How Inevitable is a US-Imperial Japan conflict in the 1940's if Germany forces peace in W. Europe?

[Look More Closely Later]

Proposed scenario:
Germany invades Poland in 1939 as in the Original Timeline, France and the UK respond pretty much as in the OTL, and then Germany goes into Norway, Benelux, and France in 1940 as in the OTL resulting in the Bordeaux Armistice, as in the OTL. Instead of fighting on, the UK (due to different political leadership) comes to terms with Germany and the fighting is over in Western Europe by September 1940.

Part of the all-round peace-terms which Hitler compels the Western Europeans to come to includes trade deals with all the Axis powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) for various goods which they need, including (in Japan's case) oil.

How inevitable does a war at some point in the 1940's between the USA and Imperial Japan become in this scenario? Assume that the Japanese continue to do unpleasant things in China, which political elements in the USA agitate/lobby against.
France, the UK, and Holland are compelled by the terms that Nazi Germany obliged them to sign to continue to provide Japan with various priority goods, including oil, so any USA attempt to embargo oil, at the very least, loses some of its severity for Japan.
Would the USA eventually move towards some sort of aggressive military stance against Japan, simply on account of ongoing Japanese activities/atrocities in China?
Or, if nothing happens any earlier, would the Japanese attempt to annex the Philippines, in the mid-1940's, after the USA has granted them independence, and provoke a response?
Does an Axis invasion of Russia (if one takes place in mid-1941) at all factor into calculations as to whether a USA-Japan war happens?

 

[Colonel Zoidberg]

I kind of thought the USA and Japan were pretty pissed off at each other anyway. USA had War Plan Orange directed at Japan, and Japan was expansionist and in need of resources.

 

[Insider]

Actually there is very interesting question. On one hand Japan is given free hand in China by Britania and Dutch, provided they can keep their colonies and trade with the Japanese. I think China would be enough to keep Japan busy for the next decade or two, so I don't see there is a chance of Japan trying to grab Philippines unless something very favourable happens (a revolt against USA rule?). The ball stays on American part of the field. I find it difficult to imagine that even the FDR himself could sell the idea of going to war over China to Americans. More likely the situation would be left to simmer, with USA smuggling arms and volunteers into China, keeping this war very much alive for a long time.

 

[bguy]

Assuming that FDR still runs for a third term in 1940 (which he probably does in a Nazis victorious situation) then the U.S. will presumably expect the British to keep the Burma Road open as a condition to any subsequent U.S. financial aid to Britain. I think the British would accept such a deal since they will desperately want U.S. financial support to help them rebuild their armed forces and probably won't be that afraid of Japan if they aren't busy fighting Hitler (and especially if Hitler is now fighting the Soviets.)

Assuming the British do keep the Burma Road open then I think that war between the U.S. and Japan is probably inevitable. The Japanese position in China is pretty much untenable if the U.S. can ship endless supplies to the Chinese, so at some point the Japanese are going to be forced to chose either making peace with Chiang Kai-shek or invading Burma, and based on their OTL decision making they will chose the later option. And since the Japanese leadership will also assume that any invasion of Burma will trigger war with the United States anyway, they will inevitably strike at the American holdings in the Pacific at the same time they invade Burma.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Unless those trade deals are extremely biased in favor of Japan, in allowing them to either directly or through various shenanigans, buy resources at below market value, then AFAIK they will run out of hard currency to buy with some time during 1942, and the UK at least has the bargaining power to not be forced to sell at a loss. They then have the same choices as OTL, pulling out of China or attacking the DEI and Malaya to directly get those resources, and attacking the US to clear the supply lines, except Britain doesn't have anything tying down her fleet

If France, the UK and Netherlands are compelled to sell to Japan at below market value, then things are different. Then the US waits until 1944, when the sledgehammer that was the Two Ocean Navy is ready, and starts really trying to provoke Japan into a fight. Given how hotheaded Japanese junior officers of the period are the US can probably provoke someone into doing something that pisses off the American public enough for the 18-24 month war it will take to beat Japan into the dirt with a finished Vinson Act fleet

