WWII China really a minor?

[Praetonia]

To be fair the US was not backing the Nationalists; when the Nationalists were pushed out to Formosa the US position was that the Nationalists and Communists should enter coalition and govern the country jointly. Since the Nationalists had been much stronger, this amounts to a Nationalist surrender. Why exactly the US wanted the Communists to defeat the Nationalists is another question that I cannot answer.

 

[Zoob]

It's not that they're unimportant, it's just they're not as important as the 7 who were picked. They have a lot of flavour events that simulate the civil war and the war with japan though, along with the united Chinese front, a faction that brings together all the warlord states.

So while they might not be a major with their own tree, they seem to have had plenty of attention.

 

[Chukada]

China was a minor in terms of resource (and all industrial) production. It had a large army but, being poorly led and capitalised, that army had quite little value and was being defeated by smaller Japanese forces as late as Winter 1944. China had next to no involvement at all in the decisive naval and air theatres in which Japan lost the war. Ultimately China was peripheral to the outcome of the Pacific War; it consumed some Japanese resources, but the resource imbalance between Japan and the US was so large that the decisive defeat of Japan at sea and in the air would have happened anyway.

In commercial terms, China is a minor market for the game because the game's failure to whitewash history will likely get it banned. People ask why France is a major and that is in part because France is a large market which will actually buy the game and pay the royalties to Paradox.

I think.

A) The impact that China had on the war is the what-if scenario, what if China capitulated or agreed to a cease-fire. Japan spent the entire war trying to get Nationalist China to agree to Japan's terms. Japan would take the coast and China would exist as a rump state in the interior. Realistically, this was an attractive option for the Nationalists when you put into consideration the destruction of China and the pressure that Japan was exerting on the Nationalist government, but they did not accept either a cease-fire or these terms, which is unusual. There were plenty of Chinese collaborates, such as Wang Jingwei, who agreed to such terms, it was Chiang Kai-Shek and his leadership that flatly refused negotiation of anything less but Japan's full withdrawal from the Chinese mainland. Did you know Wang Jingwei was considered man number 2 at one point, of the Nationalist government? It took a lot of resolve to keep fighting, Chiang is not credited for this, but it was the impossible choice he took to fight on with little resources and extreme danger. If the Nationalist Government did what Wang Jingwei did, then the Chinese front would have ended, Japan wouldn't have had to spend all those resources into the Chinese front blackhole, that used up precious industry, they would have been in a better strategic situation in 1941, and could have focused on the Soviets and the West, and would have had no reason to attack America at Pearl Harbor. This is huge. American sympathies grew as China's war waged on, it became a battle between David and Goliath, and Americans love those stories of the little guy standing up to the big guy. Japan's frustrations grew, and they dug themselves deeper and deeper. One reason they took Vietnam was because it was a supply route that the Chinese could buy weapons from, another reason they took Burma was to cut off the last supply route into China, the reason they attacked Pearl Harbor, was because the US set embargo terms that Japan must withdraw from the Chinese mainland, and Japan refused to give up its Chinese territory. Without China actively fighting in the war, Japan could have took its hands off and let its reformed government puppet do all the bloody work of occupation.

B) Paradox does not need to white-wash history. The Chinese people's attitudes towards the Nationalist China government is changing in Mainland China. Chiang Kai-Shek has become somewhat of a National hero now. People understand the complexities of the problems that he led the country through. Plus its not like paradox games are historically accurate. Guangdong, the birthplace of the Nationalist Government is a separate country from Nationalist China in 1936, that's ridiculous. Like if Leningrad was not part of the Soviet Union.

Nobody in China believes that China in 1936 was controlled by the PRC. People also understand that Sinkiang and Tibet were both autonomous during this period of turmoil. Its the silly portrayal of Yunnan, Guangxi, Guangdong, Hainan, Shanxi, Gansu, Ningxia, and Qinghai, that raises eyebrows in Mainland China. These provinces are all controlled by governments that did not exist in 1936, they're made up. All those provinces were part of Nationalist China, some of them, either birthplaces of the Nationalist government, or The most loyal parts to Chiang Kai-Shek, ei "Xi Bei San Ma" territory. But according to Paradox they weren't part of the Nationalist government, even though when Chiang said jump, they said "how high?".

