Which nation was more likely to fall to the axis

Which nation was more likely to fall to the axis

  • China

    Votes: 46 58.2%
  • Soviet union

    Votes: 33 41.8%

  • Total voters
    79
Which nation was more likely to be conquered by the axis . China to Japan or the Soviet Union to germany
Fall:Japan capturing all China except for Tibet , Xinjiang and Germany to the urals
 
Last edited:
Define "fall." Do you mean the country's government surrendering to the attacker or the country's territory being absorbed by the attacker on a more-or-less permanent basis? If the former, then China. It's not that hard to imagine the Japanese capturing Chinese leadership and forcing a surrender. If the latter, then the Soviet Union. There's just no way that the Japanese are going to hold down the Chinese population for that long as some sort of colony.
 
You mean most likely to be conquered in a total war situation? Neither. I can't see Japan conquer China. It had a lot of difficulty actually controlling the areas it conquered, their ability to actually supply their armies deep into China was problematic due to China's primitive infrastructure, and there's just so much land and so many Chinese people to go through.. Perhaps if the Chinese believe no help is ever coming and the Japanese have limited and clear war goals, they can get the Chinese to negotiate and give up concessions. But all of China will never fall to Japan.

Germany was even less likely to conquer the Soviet Union. They turned it into a genocidal battle for survival which would only end with the utter destruction of one nation or the other, ensuring that the Soviets would fight to the death and eventually win thanks to their superior population, resources and industrial potential.
 
Count me in with the others in asking for a more specific definition of "fall." Both China and the USSR have huge chunks of territory and have a significant advantage in population over their respective opponents, so there is no way Japan could completely conquer China or Germany do the same with the Soviet Union.

In terms of overthrowing the government and making the country a puppet state, Japan probably has a better chance of doing this than Germany does, and in fact, they came pretty close in OTL. It's not because Japan's occupation of China was more humane than Germany's occupation of the USSR, which it emphatically was not. But China at the time was a fractured, disjointed, disorganized mess so overthrowing its government is easier by virtue of the fact that not much of a government existed at the time. One of the very few "benefits" of the Soviet Union's totalitarian government was that it was able to organize resistance more effectively.
 
Define "fall." Do you mean the country's government surrendering to the attacker or the country's territory being absorbed by the attacker on a more-or-less permanent basis? If the former, then China. It's not that hard to imagine the Japanese capturing Chinese leadership and forcing a surrender. If the latter, then the Soviet Union. There's just no way that the Japanese are going to hold down the Chinese population for that long as some sort of colony.
Japan capturing all China except for Tibet and maybe Xinjiang and Germany to the urals
 
Both are so incredibly unlikely it might as well be impossible.

Stalin dies, ensuing power struggle heavily weakens the CCCP. Germany could get up to the Urals.

No Pearl Harbor, US doesn't enter war. Japan focuses its attention on China in favor of the Pacific, tries to stir up tensions between communists and the Chinese government. Taking over the entirety of China is not out of the question.

Both unlikely but not impossible.
 
Stalin dies, ensuing power struggle heavily weakens the CCCP. Germany could get up to the Urals.

No Pearl Harbor, US doesn't enter war. Japan focuses its attention on China in favor of the Pacific, tries to stir up tensions between communists and the Chinese government. Taking over the entirety of China is not out of the question.

Both unlikely but not impossible.

Both Japan and Germany can defeat their respective foe. Neither can sustain a military operation all the way up to the deepest interior of their enemy and then keep an occupation going while being ruled by insanely racist murderous regimes who will inspire resistance like no other. It's just not a tenable situation.
 
The Nazi had plan to conquer West of USSR to Ural mountain range.
for rest of USSR they planned bombardments of industrial sites
the Third reich failed totally to conquer it, in end 6.4 million Soviet soldier pursue 1.5 million Wehrmacht survivors

The Japan Empire had plan of the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere"
the inner ring was Japanese Colony zone, while rest are Puppet states under control of Japanese Empire
the Japanese Army had conquer those areas but could't keep them.
EastAsia.jpg
 
I'm skeptical of the idea that the Japanese conquest of China was out-and-out ASB. Unlikely, yes, but stranger things have happened.

Let's look at what is common knowledge about the Sino-Japanese Conflict:

-Japanese forces were better-equipped, better-trained and more coordinated than Chinese forces. Thus they tended to defeat Chinese forces (with some notable exceptions) in tactical combat.

-Chinese forces suffered from fluctuating morale throughout the campaigns, but did have greater reason to be motivated (defenders' advantage).

-Japanese forces proved with their conduct throughout the campaign that virtually nothing was out of the question in terms of cruelty inflicted on the Chinese civilian populace. Whilst this often caused the Chinese to resist more passionately, there is a point where the majority of Chinese would lose hope and submit, even if it takes decades.

-Yes, it is a distinct possibility that the Japanese could go completely bankrupt in the process of occupying China, but this could be counteracted by letting go of unprofitable peripheral regions (East Turkestan; Tibet; possibly Yunnan), as well as instituting puppet governments like they did OTL in Manchukuo and Menguguo, as well as China Proper. If Japan can maintain integration with the international economic order, the West will likely overlook Japanese abuses, particularly given their own colonial actions and the allure of cheap goods from Chinese workers who are essentially slave labour.
 
I'm skeptical of the idea that the Japanese conquest of China was out-and-out ASB. Unlikely, yes, but stranger things have happened.

