And? It still would have been infinitely more effective against a country which would effectively been nonindustrialised. Correct me if I'm wrong here but massive production of T-34s, among other thing, from behind the Urals played a large part in the Red Army's victory. Take that away and explain to me how the USSR could have won.

I cant believe I'm having to argue that a country which came so damn close to losing wouldnt have lost if it had the massive handicap of not having been industrialised... some people will argue for the sake of it I suppose.
Well, yes, if we are arguing about Trotsky vs Stalin, then I do not care. I know not much about Trotsky and have nothing to love him for either. However, my points were that
1) Soviet industrialization alone was not enough to defeat Germany. Especially if we remember that "industrialized" Red Army was largely annihilated in the very first stage of the war and a large number of industrial plants occupied by Nazis, so much of both had to be rebuilt the other side of Urals.
2) The premise that sans Stalin Russia would have been "effectively nonindustrialised" is bit of a stretch. That industrialization came at a terrible cost - and much of this could have been avoided, if not for Bolshevik revolution, subsequent civil war and terror policies. Why wouldn't Russia have been able to at least partially keep up in pace with defeated, disarmed and bankrupted Germany?
EDIT: Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Russia penetrated far faster and further in WW2 than in WW1?
3) So the big question is, whether Russia survived thanks to Bolshevik Party and leadership of Stalin, or rather despite Bolshevik Party and leadership of Stalin...
The man was a genius, no doubt, but imho his strength was in machiavellian power games, acquiring and consolidating power and eliminating his rivals, rather than in being economic/social/military visionary.