Going to war with a country with a bigger GDP than you

>Japan v China

China had a civil war going on during the japanese invasion

japan vs russia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#GDP

Well the Afghans won in Afghanistan, the north Vietnamese won in Vietnam, it depends on how you handle it

>albania has a smaller gdp than the german colonies

Vietnam vs USA

Not really, there was huge lull in the fighting precisely because of Japan

Tiny axis GDP can't compete with big allied economies

GDP doesn't necessarily mean economic surplus.

The poorest countries have a GDP per capita of about $500, so if you deduct $500 * by their population you have a rough approximation of the resources they could devote to war. Then there is corruption and ineptitude, the Soviets produced vast quantities of useless substandard steel just to fill quotas for example.

The real economic strength of China and the USSR was thus far lower than that chart indicates. Only when you are comparing industrialized peers like France and Germany is it a reasonably accurate statistic.

That table's source is Harrison's book which has different numbers, particularly for the USSR.

Alexander vs. Persia comes to mind

Pretty sure Carthage had a bigger GDP than Rome before the first Punic War

this. it was huge. It's no coincidence he is considered one of the greatest.

Carthage as an empire was not nearly as centralized and united as Rome though. The city itself relied on trade with subjugated allies.

>The poorest countries have a GDP per capita of about $500, so if you deduct $500 * by their population you have a rough approximation of the resources they could devote to war

Deducted to the total GDP? Zero for any country.

>UK GDP less than Germany's
Is this not counting the Empire? I'll believe that the mainland was smaller since Germany annexed all that land, but no way was a quarter of the globe poorer than the krauts.

No it doesn't count the Empire. This table does.

We beat Peru AND Bolivia at the same time who were way more rich than us at that time.

Lots of the rich people in Germany were purged and japan was still partly feudal. The Soviet Union is up for debate though

GDP only matters when both countries are willing to carry out total war. If there are well-defined objectives, geographic, political or logistical dificulties, a smaller economy can prevail over a larger one.

See:
American Revolution
Latin American Independence
Italo-Abyssinian War
Vietnam War
Napoleon defeated in Russia
Etc, etc

Technology (ie. Nukes) can also make this gap meaningless

>Has this ever worked?

How does it feel to whine about a war that was lost by people who would have killed you without hesitation on a Butanhese Samsung s4 sleeve trading forum?

t. amerimutt

But they're largely never used, for good reasons. Americans could've easily nuked Vietnam but if they did that they would have far bigger problems to handle than just Vietnam.

we humiliated ourselves tbqh. with politicians acting as strategists, unclear objectives and over trusting or incompetent allies, our administration at the time did a pretty good job of embarrassing themselves. then, after we managed to sign an agreement, they full retard and pulled us out to prevent further embarrassment, when in turn that just made things worse.

>t. delusional leaf

GDP is a poor measure of a nation's strength. In a country like China or India, most of that GDP is going to sustenance and can't be used for war.

retard. a nuke's ultimate failure is its use. it is a deterrent first and foremost.

>starter packs

>China
Worst example you could pick. Nuclear superpower with the largest army in the world.

>/pol/acks are literally butthurt over a map color

>in 1939

>largest army of untrained conscripts in the world

Using total GDP isn't the best way to represent warmaking potential. If it was broken down to specific sectors, particularly the GDP of industry, largely agrarian countries like China would be much less significant.

Pretty sure Macedonia had a smaller gdp than Persia in Alexander's time.
Pretty sure Germany today would lose 1-1 wars with at the very least Russia, UK and France who all have a smaller gdp.

Doesn't that mean 1vs1 they would have lost?
Or does trade count in a 1vs1 scenario?

China was in a civil war and the Japanese still lost

China doesn’t have conscripts though.
They are essentially all volunteers since there are so many Chinese.

Yeah and China would have beat Japan if it was not in a massive civil war...

The Nazi german flag was red so I'm sure hitler wouldn't mind.

You're retarded.

t. Canadian

What was the Australian and New Zealander contribution to the war? I've never actually heard about them even participating up until now desu. Sounds like it could be interesting.

In the context of the thread prompt that's rather irrelevant, don't you think?

The question is if there were examples of countries winning wars with countries that have a larger gross domestic product and the awnser is clearly yes.

They're fucking colors, you trog.

China is full of mutts too, but they're still a bigger power than Canada is by a long shot. This is either not an argument or it's completley irrelevant.

WRONG!

Declassified Soviet files show they believed in and had plans for a winnable nuclear war. Soviet doctrine in the 1980s emphasized the use of nuclear strikes in West Germany to break through the Fulda Gap with NBC troops.

Obviously nobody wanted WW3, so in this sense it was a deterrent, however, if it had been sparked, all bets were off. Soviet war planning included tactical and strategic nuclear strikes from the very beginning of conflict to serve as the great equalizer as the Soviet Union was behind technologically and economically vis-a-vis the West.

In fact, as the Soviet Union stagnated throughout the 1980s, war plans increasingly emphasized more and more the use of nuclear weapons, proving my point, that a nuclear weapons advantage can neutralize an economic advantage of the rival party.

Source:
alternatewars.com/WW3/the_war_that_never_was.htm
THE WORLD WAR THAT NEVER WAS:
NATO vs. THE WARSAW PACT
By Colonel (R) Wilbur E. Gray

Educate yourself before insulting, you arrogant kiddo.

The Mongols vs China? Yeah it took like 90 years but the Mongols won.

And declassified NATO reports show that NATO did not believe it could stop the Soviet Unions Advance into Europe in the event of World War 3, and were also planning to nuke West Germany to slow them down along the Rhine.
Moral of the story, if you ever go back in time never goto West Germany if you think World War 3 might break out.
>What are tactical nuclear strikes?

But if a weapon is too horrible to ever use, it loses its value as a deterrant. The paradox is that in order to be an effective deterrant, a nation has to prove they'd be willing to use it.

Modern Nuclear doctrine is limited exchanges instead of MAD for a reason.

GDP is pretty shit measure.
Per capita shows how developed the economy is far better, also industrial capacity is more important and the number of resources.

The British empire was at 684.3?!
Wow, That's nearly the size of the axis combined