U.S.S.R and Lend-Lease supplies?

[Imperious Leader]

But that depends on when Japan attacks. The Soviets would defeat Japan but need about 6 months, so timing it for July 41 would buy this time. But buy the time for whom? Japan had no intention of fighting Russia at all and taking a warm water port to help Germany at the peril of opening a new front is suicide. It would not solve her oil needs and gain her nothing but grief.

[Kreuzfeld]

lendlease is overvalued, counted for a very small percentage of USSR production in WW2.

The only way the axis could have won was to take baku, and the oil. I think at this point, caucasus produced more oil than the rest of europe combined. germany could never win as long as ussr had all this oil, while germany didn't

It is fairly commonly accepted that even if germany had been at peace with the allies (and not gotten trade and subsidies from the allies (maybe being blocked), they would still have lost against the russians, altho berlin would have fallen in 1947 (1946-1949) instead.

[HuskerMike]

1. Murmansk was a side show. Over 80% of Lend-Lease came through Iran. Not only was it a supply conduit, but we had huge truck factories built there. And, it wasthe trucks that really benefitted the Russians. They produced huge numbers of AFV's themselves and their T-34's were superior to our Valentines and Shermans.

2. Japan lost a war to Russia in 1939. I see no reason they would sue for peace in 1939 and then launch a war in 1941. The main benefit of this route was not by shipping. It was the aircraft we gave the Russians. Since we were at war with Japan, we had huge air bases in Alaska. We would fly the planes there, paint on Russian insignias, and then Russian crews would fly them home.

[Imperious Leader]

Over 80% of Lend-Lease came through Iran.

No it was about 23%

And 25% from Murmansk/ Archangel

The rest from the Pacific side. On Soviet transports

[Herr KaLeun]

This discussion mainly focuses on lend-lease, and that was of course the question asked. But the premise given to arrive at a hypothetical situation, was:

Had Murmansk been captured, Japan went to war with U.S.S.R and capture Vladivostok and the Germans captured Stalingrad, could the U.S.S.R survived without outside help?

So we're not just talking about a blockade to most of the land-lease supplies that would reach the Soviet Union. In this scenario, there's also a Japanese force fighting the USSR in the east, the Germans would actually have captured Stalingrad (which they did not do in reality - they captured most of it but the fight in that city never stopped), and the with Murmansk in Axis hands, German and Finnish troops from the far north could have wheeled in to cut the supply lines that Leningrad so desperately needed.
I think those strategic factors would be at least as important as the loss of the lend-lease supplies as such.

[CWO Marc]

So we're not just talking about a blockade to most of the land-lease supplies that would reach the Soviet Union. In this scenario, there's also a Japanese force fighting the USSR in the east, the Germans would actually have captured Stalingrad (which they did not do in reality - they captured most of it but the fight in that city never stopped), and the with Murmansk in Axis hands, German and Finnish troops from the far north could have wheeled in to cut the supply lines that Leningrad so desperately needed. I think those strategic factors would be at least as important as the loss of the lend-lease supplies as such.

And another way of framing the question would be to ask: how many variables (and which specific variables) would you need to change to set up a situation in which the USSR had no hope of winning? 

[Imperious Leader]

[Herr KaLeun]

Thanks for the maps IL, that's some interesting information.

[ABWorsham]

Great maps!!!