An invasion of Russia would change things, as Britain would then take the excuse to tear up whatever unfavorable agreements they were forced to sign and dare Germany to do anything about it, as Germany can't realistically compel them to do anything. Realistically the majority of the faction in the UK amenable to Peace did not trust Hitler and wanted peace to arm to the teeth unmolested and wait for the perfect time to sink a dagger into Hitler's back

When the Philippines are released they are meant to have a large enough army that Japan would have a real problem taking them, plus US bases in country

 

[King Augeas]

Proposed scenario:
Germany invades Poland in 1939 as in the Original Timeline, France and the UK respond pretty much as in the OTL, and then Germany goes into Norway, Benelux, and France in 1940 as in the OTL resulting in the Bordeaux Armistice, as in the OTL. Instead of fighting on, the UK (due to different political leadership) comes to terms with Germany and the fighting is over in Western Europe by September 1940.

Part of the all-round peace-terms which Hitler compels the Western Europeans to come to includes trade deals with all the Axis powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) for various goods which they need, including (in Japan's case) oil.

Does an Axis invasion of Russia (if one takes place in mid-1941) at all factor into calculations as to whether a USA-Japan war happens?

It depends on the political leadership and the relations with the US of course, but France and the UK might see a invasion of the USSR as breaching the Armistice terms, hence they might abrogate it and cut supplies to all Axis Powers. That would take us close to OTL.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Does an Axis invasion of Russia (if one takes place in mid-1941) at all factor into calculations as to whether a USA-Japan war happens?

Probably to a degree, though much depends on how much trade Germany could do with Japan and force the Dutch to do via the DEI. That might well moot the economic impact of the US embargo and prevent the war with the US.

 

[Ace Venom]

Proposed scenario:
Germany invades Poland in 1939 as in the Original Timeline, France and the UK respond pretty much as in the OTL, and then Germany goes into Norway, Benelux, and France in 1940 as in the OTL resulting in the Bordeaux Armistice, as in the OTL. Instead of fighting on, the UK (due to different political leadership) comes to terms with Germany and the fighting is over in Western Europe by September 1940.

Part of the all-round peace-terms which Hitler compels the Western Europeans to come to includes trade deals with all the Axis powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) for various goods which they need, including (in Japan's case) oil.

How inevitable does a war at some point in the 1940's between the USA and Imperial Japan become in this scenario? Assume that the Japanese continue to do unpleasant things in China, which political elements in the USA agitate/lobby against.
France, the UK, and Holland are compelled by the terms that Nazi Germany obliged them to sign to continue to provide Japan with various priority goods, including oil, so any USA attempt to embargo oil, at the very least, loses some of its severity for Japan.
Would the USA eventually move towards some sort of aggressive military stance against Japan, simply on account of ongoing Japanese activities/atrocities in China?
Or, if nothing happens any earlier, would the Japanese attempt to annex the Philippines, in the mid-1940's, after the USA has granted them independence, and provoke a response?
Does an Axis invasion of Russia (if one takes place in mid-1941) at all factor into calculations as to whether a USA-Japan war happens?

Now here's the problem. In 1940, Japan wasn't in an active state of war with the Allies. The big question here is why would Japan be included in this treaty if they didn't lift a finger to help Germany? Sure Hitler might want to have a bone thrown Japan's way with hopes that Japan would assist them in 1941, but the Allies could just as easily reject those demands simply because what's happening with Japan in East Asia is a completely different concern. So I wouldn't see Germany pushing too hard for this because Hitler did not want a prolonged war with the West. Continuing the war to get a favorable trade deal for Japan, which hadn't actually joined the war, wouldn't be in Germany's best interest.

Now it doesn't mean Japan wouldn't take advantage of German success to try to negotiate for a better deal on its own. Peace between Germany and France would prevent the Japanese expedition into Indochina which led to the embargo in the first place. While the Vichy government really couldn't stop Japan IOTL, but they would be much better equipped to deal with Japan ITTL. With an intact French fleet, I don't think Japan risks invading Indochina in 1941. This is especially true if Germany respects the territorial integrity of France (well, minus keeping Alsace-Lorraine for themselves) following the establishment of peace in Western Europe.

It doesn't mean there won't be an oil embargo, but it will be due to something else. And knowing Japan at this point in history, they're very likely to commit some major blunder that triggers even greater international outrage.

