Yes, it matches the accepted thinking (and their own assessments) that Germany did not have the breath for a long, exhausting war. Germany's war in the west was just that - short and devastating campaigns. Poland, respite, Denmark/Norway almost complete before Battle of France, rest, Yugoslavia/Greece finished almost before Barbarossa. And here we come to the USSR and USA problem. It was perfectly clear that the war in the east was inevitable, and on the other hand, Roosevelt's policy was not (excessively) hidden either (like any real politician - say "we never want to go to war" in the elections and then do everything to provoke it). The mustache assessment was that America would not have a greater influence on the war in Europe until 1942 (sorry America - he was right), that's why the decision to get rid of the USSR in 1941 was not illogical (and the declaration of war by the USA does not change the situation on the ground - it can only draw Japan into the equation of war with the Soviets).
Only the assessment (but not only Germany - let's not forget that the rest of the world during the summer and autumn of 1941 was sure of the collapse of the USSR) was faulty.
Whether better logistics (and let's say a better plan of Barbarossa than Halder's) would lead to the collapse of the USSR is a slightly bigger question. But it is not entirely impossible that the fall of Leningrad, Moscow and Ukraine in 1941/2 would reduce the Soviets (at least for a while) to negligible danger and thus provide (them) time to fortify the coasts of Europe and set up air defenses and/or clear North Africa and/or neutralize the UK. That is, to prepare for the arrival in the USA.
Again how successful and what the wallies moves would be - that's up for debate.
So instead of a conclusion, if I may return to logistics.
As usual the answer is not just one magic item. But a combination of gas generators for trucks (much earlier), diesel propulsion for tanks (because it is easier to produce synthetically) steam wagons, and generally less horses for transport (and more food for people) ... would certainly solve the logistics issue.
Admittedly, for that to happen, there would have to be a visionary who would see it and an economic genius who would balance the economy between consumption and the price of oil and the alternatives, at least in the pre-war era.
And the results could deprive us of the possibility of discussing it at all (in terms of a much different world that I'm sure you wouldn't want to see).
Again, this is a conversation about technology, but ultimately it's impossible to avoid the implications of its application and what it would mean for millions of people.
Only the assessment (but not only Germany - let's not forget that the rest of the world during the summer and autumn of 1941 was sure of the collapse of the USSR) was faulty.
Whether better logistics (and let's say a better plan of Barbarossa than Halder's) would lead to the collapse of the USSR is a slightly bigger question. But it is not entirely impossible that the fall of Leningrad, Moscow and Ukraine in 1941/2 would reduce the Soviets (at least for a while) to negligible danger and thus provide (them) time to fortify the coasts of Europe and set up air defenses and/or clear North Africa and/or neutralize the UK. That is, to prepare for the arrival in the USA.
Again how successful and what the wallies moves would be - that's up for debate.
So instead of a conclusion, if I may return to logistics.
As usual the answer is not just one magic item. But a combination of gas generators for trucks (much earlier), diesel propulsion for tanks (because it is easier to produce synthetically) steam wagons, and generally less horses for transport (and more food for people) ... would certainly solve the logistics issue.
Admittedly, for that to happen, there would have to be a visionary who would see it and an economic genius who would balance the economy between consumption and the price of oil and the alternatives, at least in the pre-war era.
And the results could deprive us of the possibility of discussing it at all (in terms of a much different world that I'm sure you wouldn't want to see).
Again, this is a conversation about technology, but ultimately it's impossible to avoid the implications of its application and what it would mean for millions of people.
