- Jan 2015
- Ontario, Canada
Sure, but we should contextualize this. The Lend Lease brought in through Vladivostok were a long term gain. All those supplies had to be funneled through Siberia. Where as the Persian Corridor/Volga, Murmansk and Archangelsk provided the materials immediately to all the main areas. So it was the most crucial networks given the dire circumstances."The route was affected by the start of hostilities between Japan and the US in December 1941, but was not interrupted as Japan and the Soviet Union maintained a strict neutrality towards each other for the duration of the conflict, changing only in August 1945. Due to this neutrality the goods could be moved only in Soviet-flagged ships, and, as they were inspected by the Japanese, could not include war materials. The route was therefore used to transport foods, raw materials and non-military goods such as lorries and other road vehicles, railway locomotives and rolling stock. It was also the most practical route for goods and materials produced in the US western states. During the conflict the Pacific Route saw a steady stream of goods moved from the west coast of the United States and overall accounted for some 50% of all Lend-lease goods to the Soviet Union"
Pacific Route - Wikipedia
50% of all goods. I'd question that that Murmusks,, Persian corridor were more important. Though reading this I did not know that the Japanese inspected goods and it was restricted to "civikain goods". Trucks seem pretty military,
I not saying the lend lease was decisive, but it was significant. And Japanese belligerence would have reduced tis pretty significnatly. Though The Soviets coudl have been diffacult in the far east., not saying that Japanses miliatry opertaions against the Soviets were going to easy or sucessful.
Just raisng this as a factor/issue to be considered as well as direct military operations.