 

[Tonrich]

I think it depends greatly on what Germany agrees on with Japan. If Hitler confides in Japan that he will be invading the Soviet Union in the spring of 1941, then I think the Army wanks in Japan win the internal fight and Japan strikes for the "Northern Resource Area".

This probably starts Japan down the road of trying to either end the war in China or negotiate a cease fire/stop in place type of deal with Kai-shek. If Japan can negotiate Hainan as a Southern base and a reasonable amount of their 37 and 38 gains, they could give back the rest, garrison their new economic sphere in North-Eastern China and prepare for Russia.

This will ease the pressure and most likely keep them out of war with America. Roosevelt wouldn't like what is going on, but there's no way the voting public would want to get involved. Besides I think the Western powers would have a very difficult decision between Germany and Communism. On one hand GB doesn't want to see Germany get stronger, but on the other hand they'd like to see Communism wiped out.

A "Sticky Wicket" for sure...Very interesting scenario

 

[thaddeus]

realistically Germany could strike SOME type of accord with Vichy France but only a Phoney Peace with GB? the OP has war in Europe (shooting war) ending by Sept. 1940? Japan declined Pact of Steel and Axis Pact was not signed until late Sept.

always envision Germany trying to control Dutch (and Danish) colonies? would they even care about Japan and its aims in this scenario?

so my answer would be Japan has better than OTL chance of avoiding war with U.S., GB and U.S. may want to co-opt them as ally again or at least have them remain neutral and/or USSR if invaded or fearing invasion may do the same.

 

[Tonrich]

realistically Germany could strike SOME type of accord with Vichy France but only a Phoney Peace with GB? the OP has war in Europe (shooting war) ending by Sept. 1940? Japan declined Pact of Steel and Axis Pact was not signed until late Sept.

always envision Germany trying to control Dutch (and Danish) colonies? would they even care about Japan and its aims in this scenario?

so my answer would be Japan has better than OTL chance of avoiding war with U.S., GB and U.S. may want to co-opt them as ally again or at least have them remain neutral and/or USSR if invaded or fearing invasion may do the same.

Yes but a couple of things that Germany might be thinking;

• co-opting Japan would be a key element of the coalition to overrun the SU (providing that is their aim). Japan would be in a very strategic position at the SU's rear.
• Why would Germany want the hassle of trying to manage the DEI colonies? They could just set up Japan (which is closer) to handle that side of the world. Germany will be busy with the SU territory they gain.

By the way good call on the "phony peace" with GB. I agree with you 100% that is what it would be.

 

[Catspoke]

The first issue that will happen is that will the Vichy government keep the Japanese out of IndoChina and will they allow supply to China to go out of there. This test happens in September 1940.

If a real peace with Germany has happened. The French will probably say no, you can't enter at which point the Japanese have to decide if they want a shooting war in September 1940.

If they do I expect the Japanese to occupy French Indochina and Dutch Indonesia.

If the Japanese don't, their war with China just got tougher and Japan is on a trajectory to lose the war with China.

 

[bguy]

The first issue that will happen is that will the Vichy government keep the Japanese out of IndoChina and will they allow supply to China to go out of there. This test happens in September 1940.

If a real peace with Germany has happened. The French will probably say no, you can't enter at which point the Japanese have to decide if they want a shooting war in September 1940.

If they do I expect the Japanese to occupy French Indochina and Dutch Indonesia.

Agreed about Japan invading French Indochina pretty much on its OTL schedule. I don't think they would be quite ready to invade the Dutch East Indies in 1940 though. (In particular don't the Japanese need the bases in Indochina to stage the invasion of Indonesia?)

How likely is it that Vichy France will seriously contest the Japanese move into Indochina? The French Navy will be in better shape ITTL than OTL, but it's still really hard to see how the French could hope to defend Indochina from a determined Japanese invasion unless they had British help (which seems unlikely.) Thus I would expect the Japanese invasion of Indochina to play out much like OTL with the French resisting for a few days but then coming to terms.

