The prooposition that "X would have been different if..." is ALWAYS disputable. It is really silly to call any speculation re what might have been "indisputable." The process of industrialization has always been indescribably bloody -- and in that the Soviet Union did not differ much from England & the U.S. I doubt that it would have been much different whoever was in charge in Moscow.
^^^^^
CB: Yes, historical counterfactuals are fantasies, and certainly not certainties.
The SU _had_ to rush industrialization because they anticipated, correctly, that imperialism would invade again, as it had in 1918 to try to crush the first socialist nation. They couldn't know which imperialist power or powers would invade, but it was certain that only an industrially based military could resist.
In the end, the SU still suffered an enormous slaughter , the biggest in the history of the world, but its industrial bas and the elan of the masses of people was sufficient to defeat the Nazis forces. This elan and enthusiasm of the masses is important evidence that repression was not as mass as the impression one gets from the hordes of anti-Sovieteers. 90% of the casualties suffered by the Nazis were inflicted by the Red Army. The Western front was tiny compared to the Eastern front. It can be said without exaggeration that it was the Red Army that saved the world from fascism. There's a quote from General MacArthur, American military genius, to this effect - The world now depends on the noble banners of Red Army to save it, or words to that effect.
The Stalinist crash industrialization saved the world from fascism.