the historical processes that Kalinovsky traces, with threads from the 1920s simply disappearing in the 1930s, only to reappear in the 1950s. Even if one accepts that Stalinism in Central Asia represented a colonial retrenchment, as Kalinovsky suggests, to treat the period as an aberration is to preclude precisely the sort of dynamic historical analysis to which the book is devoted. Stalinism is defined in rather static terms along imperial lines – a familiar vision for readers conversant in the literature on Stalinist Central Asia, but quite out of place in a book advancing a different framing of Soviet power. Development and anticolonialism, after all, meant something different in 1955 than they had in 1925. Their evolution was bound up in the historical dynamics that comprised Stalinism itself, and a more careful appraisal of these processes would have been appreciated. Yet such a critique, if anything, is a testament to the importance of Kalinovsky’s achievement. Having opened fresh avenues of inquiry, his book makes it difficult to accept a return to old frameworks.

中文翻译：

---

1932–1933年的乌克兰饥荒：大饥荒的解剖

Kalinovsky追溯的历史过程（带有1920年代的线索）在1930年代逐渐消失，直到1950年代才重新出现。即使像卡利诺夫斯基所建议的那样接受斯大林主义在中亚的殖民地裁员，将这一时期视作一种畸变，也恰恰是要排除该书所涉及的那种动态的历史分析。斯大林主义是沿着帝国路线用相当静态的术语定义的，这对于熟悉斯大林中亚文学的读者来说是一种熟悉的看法，但是在推进苏联政权变化的书中却完全不合适。毕竟，发展和反殖民主义在1955年与1925年的意义不同。它们的演变受制于包括斯大林主义本身在内的历史动力，并希望对这些过程进行更仔细的评估。然而，这种批评（如果有的话）证明了卡利诺夫斯基成就的重要性。开辟了崭新的研究途径，他的书使人们难以接受回到旧框架的想法。