 

[sloreck]

If Japan is able to buy oil and raw materials from SEA at favorable rates or even as part of reparations made to Germany then there is no reason to attack the USA. No matter how much the USA likes China/Chiang the USA is not going to go to war and see American boys die to liberate slant eyed yellow people in a country far away. That would be political suicide and you could never get a DOW through Congress. Sending aid sure, letting Americans "volunteer" like the AVG, OK. Going to war, nope.

As part of the deal with the occupied countries and Britain Hitler has these resources made available to the Japanese at a price they can afford. The Japanese may have small numbers of troops in Indoichina and DEI by "agreement" not invasion. All of the military resources used for the Pacific War other than in China after 12/7/41 are now freed up. As part of the deal Hitler and the Japanese agree that at some point after Barbarossa kicks off (and ITTL it will be a little sooner as the Yugoslavia situation won't happen with the UK out of the war) the Japanese pile on in the east. Rather than Pearl Harbor and the Pacific island and SEA attacks Vladivostok is hit, Petropavlosk taken (this is easy) and any Russian Islands, north Sakhalin. Yes the Soviets have much better armor etc, but their supply issues are serious and the trans-Siberian vulnerable to air attack and more. Plus they are busy directing supplies to fighting the Germans where it counts rather than against Japan where it is less important.

The resources of Siberia are, at this point in time, not readily known or accessible. However the Japanese really dislike the Russians and hate communism so, in the absence of the need to seize resources, this is seen as worthwhile. The USSR is not getting any supplies from the UK or LL from the USA (as little as it might have been in 1941) and the Germans have more resources to use against them.

Reason Japan attacked USA=need to have secure access to resources in SEA needed for economy/war in China. Reason USA fought Japan=Pearl Harbor. Reasons USA would NOT go to war with Japan=continuing war in China, Japan attacks USSR.

 

[bguy]

If Japan is able to buy oil and raw materials from SEA at favorable rates or even as part of reparations made to Germany then there is no reason to attack the USA. No matter how much the USA likes China/Chiang the USA is not going to go to war and see American boys die to liberate slant eyed yellow people in a country far away. That would be political suicide and you could never get a DOW through Congress. Sending aid sure, letting Americans "volunteer" like the AVG, OK. Going to war, nope.

Except the U.S. isn't the only party that gets to decide whether America and Japan go to war. The Japanese have rather a large say in that decision as well, and if the U.S. is sending military aid to China then that puts the Japanese in a situation where they have two choices. 1) Cut off the source of the aid (i.e. invade Burma) or 2) Accept that they are going to have to abandon China. And given the choice between war or giving up on China, the Japanese leadership is going to choose war. (We know this because they had that same choice IOTL and obviously they chose war.) And do you really think the Japanese will invade Burma without simultaneously striking at US holdings in the Pacific? They are going to attack Pearl Harbour, Guam, Wake Island, and the Philippines for the same reason they did IOTL (because they will assume that the U.S. will intervene anyway, so they might as well get the first shot in.) As such FDR won't be asking for a declaration of war because of Japanese aggression in China. He will be asking for a DOW because the Japanese launched a sneak attack on the United States.

The only way you avoid this are:
1) the U.S. doesn't extend meaningful military aid to China. (Very unlikely if FDR is in the White House. Remember in OTL, by May of 1941 the U.S. government had already earmarked enough supplies for the Chinese to be able to outfit 30 infantry divisions); or
2) Britain submits to Japanese pressure to keep the Burma Road closed. (Not impossible, but it seems unlikely since FDR can easily leverage the British need for American financial support to get the British to agree to let the U.S. ship supplies to the Chinese through Burma.)

As part of the deal with the occupied countries and Britain Hitler has these resources made available to the Japanese at a price they can afford. The Japanese may have small numbers of troops in Indoichina and DEI by "agreement" not invasion. All of the military resources used for the Pacific War other than in China after 12/7/41 are now freed up. As part of the deal Hitler and the Japanese agree that at some point after Barbarossa kicks off (and ITTL it will be a little sooner as the Yugoslavia situation won't happen with the UK out of the war) the Japanese pile on in the east. Rather than Pearl Harbor and the Pacific island and SEA attacks Vladivostok is hit, Petropavlosk taken (this is easy) and any Russian Islands, north Sakhalin. Yes the Soviets have much better armor etc, but their supply issues are serious and the trans-Siberian vulnerable to air attack and more. Plus they are busy directing supplies to fighting the Germans where it counts rather than against Japan where it is less important.

