I think the case of the French campaign in may/june 1940 conclusively answers this question in the negative. Indeed, Blitzkieg tactics designed to entrap the opposing armies were used systematically, with great efficiency and with great success during the whole period. After the armistice, the Reich annexed Alsace and Moselle, where Jews could be find in large number, if only because thousands of them had emigrated from Germany an Central Europe in the 1930s. So here is a clear-cut empirical test: the Reich had used Blitzkrieg tactics and had as a result thousands of entrapped Jews under its jurisdiction. What did it do?
It expropriated and expelled them to the unoccupied zone, thereby (of course involuntarily) actually ensuring that they would escape the harshest anti-semitic policies of the occupied zone for two years. More generally, the military history of the French campaign seems completely disconnected from the history of Jews persecution, deportation and extermination, with the first ending in mid-1940 and the second really picking-up steam only in spring 1941.
Based on these facts, I think it can be reasonably concluded that maneuver warfare on the western front had nothing to do with Jews extermination.
By way of reference:
These links show that the occupied zone had a much harsher treatment of Jews than the unoccupied zone (English versions accessible from the page, usually).
details the expulsion of Jews from annexed Alsace.