Not to mention that in past hoi games, Nat China nor Communist China had cores on Manchuria, which was controlled by China for hundreds of years, had majority population of Han, and was only occupied 5 years before the game begins, less than that if talking about Jehol province.

 

[Praetonia]

A) I don't think a Chinese surrender would have made any difference at all. Japan would still have to have consumed about the same resources it spent fighting China on garrisoning it and imposing its rule. Even if it didn't have to do that, freeing itself of the need to station its army in China still wouldn't have given it an army in Manchuria that could have defeated the Soviets and certainly wouldn't have given it any important advantage in carrier or fighter numbers. Japan lost the war to the United States first and the USSR second for structural reasons that had nothing to do with the Sino-Japanese War.

American sympathy toward China may have been important in them taking actions that made war with Japan much more likely, and I agree that China had historical significance, but the same is true of Poland and Belgium. Doesn't make them majors.

B) I don't think the rights and wrongs of the Chinese stance matter. It's a business decision. If there's a good chance of the product being banned from distribution for profit - regardless why - it makes much less sense to put effort into appealing to that market.

 

[Chukada]

A) I don't think a Chinese surrender would have made any difference at all. Japan would still have to have consumed about the same resources it spent fighting China on garrisoning it and imposing its rule. Even if it didn't have to do that, freeing itself of the need to station its army in China still wouldn't have given it an army in Manchuria that could have defeated the Soviets and certainly wouldn't have given it any important advantage in carrier or fighter numbers. Japan lost the war to the United States first and the USSR second for structural reasons that had nothing to do with the Sino-Japanese War.

American sympathy toward China may have been important in them taking actions that made war with Japan much more likely, and I agree that China had historical significance, but the same is true of Poland and Belgium. Doesn't make them majors.

B) I don't think the rights and wrongs of the Chinese stance matter. It's a business decision. If there's a good chance of the product being banned from distribution for profit - regardless why - it makes much less sense to put effort into appealing to that market.

A) Hard to believe that Japan would consume the same resources if China surrendered in 1938, like everyone believed it would. Considering the size and scope of the battles in China between 1938-1945. Its also hard to believe that if Japan could focus on the USSR and not China with the entire IJA, it would not change anything. Considering the butt kicking the IJA did to the British, Americans and Australians in 41' and 42'. The Japanese forces on the Manchurian border were not the best troops, the best troops were fighting in Central China.

Also if the IJA was not waging a titanic struggle in China, and Japan's entire foreign policy wasn't centered around ending the war in China, the IJN could have been given more attention, or the IJA would have been used as a tool against the Soviets. Either way, Chinese capitulation or puppeting gives Japan a lot more options. Afterall, the whole world thought that the war in 1937 would just be another short war where China would immediately fold and Japan would gain some great concessions. That is how every war since 1880 happened in China, when a foreign power attacked.

Everybody was surprised when the war continued past 1938, the most surprised was Japan. Who was now in panic mode on how to end the war, which led to a lot of their terrible decisions in 1941.

I think the biggest impact that China had on the war, was that if China capitulated, its likely that Japan would not have attacked anybody, and thus America would have had a harder time officially entering the war. There would have been no war in the pacific either. Or the Japanese would have attacked the Soviets successfully in the far east, or made greater inroads into India. Remember that Japan's weakness was logistics, and they spent a lot of their logistical capacity in supplying their armies in China, this could have been used to support an invasion of India through Burma. Instead of on supplying Japanese armies in China which was a logistical nightmare that used up a lot of Japanese supplies and resources..

