:-o
I vote No.
My reasons are posted in the Barbarossa thread, but I will reiterate here. Germanys’ industry just was not geard up for a war of this magnitude in “41”. And since Poland was already a done deal, and the French and British were already at war with Germany, they had to hold men and equipment on the "Western Front’ even if it was “All Quiet”.
The biggest problem for the Germans in the far expanses of the Soviet hinterlands was supply. The more men out there the more supplies are required for them and this requires more resources to get it there, a compounding effect. The drain is enormous! Another point about supply is that even in the modern era, armies still required the land that they were in to help supplyment their food supply. The Russians practiced a "scorched earth’ policy. They burnt everything that they couldn’t take with them; Homes, barns, fields, and even outhouses! They slaughtered livestock, and put the carcuses in the wells. They created a ‘no mans’ land as they retreated, starving even their own people. This all put an even greater strain on an already streached supply network. An Army moves on its’ stomach is a famous quote, I don’t remember who said it, be he knew what he was talking about.
So, it does not matter how many guns you have at your disposal, if you can’t feed your troops in the feild to shoot them.
And it is a given, if Hitler had not interfered with his Generals, the war would have draggedon another 3 to 5 years perhaps.
And a lot more human suffering.
Crazy Ivan :roll: