A big part of the reason why "pulling a Stalin" worked was that it accelerated the migration of labour from the (overpopulated) Soviet rural areas to the cities where that labour could be more efficiently employed. The resources gained from plundering impoverished peasants pales in comparison to the resources gained by making an under-worked farmer a factory worker.
If you are looking for countries that might benefit from "pulling a Stalin", one wants to look for countries that have overpopulated countrysides and who have suffered from a relatively slow migration from the country to the cities. Certainly India comes to mind. Though I remain unconvinced that "pulling a Stalin" would provide
long term benefits. The required violence, even if somehow managed in such a way that it avoided any actual deaths (and I don't see how that is possible) is going to leave people wounded mentally, which will lead to children who are traumatized by the trauma of their parents and a state corrupted with the power of brutality.
Even in the same chart, you can spot similar 10 year spurts for almost any country on the list, say, France between 1953-1963. Communism delayed the rebuilding of Russian industrial capabilities and when finally they could be recovered and improved - voila! Still, I don't remember Holodomor in 1950's France or in USA between 1913-1928... Propaganda on Stalin's achievements in industrialization are a part to whitewash his regime, like trying to focus on Hitler's great achievements on reducing smoking...
Your first point is a good one. However, saying that 1950s France and the USA between 1913-1928 didn't experience a mass famine is... Not a fair comparison. France before 1950 and the USA before 1913 hadn't experienced mass famine in living memory, they were both far wealthier and far more developed than the Soviet Union was (and had more forgiving climates to boot). The Russian Empire had regular mass famines during the 1800s and early 1900s. That this did not immediately change when the Bolsheviks took power shouldn't surprise anyone.
The more relevant comparison is how the Soviet regime responded to its mass famines as compared with how the Tsarist regime responded to its famines (the Tsarist regime was no oil painting, but I'd fancy my chances better in the famine of 1891 than the famine of 1932).
As for talking about Stalin's industrial achievements, I think they are as useful for whitewashing Stalin's crimes as the achievements of Nazi medical science are for whitewashing Hitler's crimes (even today, most of our scientific knowledge on things like how the human body responds to hypothermia comes from Nazi experiments - experiments which, I think, do the opposite of whitewashing Hitler or his regime). Stalin certainly did oversee a massive increase in the industrial capacity of the USSR - and the brutality used to meet those goals are one of the single largest contributing factors to the collapse of the Soviet system (and the related collapse of Soviet industry) almost 38 years after Stalin died.
fasquardon