Why do the Japanese agree to strike north ITTL when they didn't risk it OTL? Attacking the Soviets does nothing to help them win in China, and their window there is rapidly closing if they don't shut down the Burma Road.

 

[sloreck]

All of the tanks, guns, and aircraft the USA would send (read give) to China will at most make life more difficult for the Japanese. While certain units in the Chinese military are decent, overall it had very limited abilities that had nothing to do with armaments. OTL with Japan occupied with fighting all over the Pacific which of necessity drained resources from the war in China no matter how hard the IJA tried to prevent it, the Chinese military (whether the Nationalists or the Communists) had only limited success against the Japanese. The Japanese may be unhappy with the Burma road, but the reality is the quantity of supplies it delivered was limited and only a certain percentage of those were ever used against the Japanese as opposed to other uses. Absent a US-Japan conflict the best the Chinese can hope for is at some point the Japanese decide they have had enough of the tar baby and some sort of deal is worked out about how much land they take and what commercial concessions they get. The China of 1941 throwing the Japanese put on their own because of the supply of US weapons over the Burma Road is not going to happen.

If Japan has all of the oil and other raw materials it needs for its economy and military, then the military resources used in SEA and the Pacific are available to use to assist Germany in smacking down the USSR which Japan would dearly love to do. This does not directly affect China, however many of the resources used against the USA would not be useful in China (ships, etc) and adding troops in China is constrained by the ability to provide supply to them as they advance further in to China.

 

[bguy]

All of the tanks, guns, and aircraft the USA would send (read give) to China will at most make life more difficult for the Japanese. While certain units in the Chinese military are decent, overall it had very limited abilities that had nothing to do with armaments. OTL with Japan occupied with fighting all over the Pacific which of necessity drained resources from the war in China no matter how hard the IJA tried to prevent it, the Chinese military (whether the Nationalists or the Communists) had only limited success against the Japanese.

And you don't think that OTL limited success had anything to do with the Chinese troops being woefully under equipped? That won't be a problem for the Chinese if the Burma Road is open. 30 newly equipped infantry divisions nearly doubles the number of properly equipped divisions in the Nationalist Army, which is going to make things very hard for the Japanese in China.

The Japanese may be unhappy with the Burma road, but the reality is the quantity of supplies it delivered was limited and only a certain percentage of those were ever used against the Japanese as opposed to other uses.

In OTL the U.S. didn't send much in the way of supplies up the Burma Road even when it was open because aid to China was a much lower priority then helping the British and Soviets. But if Britain is not in the war, and if we aren't sending supplies to the Soviets then that frees up a lot of U.S. war material to go to China, so the Chinese are likely to get much more in the way of U.S. supplies in 1941 than they did IOTL.

Absent a US-Japan conflict the best the Chinese can hope for is at some point the Japanese decide they have had enough of the tar baby and some sort of deal is worked out about how much land they take and what commercial concessions they get. The China of 1941 throwing the Japanese put on their own because of the supply of US weapons over the Burma Road is not going to happen.

You don't think the Chinese going from having 40 properly equipped divisions to 70 properly equipped divisions isn't going to make a huge difference in how the fighting goes?

Besides it doesn't really matter whether or not the Chinese can actually expel the Japanese, all that matters is whether the Japanese think the Chinese might be able to expel them if the Chinese armies are properly equipped. Once the Japanese believe that could happen, they will strike to cut off the source of Chinese supplies. We know this because its exactly what they did IOTL. The Japanese invaded French Indochina largely to shut it down as a supply route to the Chinese. If they are willing to invade French Indochina to cut off supplies to the Chinese then they are certainly willing to invade Burma to accomplish the same. It's not as though they would be deterred from invading Burma simply because it will mean war with the British Empire and the United States. We know this because, attacking the British Empire and the United States at the same time is exactly what Japan did IOTL.

If Japan has all of the oil and other raw materials it needs for its economy and military, then the military resources used in SEA and the Pacific are available to use to assist Germany in smacking down the USSR which Japan would dearly love to do. This does not directly affect China, however many of the resources used against the USA would not be useful in China (ships, etc) and adding troops in China is constrained by the ability to provide supply to them as they advance further in to China.