Finally, a defeated China would have shipped resources to Japan, or could have supported Japan against the USSR or Britain. A lot of options open up. Puppet China could have been used as a tool to wrestle Mongolia out of the USSR sphere, causing headaches for the Soviet Union. This is all speculation, but I imagine a lot of things would be different if China gave up fighting in 38'.

B) Chinese market is 1.3 billion not including the millions of overseas Chinese, and also the Chinese in Taiwan. There is not a good chance of the product being banned in China, if China is portrayed accurately, which it never has been. As the war against Japan is a popular media subject in China. There are hundreds of TV shows, films, and games based on this time period.

 

[Praetonia]

I entirely agree that the course of the Sino-Japanese War had important historical knock-on effects, but the question is whether China is a major. Belgium refusing to enter into a military alliance with Britain and France in 1936 and extend the Maginot Line to the Channel had major knock-on effects but that doesn't make Belgium a major.

If China had surrendered then Japan would have a large occupation army in China; it's quite possible this army would be larger than the one they had there historically as the territory to garrison would be much greater. Of course it would also be more peaceful. But even granting the *totally unrealistic* scenario of all those forces going to the Kwantung Army, doesn't make any difference to Japan's defeat. Japan still loses its navy and is blockaded in its home islands on historical schedule. Japan still fails to produce enough tanks, artillery, and other heavy equipment to make the Kwantung Army competitive with the Soviets.

 

[Alex_brunius]

I m wondering if we d have to see nationalist china really as a minor? This would be the only nation i would doubt considering its size and vast ammount of resources & manpower.

Or is China just the major they didn t recognize for game dev time reasons?

A Major in HoI games normal definition does not only depend on resources and manpower, but also on industry and how much power they can project overseas ( navy & airforce ).


During all of WW2 China built 0 tanks, 0 airplanes and 0 warships fitting of the HoI scale. This means that from an industrial standpoint they are less fitting of being a Major power then nations like Sweden, Poland or Czechoslovakia... ( which had small scale domestic production of one or all of the above ).

 

[Chukada]

I entirely agree that the course of the Sino-Japanese War had important historical knock-on effects, but the question is whether China is a major. Belgium refusing to enter into a military alliance with Britain and France in 1936 and extend the Maginot Line to the Channel had major knock-on effects but that doesn't make Belgium a major.

If China had surrendered then Japan would have a large occupation army in China; it's quite possible this army would be larger than the one they had there historically as the territory to garrison would be much greater. Of course it would also be more peaceful. But even granting the *totally unrealistic* scenario of all those forces going to the Kwantung Army, doesn't make any difference to Japan's defeat. Japan still loses its navy and is blockaded in its home islands on historical schedule. Japan still fails to produce enough tanks, artillery, and other heavy equipment to make the Kwantung Army competitive with the Soviets.

Japan has no reason to go to war with USA, if the war in China ends in 1938. So its not like the ships would be sunk regardless.

Still hard to believe that the IJA can't go toe-to-toe with the Soviets if that's their main focus, instead of China.

Japan would have had less units in China if China surrendered because they would have used puppet forces, and they would not need hundreds of thousands of troops on the frontline. Japan would not have occupied all of China, just the important bits. Then they would have broken up the rest of China into puppet states. Wang Jingwei's puppet troops were never a threat to the IJA.

Belgium did not fight from 1937-1945. Nor did it fight battles with troops in the hundreds of thousands, or more than a million. China did. China also sent troops to Burma, therefore it had fought outside of the Chinese front, and had an impact on the larger war.

A Major in HoI games normal definition does not only depend on resources and manpower, but also on industry and how much power they can project overseas ( navy & airforce ).


During all of WW2 China built 0 tanks, 0 airplanes and 0 warships fitting of the HoI scale. This means that from an industrial standpoint they are less fitting of being a Major power then nations like Sweden, Poland or Czechoslovakia... ( which had small scale domestic production of one or all of the above ).

That's true.

