Your assertion was that the Russian army was all that was needed to beat Germany, the "minimum". It wasn't.
It's called a conservative lower bound. It's within the realm of possibility that the Red Army could have beaten the German Army alone.
It isn't to argue the merits of whether the German Army could have been beaten by the Red Army. You're taking this far too literally, rather than just using a lazy lower bound to demonstrate a point.
and you should read the source I provided, which is completely free and compiled by historians at the US Holocaust Museum
You have to take a lot of US sources with a grain of salt because of Cold War, anti-communist propaganda.
It talks about how the Germans beat back the Soviets easily, their army was literally no match for the German army.
If this was the case, why were they stopped a the gates of Moscow?
ever claimed it was army policy to give soldiers a hoe instead of a rifle, just that during the invasion there literally wasn't enough supply to go around for the Soviets. They did what they could with what they had, and used it until someone with an actual gun or ammo died.
Yes I read about this. Some used sabers too if they got cut off. Though, I'm sure this happened in isolated incidents all through WW2 to all armies.