Originally Posted by PzJgr

One thing that surprises me is that WWII, the capture of cities did not result in the end of the war. The whole concept of Blitzkrieg is to focus on a point, break through and with speed head towards the rear to cause havoc and force the frontlines to pull back. Blitzkrieg, as I understood it, was to defeat enemies but surrounding their armies and forcing a surrender. The loss of manpower would weaken the enemy's defense capabilities.

So, with Barbarossa, it would have been smart to entice the Russian armies forward and then do a blitzkrieg, surround them and force a surrender. A war of attrition per se. The taking of Moscow would not necessarily force Stalin to surrender. But destroying his armies in the field would force him to think about it.