Were the Germans really that good?

[Steel God]

That's probably true Erik, they wouldn't have surrendered. But then again, the German plans for Barbarossa never did envision a complete occupation of the USSR. They had a stop line, which they believed if they could achieve, they could hold the Red Army at bay indefinitely if need be, or if they refused to sue for peace. Now at first glance it makes no sense, but it really goes to the heart of what I have been debating. That is, without the rail hubs in Moscow there is no "center" on which to organize a defense of the rest of Russia. Strategic movement in WWII was still very much dictated by rail movement, and Russia, of all the powers in Europe in WWII, had it's achilles heel in the fact that it's yards all routed through Moscow. There were alternate routes west of Moscow, but not east of Moscow. No routes of significance existing to shift forces from the south to the north east of Moscow, which would be a crippling blow to any organized defense of the entire country. German possession of Moscow would have translated to a huge advantage, or a force multiplier, for them, compelling Stavka to fit the Germans on three independent and non-supporting fronts. I think a compelling argument can be presented that it wasn't necessary to occupy all of Russia, nor was it the plan.