They did rotate through 14,000,000 soldiers between 1937 and 1945, took millions of casualties and inflicted horrendous losses on the enemy. Unlike Sweden, Poland or Czechoslovakia, who either folded right away, profited from neutrality, or was conquered in a month. In terms of gameplay, its obvious which country out of these four has more playability. Constant war from game start to game end, but not a major.

 

[Dessertspoon]

All of the majors have power projection capabilities and meaningful industries. China's industry is closer to some of the larger minor countries, didn't produce tanks or aircraft to my knowledge and had no significant naval capabilities (gunboats and a handful of cruisers). The armour it did have was very modest in number, coming from pre-war purchases and foreign military aid after the war started. The air forces it did have were similarly foreign sourced except for one or two prototypes.

China was bogged down in a civil war, and the only way it was in the period capable of influencing the war was on account of it being attacked by Japan - it was not at the time in a position to act on the offensive if Japan had not attacked. China is not unimportant, but under the terms of the HoI series its industry, technological sophistication, and ability to act on the initiative do not match what the "majors" have. In terms of being fleshed out, it is an extremely obvious candidate for early DLC that will give it unique mechanics and focus trees and so on.

France can project power abroad. France has an empire. France has a formidable navy. France has a sizable industrial base. France isn't limited tactically to fielding a predominantly infantry-based army. A significant amount of French people will actually buy and play Hearts of Iron 4.

China had little in the way of industry, naval or air research in 1945, along with a shattered infrastructure and mostly fashioned infantry army. And they were still considered major enough to warrant one of the five UNSC seats. China are a major player, and in the interests of equity it should be reflected as such in the game.

 

[Dessertspoon]

Why?

Italy had a modern fleet, colonies, airforce, large industry, ability to produce war materials. China was backwards country with warlords ruling most of the country. She had no war industry, zero power projection, and no fleet or airforce to speak of.

And they lost 500,000 men to O Connor's Desert Army of 1940-41, which contained about 30,000 men. The Russians - with difficulty - beat back Germany with about a 3 to 1 advantage in men. Italy had more than 10 to 1 odds and they still lost. They struggled in Ethiopia, and couldn't beat the Yugoslavs or the Greeks...

I read once somewhere that Italy was referred to as a Great Power out of diplomatic courtesy more than anything else. They were a hopeless disaster that had little real influence on the world in real life, and their potential to affect the game if steered better by a human player is no greater than that of China IMO.

 

[Praetonia]

Japan has no reason to go to war with USA, if the war in China ends in 1938. So its not like the ships would be sunk regardless.

IDK, it'd be more like that if Japan had lost to China or gave up trying to conquer them, than if it succeeded. If China is conquered then US demands simply change from "Leave China alone." to "Quit China.". It could even lead to an earlier war.

But again, not disputing China affected the course of history, this simply doesn't make it a major power. Belgium and Poland affected the course of history but weren't major powers.

Still hard to believe that the IJA can't go toe-to-toe with the Soviets if that's their main focus, instead of China.

On what grounds? China was way weaker than Sovs, and they still only partially succeeded in almost a decade of war.

Japan would have had less units in China if China surrendered because they would have used puppet forces, and they would not need hundreds of thousands of troops on the frontline. Japan would not have occupied all of China, just the important bits. Then they would have broken up the rest of China into puppet states. Wang Jingwei's puppet troops were never a threat to the IJA.

Because they were in amongst a huge Japanese army.

Belgium did not fight from 1937-1945. Nor did it fight battles with troops in the hundreds of thousands, or more than a million. China did. China also sent troops to Burma, therefore it had fought outside of the Chinese front, and had an impact on the larger war.

Belgium did fight battles with troops in hundreds of thousands, but regardless, you don't get points for effort. China's efforts, while great compared with China's capabilities, were relatively inconsequential to the course of the war.

 

[Chukada]

On what grounds? China was way weaker than Sovs, and they still only partially succeeded in almost a decade of war.

