Isn't everything in here really glossing around the simple fact that Barbarossa - and the general invasion of the Soviet Union - failed for the simple reason that of the two madmen willing to throw millions of lives away, Stalin had more to throw?
To put it another way, if Stalin had approached each attack and counter-attack in the same was as the Western armies, he would never keep throwomg numbers at the problem (weren't frontal-assaults still quite predominant even when the SU was on the offensive in late '44?) The UK or US would never have sacrificed men in almost so casual a manner - look at how Monty wouldn't attack until he had numerical superiority, or how much planning went into each US offensive (and the impact of each death on the national psyche). Stalin, though, lost hundreds of thousands of troops and, essentially, said 'Not to worry, here's hundreds of thousands more'. Can you imagine the UK or the US accepting losses of 100% of their initial strength and just carrying on? Of course they wouldn't. I've seen it suggested before, for example, that had the UK lost the BEF then they might have sought peace.
That's not to downplay the skill of Russian generals or the tenacity of their fighting, but Soviet losses in any campaign were generally much higher than for any other army. Had Stalin not been compliant in accepting such casualty rates then the war on the Eastern Front could have been very different. Didn't he also have a breakdown (where he was not contactable for a few days) and considered seeking peace as the Germans closed-in on Moscow?
