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
The map at the top omits mineral resources on the Chinese mainland. Which mineral resources were close enough to the Chinese coast that Japan could easily extract them?
How much oil was China refining in 1935?
 
The map at the top omits mineral resources on the Chinese mainland. Which mineral resources were close enough to the Chinese coast that Japan could easily extract them?
How much oil was China refining in 1935?

obviously not a lot. Any of the mining infrastructure was focused around inner Mongolia and Manchuria, which still is a good strategy.
just not enough infrastructure to both wage a war and mine resources.
 
No lend lease, the Germans on the Volga, then Stalin dying, I can see the USSR collapsing. Though it might take decades until the German control every single square km.
China if Japan doesn't go at war with the Allies.
 
China if Japan doesn't go at war with the Allies.

But how though? The war in China forced Japan to search for resources. Resources existed aplenty in Southeast Asia. Southeast Asia was colonised by the Allies. The Japanese thought they could get away with taking away Southeast Asia because the Allies in Europe were busy fighting the war in Europe.
 
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.
China was over two times larger than India, but the vast majority were concentrated in the East coast.
 
I never said it would definitely happen. I said the British managed in India.

I didn't say you did. But what you meant was that there was a possibility with the Japanese succeeding in China, and I'm saying that there isn't unless the POD is early enough the context of the whole war changes.
 
I never said it would definitely happen. I said the British managed in India.

Difference is though the British were willing to work with the Indians on levels greater than than Japan was willing to work with the Chinese. Not to mention the British had a huge technological advantage over the Indians when they were taking over. The Chinese and the Japanese were a little closer to par.
 
Difference is though the British were willing to work with the Indians on levels greater than than Japan was willing to work with the Chinese. Not to mention the British had a huge technological advantage over the Indians when they were taking over. The Chinese and the Japanese were a little closer to par.

Not reaaally. The British initially had a massive numeric disadvantage and depended entirely on native Indian manpower. Given that there were some Chinese soldiers in WWII that were armed with swords and nothing else, it isn't that much of a difference comparing the two situations.
 
Britain in India happened during the 19th century and they inherited the work of the East India Company who had been steadily building power for centuries through both peaceful and limited military means. India was a disunited place and a lot of the local elites supported the British.
Totally and utterly incomparable to Japan outright invading China in the 1930s.
 
Top