Except that as described above Japan's situation in China becomes untenable if the Chinese can receive an endless supply of U.S. war material up the Burma Road. Thus as long as the Burma Road is open the Strike South Faction isn't going to let Japan get tangled up in a war with the Soviets because that would cripple Japan's ability to move against Burma should that become necessary.

 

[sloreck]

In 1940 the USA is rearming, in part assisted by the orders from France and the UK. With no war in Europe, the orders from the UK will drop substantially, and there won't be a LL program for the USSR. This will slow down the ramping up of the industrial effort for the military, and you won't see conversions of civilian factories for war work. An issue with LL OTL was giving stuff to Britain that was needed for US forces modernization and expansion - some of which will be needed even with fighting in Western Europe stopped. Thirty divisions worth of stuff means initial equipment for perhaps 250,000-300,000 soldiers, plus vehicles, artillery, radios, tanks. You need to equip the Chinese air force including all the tools needed to fix the planes. Don't forget spare parts for all of this, replacements for stuff lost or broken. This is a lot of stuff!

The cost to equip a US infantryman in WWII was around $170 including uniform, combat belt with equipment, helmet and M1. Some equipment won't be needed for a Chinese infantryman but lets include a basic load of ammo/grenades. For 300,000 soldiers this amounts to $51,000,000. Start throwing in all the other stuff and you are talking about a good deal of money. In 1938 the non-air Army appropriations were about $200,000. What this means is the funding to provide those 30 divisions (with all that was needed) would approach the amount of money the US Army got to rearm/modernize just before the beginning of the war. Building a Chinese air force would be even pricier.

In 1941 the capacity of the Burma Road was perhaps 30,000 tons a month using 7,000 US trucks. The trucks would need to be provided, as well as the gasoline.

China really does not have any money to pay for all of this, which, by the way, needs to be shipped from the USA by sea to Burma. The costs of all of this will be huge and basically need to be paid by the USA. IMHO there is no way the USA is going to spend this kind of money on China when the US is not at war, and the needs of the US military will come first so availability of arms whether new or surplus will be limited.

Forgetting, just for a moment, the training of technical services from pilots to mechanics to keep all this stuff in condition and usable, to train up 30 divisions from zero to being ready to go in to combat will take 18-24 months for each division, and the question is how many can be trained at a time due to facilities, equipment and cadre for training and staffing key positions. A person dressed in a uniform with a rifle is not a soldier. Some of these new well equipped divisions are going to be saved or used for action against Mao, not against the Japanese. Finally, the sad reality is that the Chinese government was hugely corrupt including the military at all levels. How many boots, uniforms, rations, jeeps, trucks, and who knows what else will go missing. Many divisions had lots of soldiers on the books who did not really exist and everything for them from pay to rations was grafted away.

Is it technically possible to build a Chinese Army and Air Force with 30 more divisions and adequate aircraft in 2-3 years. This requires a huge expenditure on the part of the USA as well as converting to to the sort of OTL wartime production economy (remember sustainment). It requires the Chinese government and military to massively increase efficiency and reduce corruption. I won't say Skippy the ASB needs to get involved to make this happen but...

 

[bguy]

In 1940 the USA is rearming, in part assisted by the orders from France and the UK. With no war in Europe, the orders from the UK will drop substantially, and there won't be a LL program for the USSR. This will slow down the ramping up of the industrial effort for the military, and you won't see conversions of civilian factories for war work. An issue with LL OTL was giving stuff to Britain that was needed for US forces modernization and expansion - some of which will be needed even with fighting in Western Europe stopped. Thirty divisions worth of stuff means initial equipment for perhaps 250,000-300,000 soldiers, plus vehicles, artillery, radios, tanks. You need to equip the Chinese air force including all the tools needed to fix the planes. Don't forget spare parts for all of this, replacements for stuff lost or broken. This is a lot of stuff!

Agreed that it is a lot of stuff, but again the 30 division plan was approved IOTL. And it was approved a good seven months before Pearl Harbor (and years before the US economy had fully converted over to war production.) Clearly the US government believed it was capable of building up its own military while also helping the Chinese.

