Since most threads on alternate history so far have been on whether

>>37077
China was on the brink of capitulation until American loans propped up Chang.

>>37117
China wasn't even united at the time. There were multiple Chinese forces independently holding out,

>>37117
Did countries even stop fighting when they're out of money? The UK had a HUGE wardebt, but they didn't stop fighting.

>>37117
Chang wanted to fight the commies before the japs, he was conserving his troops, which is why he reliquinshed the coast without committing much. Japs would have a hard hard time taking on even the KMT by themselves over the long run, they'd have some cities but nowhere near enough manpower to grab anymore than a few key strategic cities in the east. And then theyd have to defend this over the long run whilst making a rescource surplus off the areas. It was way too ambitious.

>>37234
You can't fight without money. Its called loans.

>>37077
>Since most threads on alternate history so far have been on whether Japan could take on the US, I wanted to know if Japan was even able to take on their most imminent enemy, the Chinese.
Nope. The fundamental fact that the Japanese lost the war in China, and this was their basis for later actions, is hugely overlooked.

>Say the US didn't oil embargo Japan and didn't send any volunteers or equipment to the China, could Japan even have finished China?
Nah.

>Japan had far superior equipment, but China obviously had more manpower. China also retreated into it's mountain ranges. Their new capital Chongqing was in the mountains for example.
It was the logistics that were more important. Japan was functionally capable of equal, if not greater manpower.

But they were dependent on human labor and animal power to move it across China. Combine with the supplies a modern army needs, and the demands increase geometrically across distances like that.

>Japan really fucked China, they even used biological and chemical warfare, but it still seems like it reached a stalemate in 1942. I
Yeah, and a stalemate fundamentally favored China. The costs of mobilizing and maintaining their army overseas was greater on Japan, and it was begin to fuck with their society in terms of basic services and functioning.

Meanwhile, they had never actually secured their territory against partisans. All that was to be solved politically by a peace agreement with Chiang (somehow).

>>37206
Let's disregard the commies for now, since they were guerrilla mostly and the real army units they had fought besides the nationalists.

The warlords were officially part of the kuomintang, but did their own shit and had their own armies, they were like feudal vassals. Both parties were really fierce, even more so than Germany and the USSR.

>>37371
>You can't fight without money.
Yes. Yes you absolutely can.

By pure force of arms probably not. But they might have cut some deals that put someone friendly to them in charge.

>>37414
No

>>37077
If Japan did win they'd be forced to become Chinese, just like every other foreign cultures that tried to rule China

>>37337
IIRC, most of Chiang's professionally trained forces were wiped out in the initial thrust.

>>37371
Chinese could probably still get loans tho, even without US support.

>>37384
The third battle of changsha was in 1942 tho, this is really when the stalemate started I think.
Logistics isn't as much of a problem, since the Japanese doctrine relied on light infantry movement, they didn't consume as much fuel and ammo as Germany for example.


As for anti-partisan actions, you could imagine how Japan would handle such a thing, they would pretty much kill everyone they could, like they did with the anti-Japanese volunteer armies in Manchuria.

>>37567
The Manchus didn't really become Chinese, did they?

And because the mongols and maybe the Manchus turned Chinese, that wouldn't really mean that the Japanese would.