I have been reading up a lot on various counter insurgency tactics, including ours. One that consistently pops up was Rhodesia. Much smaller forces using mobility to strike. apparently adapted some of our Vietnam strategy, but I haven't read up enough on the tactics of either to say which part works.
but even the Germans had pretty consistent issues. The French partisans, the Yugoslavian partisans in particular, Polish army. there was organized operational resistance aplenty.
The Japanese faced a little different of a situation and were smarter in their occupation. One they had some Chinese on their side from the start, leaving them in charge helped negate some resistance issues. Two, culturally asian countries aren't as independent once you drive out leaders, which is why the Vietnamese never gave up we never touched their leaders. Three, China was made up of various warlords, there wasn't much of an idea of a unified country to begin with, Japan was able to work with some of those warlords they "conquered". based on their previous occupations and interreference in Chinese governance it was doubtful that their strategy would have worked for a long time. Fourth, China was not industrialized at all, far easier to maintain control on a population that largely doesn't see much difference in a government from Beijing vs a government from Tokyo.
