> Operation Barbarossa was a pre-emptive strike; Hitler never had a choice to avoid war with the Soviet Union, only whether to attack or to be attacked
Partially true. Soviet government knew that war with so big and aggressive neighbor was inevitable, so they prepared military accordingly, especially after Finnish war fail. Army got new equipment and reforms, but they planned to finish them in 1942. No one knows if USSR would really attack in 42, but Hitler's strategy had some valid points.
There is a widely criticized book about planned Soviet offensive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebreaker_(Suvorov)
> the Soviets lost a shitload of personnel and materiel to Barbarossa because they had an offensive force on the border, waiting to blitz all of Europe
This isn't the one reason. Although forces were concentrated near border, Soviet doctrine stated that it is ok, and our glorious Red Army can stop enemy offense and go into counterattack in any case. And Soviet forces had no proper defense lines at post-pact occupied territories, so they were stationed where they could.
There were plan to build proper defensive line but they didn't do it in time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_Line
Another reason of losses is incompetence of officers, especially after purges, when most of trained high-level guys gone. Equipment also wasn't good, and moral and training level of average soldier was pretty bad.
Moral and training advantage of Germans existed almost to 44-45.
t. didn't watch the video because 35 min of listening is too much