A lot of that can be attributed to the size of China, and population density. China had between 400-500 million people during this time, that's a lot less than the people living in the Far East parts of the Soviet Union. The Chinese could also put a lot more troops between Japan and its military objectives. The Battles of Khalkhin Gol for example, the Soviets only had roughly 70,000 troops compared to 38,000 Japanese, and despite having a superiority in tanks and aircraft, artillery and men, suffered more casualties than the IJA. This battle was fought between May and September in 1939, during around that same time in China, the IJA was fighting two battles. Battle of Nanchang (200,000 Chinese troops vs 120,000 Japanese troops) March/May, and Battle of Changsha (240,000 Chinese troops vs 100,000 Japanese troops.) (September/October) So why would you conclude that if the war in China was not going on, somehow it would have no affect on Japan's ability to attack the USSR. Japanese troops killed more Soviet troops during their engagement in 39', while much larger battles were taking place in Central China.

Because they were in amongst a huge Japanese army.

The puppet troops were not amongst a huge Japanese Army. The huge Japanese Army was fighting the huge Chinese army on the front-line. The puppet troops were used to garrison the areas away from the fighting, and to fight against guerrillas. All Japan had to do was put a few garrisons in the cities of occupied China, as soon as puppet troops decided to kill a few Japanese, they could have just brought in their army from Japan and crush the puppet troops who were poorly armed. No, puppets dont cause problems. Wang Jingwei thought he was doing the right thing by working with the Japanese, his goal was to save the Chinese people, he thought by working with Japan he could help the most people. He's not the only Chinese person who collaborated with Japan. There were tons.

Belgium did fight battles with troops in hundreds of thousands, but regardless, you don't get points for effort. China's efforts, while great compared with China's capabilities, were relatively inconsequential to the course of the war.

I did not know that actually and looked it up.

Belgium apparently mobilized 600,000 troops for its defense. Though when I look up the dates, I can see that Belgium was knocked out of the war in 18 days, even with the help of the French 1st, 7th and 9th Army, and a British Expeditionary Force numbering 152,000 men. If China had that sort of help, the war would have been over in 18 days for the Japanese.

 

[Zaku]

And they lost 500,000 men to O Connor's Desert Army of 1940-41, which contained about 30,000 men. The Russians - with difficulty - beat back Germany with about a 3 to 1 advantage in men. Italy had more than 10 to 1 odds and they still lost. They struggled in Ethiopia, and couldn't beat the Yugoslavs or the Greeks...

So what's your point? Losing a battle versus a numerically inferior enemy doesn't make Italy a minor nation. By the same logic, does the battle of Singapore make the UK a minor as well? What about the battle of Kasserine pass, doeas that mean that the USA is a minor nation as well?
Italy is the weakest major, but they are still a major at 1936 because they can project their power over other continents. China on the other hand is a weak nation with internal troubles but she has the potential of becoming a big player.

 

[Chukada]

So what's your point? Losing a battle versus a numerically inferior enemy doesn't make Italy a minor nation. By the same logic, does the battle of Singapore make the UK a minor as well? What about the battle of Kasserine pass, doeas that mean that the USA is a minor nation as well?
Italy is the weakest major, but they are still a major at 1936 because they can project their power over other continents. China on the other hand is a weak nation with internal troubles but she has the potential of becoming a big player.

Honestly I don't know how people look at Italy and France and think, thats not a major country in ww2.

Though I also don't know how people look at China and think that. Considering the size and scope of the battles there, plus the duration. China unlike other countries also had no allies fighting in the same theater with them. So they did it all virtually alone.

China may have been able to prevent HK's capitulation, but the British (ridiculously) refused Chiang's offer to garrison HK with Chinese troops. The British then subsequently lost it to Japan, and Japan gained a lvl 10 port with which to supply the IJA in China.

Thanks Britain.

