USSR vs Nazi Germany vs Britain

[Captain Smith]

Just to return a bit, Japan bit off more than it could handle in China over a long run. Their settlement program in Manchuria was basically a failure economically. If they had liberated the European colonies and treated the people well in the Philippines, Indochina and Indonesia, they could have built up resources and allies. They could have turned India against the British.

The UK and the French at their heights could not retake their possessions and defend them against a Japanese occupation without the US. Australian and New Zealand could be neutralized if the Empire just asked them to stay neutral and offered economic relationships.

[BitVyper]

Not to say winning a land war in Asia is easy (it's the biggest blunder after all), but "prime" Nazi Germany could have done it.

Yeah but this isn't USSR at the beginning of WW2 either, this is USSR at its "strongest" during WW2. I'm not really knowledgeable enough to speak on the subject, but it's not going to be the same as the real-world German invasion from the Soviet side either.

Then again, the question is hard to contemplate, because a lot of things that happened depended on judgement calls and political in-fighting, and none of that is likely to be the same here.

[Totoro Man]

So by "strongest" are we assuming each side has access to all the resources they had at their strongest? Because if we're limiting them to their home territories then Germany is utterly screwed since it has no natural oil resources.

true. to prevent this thread from being a non-starter I assumed that all of the major exporters of oil and other primary raw materials for war were still effectively neutral and willing to sell to all parties involved.

[k von doom]

Can non-participating countries be invaded? Or do we assume that the armies of participating countries be marched through neutral countries?