken doesn't matter to the soldier fighting and dying of malaria on
> > the PIs and NEIs
>
> And yet somehow the Allies managed to conduct successful campaigns in
> malaria-ridden zones.

You actually consider Malaya, Hong Kong, Singa****e, the Philipines,
and the NEI to be successful campaigns conducted by the Allies ? I was
always under the impression that the Japanese "handed their heads to
them on platters" with one of the reasons being the effect of malaria
on Allied troops.

> >> c) you would have also noticed that the Allies also used other
> >> anti-malarials during World War II.

Sure but later on in the war. With the push on for new drugs because
the Japanese had taken the NEI and stopped the quinine source. And
even with the newer drug, quinine was prefered when available since it
stopped two types of malaria rather than just one with few toxic side
effects save those earned by drinking too much gin & tonic.

> As far as I can tell, any problems with the supply of anti-malarial
> drugs in the period had more to do with general supply problems than
> with shortages.

Considering that a day ago all you knew was that the quinine source
tree originated in Peru, that is good progress.

I'm sorry to have to ask but you'll have to explain the difference to
me ? Whether I as a soldier contract malaria because of a "shortage"
or because of a "general supply problem" matters little to me or the
combat that I leave behind, now understrength.