 

[Praetonia]

A lot of that can be attributed to the size of China, and population density. China had between 400-500 million people during this time, that's a lot less than the people living in the Far East parts of the Soviet Union. The Chinese could also put a lot more troops between Japan and its military objectives. The Battles of Khalkhin Gol for example, the Soviets only had roughly 70,000 troops compared to 38,000 Japanese, and despite having a superiority in tanks and aircraft, artillery and men, suffered more casualties than the IJA. This battle was fought between May and September in 1939, during around that same time in China, the IJA was fighting two battles. Battle of Nanchang (200,000 Chinese troops vs 120,000 Japanese troops) March/May, and Battle of Changsha (240,000 Chinese troops vs 100,000 Japanese troops.) (September/October) So why would you conclude that if the war in China was not going on, somehow it would have no affect on Japan's ability to attack the USSR. Japanese troops killed more Soviet troops during their engagement in 39', while much larger battles were taking place in Central China.

Khalkhin Gol was a skirmish in an undeclared war, so neither side was applying maximum manpower or anything close. But there is a reason the Japanese viewed Khalkhin Gol as a defeat and a warning against fighting the USSR: it showed the importance of materiel. It involved relatively few Japanese troops but a much larger proportion of Japanese heavy equipment. The Japanese had more tanks at Khalkhin Gol than at Nanchang for instance despite the fact that the army was only 1/3 the size. If the Japanese wanted to conduct battles of that intensity at a level of army groups they needed considerably more production of tanks and artillery than they had or realistically could have. In China that wasn't the case; China had practically no production of munitions and very limited stock of tanks and artillery, all imported. Japan could employ divisions at an early WWI level of materiel against China and enjoy a substantial advantage. Such divisions in a war against Russia would have been a liability. End the war with China and you free up a large number of such divisions: they would help, but not that much. It was China's inability to produce the materiel needed to fight a modern war that made it a minor power in WWII.

The puppet troops were not amongst a huge Japanese Army. The huge Japanese Army was fighting the huge Chinese army on the front-line.

Which, if he were to defect, would turn around, crush him, and then inflict brutal reprisals. Remove that possibility and such forces can't be safely employed.



edit: To put Khalkhin Gol in perspective, the Japanese had about 1,000 tanks in service at the time, and lost about 70 at Khalkhin Gol. So they lost about 7% of their tanks at Khalkhin Gol. They had 38,000 troops, so scaling this up, if they a battle like Khalkhin Gol with 540,000 troops they consume all their tanks. The Soviets lost about 250 tanks, so scaling up to this level the Soviets would have lost 3,600. However, the Soviets had over 22,000 tanks in 1941. So at this back of an envelope level, a three month engagement would totally wipe out the Japanese armoured forces in exchange for the loss of perhaps 15% of the Soviet armoured forces. In reality the Soviets would deploy a million troops omore which would lead to Japan taking a worse ratio of casualties. Conclusion is that Japan just could not fight a war with the Soviet Union. Against China, though, 1,000 tanks was a force that gave overwhelming superiority.

 

[Dessertspoon]

So what's your point? Losing a battle versus a numerically inferior enemy doesn't make Italy a minor nation. By the same logic, does the battle of Singapore make the UK a minor as well? What about the battle of Kasserine pass, doeas that mean that the USA is a minor nation as well?

Come on, that's hardly comparable and you know it. That's a strawman argument. Italy didn't just lose battles: they lost operations, one after another. They lost at the campaign/strategic and theatre levels. How can they seriously be called a major power, with an ability to project power abroad, based on their record? They couldn't string together a single, convincing and clear victorious campaign against a serious enemy. Their doctrines were weak and their industrial base not much better than Poland or Canada, so any good materiel designs they had were limited in their production.

 

[Praetonia]

Italy also lost to Greece.

However Italy's main problem was lack of preparation and motivation. Their plan was to join a war that was basically won, would last a few weeks, and lose some troops to get a seat at the peace table with the victors. Things didn't work out that way. Italy never fully mobilised and was not committed to the German cause.

Nonetheless Italy was still way stronger than China. That Italian army in Africa that was rolled over by the British would have rolled over the Chinese, just as the Germans in turn had rolled over the British.