Let's look at what is common knowledge about the Sino-Japanese Conflict:

-Japanese forces were better-equipped, better-trained and more coordinated than Chinese forces. Thus they tended to defeat Chinese forces (with some notable exceptions) in tactical combat.

-Chinese forces suffered from fluctuating morale throughout the campaigns, but did have greater reason to be motivated (defenders' advantage).

-Japanese forces proved with their conduct throughout the campaign that virtually nothing was out of the question in terms of cruelty inflicted on the Chinese civilian populace. Whilst this often caused the Chinese to resist more passionately, there is a point where the majority of Chinese would lose hope and submit, even if it takes decades.

-Yes, it is a distinct possibility that the Japanese could go completely bankrupt in the process of occupying China, but this could be counteracted by letting go of unprofitable peripheral regions (East Turkestan; Tibet; possibly Yunnan), as well as instituting puppet governments like they did OTL in Manchukuo and Menguguo, as well as China Proper. If Japan can maintain integration with the international economic order, the West will likely overlook Japanese abuses, particularly given their own colonial actions and the allure of cheap goods from Chinese workers who are essentially slave labour.

Don't forget though that OTL there was a large chinese force which, for most of the conflict, did not actively fight the japanese - Mao's communists. If the chinese situation significantly worsens, we might well see less infighting between the two chinese factions.
 
Don't forget though that OTL there was a large chinese force which, for most of the conflict, did not actively fight the japanese - Mao's communists. If the chinese situation significantly worsens, we might well see less infighting between the two chinese factions.

As it was, the Chinese Communists seemed to look for the path of least resistance. Even then, the Nationalists and Communists OTL only cooperated very reluctantly. Unfortunately, the Japanese may well go completely full-out with their chemical warfare program should resistance continue after the collapse of the Nationalist government had Japanese pressure been maintained without outside support for the Chinese, which I personally think is inevitable.
 
Stalin dies, ensuing power struggle heavily weakens the CCCP. Germany could get up to the Urals.

No Pearl Harbor, US doesn't enter war. Japan focuses its attention on China in favor of the Pacific, tries to stir up tensions between communists and the Chinese government. Taking over the entirety of China is not out of the question.

Both unlikely but not impossible.
Russia being conquered was impossible. More than Sea Lion, honestly.
 
So is China being conquered. The Japanese invaded Pearl Harbour partly because they weren't seeing so much progress in China and were desperate to buy themselves enough time.

I'd disagree with that evaluation, although I'd freely admit that I'm not an expert on the Japanese in WWII. AFAIK, a large part of the strike south strategy was the navy scheming politically to avoid losing funding and resources that were going to the mainland. They managed to get other politicians on board that the Europeans wouldn't be able to resist. They were largely right, with the exception that the US put up a much bigger fight than was expected.

Obviously China was a near to medium-term economic loss, but I believe the rationale behind the attempted conquest of China would be that it would make Japan (in the long-term) the unchallenged juggernaut of the Asia-Pacific region. I still think that the best-case scenario for the Chinese without the WAllies was a stalemate, with future collapse being fairly likely.
 
Japan simply doesn't have enough manpower to effectively occupy all of China. Like every foreign rule over China throughout history it would require a loyal Chinese contingent to do most of the heavy lifting. Unfortunately for Japan the IJA's modus operandi of reckless and wanton cruelty prevented such a contingent from coming into being; Manchukuo and Wang Jingwei's government weren't going to cut it. Genghis Khan and Nurhaci could be every bit as cruel as the IJA, but they knew when to show mercy and make use of local talent.
 
I'd disagree with that evaluation, although I'd freely admit that I'm not an expert on the Japanese in WWII. AFAIK, a large part of the strike south strategy was the navy scheming politically to avoid losing funding and resources that were going to the mainland. They managed to get other politicians on board that the Europeans wouldn't be able to resist. They were largely right, with the exception that the US put up a much bigger fight than was expected.

Obviously China was a near to medium-term economic loss, but I believe the rationale behind the attempted conquest of China would be that it would make Japan (in the long-term) the unchallenged juggernaut of the Asia-Pacific region. I still think that the best-case scenario for the Chinese without the WAllies was a stalemate, with future collapse being fairly likely.

I'd say that the Japanese forces were moving too quickly(with a fast victory in mind) for them to leave sufficient forces behind as a pacifying element in regions they have conquered. Hence the flourishing of Chinese Communist elements behind lines OTL.

By the time the Japanese were finished with Chiang Kai-shek at whichever mountain in Yunnan he was hiding in, they would be finding themselves against a much larger force at their backs.
 
Japan simply doesn't have enough manpower to effectively occupy all of China. Like every foreign rule over China throughout history it would require a loyal Chinese contingent to do most of the heavy lifting. Unfortunately for Japan the IJA's modus operandi of reckless and wanton cruelty prevented such a contingent from coming into being; Manchukuo and Wang Jingwei's government weren't going to cut it. Genghis Khan and Nurhaci could be every bit as cruel as the IJA, but they knew when to show mercy and make use of local talent.
It does seem impossible. Then again, Britainheld sway over 300 million Indians.
 
It does seem impossible. Then again, Britainheld sway over 300 million Indians.

completely different issue, completely different context. India's a very large peninsula that has been economically castrated over a period of centuries, while Japan doesn't have the luxury to do the same.
 
Top