I ignore trolling, aelf and Dachs.
Depends on how you look at it. Given that the Soviet Army still existed and the industrial complex was still intact, I would say the contrary.
I would be careful with stating that the Soviet Army still existed after the first stage of Barbarossa. In fact what faced the German in late Autumn / early Winter of 1941 was hardly the same army which faced them in the Summer - Autumn of 1941. Industrial complex was partly destroyed but partly evacuated to Siberia.
The
Cadre Red Army was practically all destroyed in a very short time and in a much more disastrous way (considering the strength and the numbers of divisions, tanks, aircrafts, artillery pieces, men, etc., that the Red Army represented in 1941) than Polish, Belgian, French or Greek armies before.
What stopped the Germans was the Reserve Red Army and fresh units formed & mobilized yet after the invasion. And the Russian Autumn - Winter of course.
The Soviets unlike Poland and France had this advantage that they had huge territory and huge reserves so they could recover even after catastrophic defeats.
Not mentioning that Soviet army of 1941 was many times stronger than the Polish army in 1939 and also a bit stronger than the French in 1940. Russian road system was also much worse than that in western Poland or in France. So Germans encountered huge problems with logistics, especially in the Autumn.
With the same right one might say that Poland was doing great in 1939, and France in 1940
Both France and Poland were doing good taking into account their abilities and quality of the enemy they were facing.
After all it cannot be argued that the German army was the best army of WW2.
The myth that French soldiers had in general poor morale is a very unjust myth invented probably by the British. The Dunkirk evacuation without fierce resistance of French soldiers at Lille wouldn't have been possible, for example (another British myth is that only them contributed to the Dunkirk evacuation and that only them counterattacked the Germans at Arras - not true, major role was played by French forces in both battles).
As I wrote many historians consider Poland and France doing much better than the USSR in the first stage of Barbarossa. The Red Army was the only army which had so huge numerical advantage over the attacking German army. Yet despite having over 24,000 tanks (for example), they lost almost entire frontline army in the 1st stage of Barbarossa. While Poland opposed Germany with 600 tanks, mostly obsolete tankettes.
When we compare Poland to for example Belgium, Greece or Yugoslavia, Poland also wins in this competition.
Belgium with an army numbering some 2/3 of the Polish army fell in 18 days fighting against a much smaller German force than Poland was facing in 1939 (for example only 800 - 900 German tanks invaded Belgium) and without being stabbed back by anyone, like Poland. Moreover considerable French and British forces helped the Belgians in defending their territory, so Germans in Belgium were not only facing the Belgian army. Greece performed very well against the Italians (like almost everyone in WW2 except maybe Ethiopia), but German attack from behind overran it quickly with small number of casualties for the Germans. Yugoslavian defeat was the most catastrophic out of all countries that fell to Germany in WW2.
In Poland in 1939 German army had considerable numerical advantage over the Polish army in every aspect and often also technological advantage.
In 1940 forces of both opposing armies were roughly similar, with Germans having more aircrafts while Allies having more tanks.
In 1941 in terms of numbers the defender was far superior in almost every aspect (except maybe men where numbers were similar at the beginning).
Yet despite having much more tanks, aircrafts and artillery, the Russians let them to get to the outskirts of Moscow, which should never happen.
Of course we know that apart from simple ratios of forces, there were also other - often important - factors which influenced performance of each of these armies. But these unfavourable for the Allies factors were present in each of these campaigns - especially in Poland and in Russia.
Poland for example had too long borders to be efficiently defended with such a small army. Plus the Polish army was almost entirely horse-drawn, with very few motorized vehicles available and only two fully motorized brigades. Facing the highly motorized Wehrmacht, which had 15 fully motorized divisions, so 25% of all divisions used in the invasion (of them 7 armoured, 4 light armoured and 4 motorized infantry).
German infantry divisions, although marching mainly on foot, had also some fully motorized units as well as motorized supply columns.
Distribution of vehicles within German infantry divisions in 1939:
3 x Inf.Rgt. - 219 trucks & cars, 141 motorcycles, 630 horse-drawn vehicles (ca. 1800 horses *)
Art.Rgt. - 156 trucks & cars, 57 motorcycles, 240 horse-drawn vehicles (ca. 2,200 horses *)
Pz.Abw.Abt. - 114 trucks & cars, 45 motorcycles
Pi.Btl. - 72 trucks & cars, 32 motorcycles, 28 horse-drawn vehicles (71 horses)
Nachr.Abt. - 103 trucks & cars, 32 motorcycles, 7 horse-drawn vehicles (52 horses)
Aufkl.Abt. - 49 trucks & cars, 50 motorcycles, 260 horses
Other divisional units - 296 trucks & cars, 170 motorcycles, 14 horse-drawn vehicles (and some horses)
In total - 1009 trucks & cars, 527 motorcycles (+ 201 trailers for them), 919 horse-drawn vehicles, 4842 horses.
* without Reitpferde
By comparison a Polish infantry division in 1939 had got in total only 76 trucks & cars and much more horse-drawn vehicles.
If it comes to fully motorized / mechanized German divisions during different stages of the war and different campaigns:
Poland - 25% of their divisions were fully motorized (15 divisions)
France - 12% of their divisions were fully motorized (16 divisions)
1941 - 22% of their divisions were fully motorized (33 divisions)