The cost to equip a US infantryman in WWII was around $170 including uniform, combat belt with equipment, helmet and M1. Some equipment won't be needed for a Chinese infantryman but lets include a basic load of ammo/grenades. For 300,000 soldiers this amounts to $51,000,000. Start throwing in all the other stuff and you are talking about a good deal of money. In 1938 the non-air Army appropriations were about $200,000.

What are you talking about? The Department of War budget for FY 1940 was $ 907,160,000. (And for FY 1941 it was $3,938,943,000.)

http://www.history.army.mil/documents/WWII/ww2mob.htm

And if anything the Army's budget will probably be even bigger in a Nazis victorious scenario, since the Nazis dominating Europe is going to terrify the American public into wanting massive new defense expenditures. (And if the Tripartite Pact occurs on schedule then it will be easy to also get funding to help the Chinese fight the Japanese, because the Japanese just allied with Nazi Germany and thus anything that weakens the Japanese is going to make Americans feel a lot safer.)

China really does not have any money to pay for all of this, which, by the way, needs to be shipped from the USA by sea to Burma. The costs of all of this will be huge and basically need to be paid by the USA. IMHO there is no way the USA is going to spend this kind of money on China when the US is not at war, and the needs of the US military will come first so availability of arms whether new or surplus will be limited.

Except the US government approved the 30 Division program IOTL when the United States was not at war. (To say nothing of the much more expensive Lend Lease Program which the US government also approved when the US was not at war.) Why would the US government not be willing to fund this program ITTL when it was willing to do so IOTL? Building trucks and boots and rifles for the Chinese gives jobs for American workers. It weakens Japan (which by 1941 is clearly seen as an enemy of the United States) without requiring the US to fight the Japanese directly. And it even indirectly hurts Hitler (since the Japanese are much less likely to join in against the Soviets if they are facing a credible threat in China). It's a win-win-win from FDR's viewpoint, and if you are going to seriously argue that FDR would not push the program that he did IOTL you need a more serious argument then "it'll be expensive." It was expensive IOTL also; that did not deter FDR.

Forgetting, just for a moment, the training of technical services from pilots to mechanics to keep all this stuff in condition and usable, to train up 30 divisions from zero to being ready to go in to combat will take 18-24 months for each division, and the question is how many can be trained at a time due to facilities, equipment and cadre for training and staffing key positions. A person dressed in a uniform with a rifle is not a soldier. Some of these new well equipped divisions are going to be saved or used for action against Mao, not against the Japanese. Finally, the sad reality is that the Chinese government was hugely corrupt including the military at all levels. How many boots, uniforms, rations, jeeps, trucks, and who knows what else will go missing. Many divisions had lots of soldiers on the books who did not really exist and everything for them from pay to rations was grafted away.

Agreed, but those problems are ultimately immaterial because it doesn't actually matter if any of the 30 division army ever gets built or not. What matters is the Japanese reaction to the possibility of the buildup and as soon as large scale US arms shipments start arriving in China, the Japanese are going to freak out. (Especially since the Japanese also know that the US is engaged in a truly epic naval buildup at the same time which means Japan has a very short window to do something about this.) It's not going to be any comfort to the Japanese that it will take several years before the Chinese have a fully equipped modernized army to throw at them. The Japanese will want to keep the Chinese from ever having the potential to defeat them, which means the Japanese will move to cut the Burma supply line (meaning war with the British), and since the Japanese will assume that they can't attack the British without bringing the U.S. into the war as well, that means they will also attack the United States.

 

[Luminous]

Erm... Remember that the US produced enough equipment to outfit the USSR with approximately 240 divisions in lend lease alone. Sixty divisions worth of material were sent through the Persian corridor, which took up about 1/4 of all US equipment transfers due to Lend Lease. And Lend Lease began in peace time as well, so even if the US decides to not supply the Soviets, they have plenty of excess slack to do so, and they certainly had enough money OTL.

That, and part of the Japanese calculations for war were predicated on the short window they had available. With the US fleet building up so rapidly, and their various possessions in the Pacific fortifying rapidly, the Japanese only have so long until the US becomes virtually impregnable and they can't stop the shipments and supplies.