 

[Zaku]

Come on, that's hardly comparable. Italy didn't just lose battles: they lost operations, one after another. They lost at the campaign/strategic and theatre levels.

So? Russia also lost operations one after an other during barbarossa. After that Germany also lost operations one after an other.

How can they seriously be called a major power, with an ability to project power abroad, based on their record?

Because they did. They had colonies and they had a strong fleet. They also could influence a foreign civil war directly. They also had influence in other GPs. UK for example let them take over Ethiopia because they didn't want to go to war vs Italy.

They couldn't string together a single, convincing and clear victory against a serious enemy

So? Using this logic should we make France a minor as well?

Their doctrines were weak .

Their doctrines were weak... just as weak as the French ones, or the early Soviet doctrines were. Just look at the winter war.

and their industrial base not much better than Poland or Canada

Poland? Not even close.
Canada? Maybe a little closer, but it was still much weaker then italy's industry. Also, Canada had a population of 11 million and Italy had a population of 42 million in 1936.

 

[Praetonia]

According to "Economics of WWII", the GDPs are as follows:

Italy - 141bn
"UK Dominions" - 115bn (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa)
Poland - 77bn

So Italy was quite a bit more than Canada, which might have been around 60bn or so as the most populous and developed of the dominions.

China's GDP was 320bn, which is of course a lot, but per capita only $780, compared to UK $6,000, German $5,000, Japanese $2,400. Most Chinese GDP was subsistence agriculture, so couldn't be diverted to war purposes.

fwiw, the book has six chapters dedicated one each to the Great Powers, which it has chosen as UK, US, Germany, USSR, Italy, and Japan. There's no chapter for China and it isn't listed on most of the tables. France is presumably not included due to its limited participation in the war, but based on pre-war GDP and military strength it was a larger power than Italy or Japan, which are included.

 

[Lttobi]

Italies main weakness was Mussolini, who pretty much fucked up everything you could fuck up.
Of all the 7 large powers Italy had, in most areas, the were bad, but not the worst.
Comparing them with other large nations, you see that, while not a Super power, they had some arguements for them.

- Navy : Stronger than germans or Soviets and not that much weaker than the french.
- Army: Not super modern but at least until 1941 half-way decent armoured troops and standard infantry ( still better than the japanese, who sucked in this regard)
- Air Force: Quite good actually, but it was to much split apart and wasted by Mussolinis stupid ideas.
- Economy : meh, great lack of fuel, relativly small industrial base compared to Britain or germany, but still, shouldn't be much weaker than Japan.


CHina on the other hand was a mass, a few well trained division and a few military factory, all build and trained by Germany and lots of bad equipped and trained soldiers. Whats most important for China not to be considerd a major power, is its near total lack of an Air force or navy.

And Japan.

Japans overrated, Japans really overrated.

Compared to Germany, Britain, THe USSR and the US, Japans industry was still rather small. Navy was well trained and equipped, Airforce too.
But the Army was a joke.
Few Artillery, hardly any tanks, not much motorization. THis wasn't important during battle on islands against US-Marines.
But the Sowjets, they would have crushed the Japanese in an all out war.
Japan is very overrated, because it was the last Axis power to surrender and because it kicked butts during the first months.
But, until the US enterd, they never faced a serious enemy.
The Chinese were terribly equipped and had wasted most of their elite troops in the first battles.
The British were focused on Europe and got suprised and the Dutch were jsut the remains, since the homeland was occupied.
Once Japan faced an real opponent, they quickly lost ther fortune.
Within a year, they lost every ace and advantage their had, first their carriers and than their planes.

Everybody who believes that the Japanese, even with their whole army could really beat the USSR, must be joking.
Maybe with air superiority, but even then, really hard.
Russia, the USa and to a lesser extent Germany could loose troops, equipment and pilots, they had enough capacity to build and train new ones.
Japan, Italy and China could not, every tank, every rifle they lost was far worse for them then for the others.