Editor’s Introduction: Norman Naimark has published a great deal about the fate of Eastern Europe as it came under Soviet domination during the first few years after World War II. His latest book, Stalin and the Fate of Europe, is a reassessment of Joseph Stalin’s policies toward seven European countries and is meant, in part, to consider whether the fate of Eastern Europe could have worked out much more favorably than it did. Both in the book and in his comments here, Naimark posits that a better outcome was indeed feasible, but he is also aware of the many factors that militated against such a result. Even scholars who disagree with specific aspects or the broad thrust of Naimark’s argument can appreciate his effort to reexamine key questions about the origins of the Cold War. To highlight the importance of Stalin and the Fate of Europe, we asked three distinguished experts—Vojtech Mastny, Vít Smetana, and Vladimir Pechatnov—to offer commentaries about the book. Their appraisals vary considerably. Although all three commentators acknowledge the importance of Naimark’s book, their assessments range from the generally laudatory (Pechatnov) to the skeptical and critical (Smetana). The book will not be the final word about the postwar fate of Eastern Europe and the origins of the Cold War, but the commentaries show that Naimark’s attempt to rethink the period has achieved its main aim; namely, to generate lively discussion and debate about issues that many assumed were long settled. We are publishing the three commentaries seriatim along with Naimark’s reply.

中文翻译：

---

斯大林与 1945 年后的欧洲命运

编辑介绍：诺曼·奈马克（Norman Naimark）发表了大量关于东欧在二战后最初几年处于苏联统治下的命运的文章。他的最新著作《斯大林与欧洲的命运》是对约瑟夫·斯大林对七个欧洲国家的政策的重新评估，其部分目的是考虑东欧的命运是否会比它更有利。在书中和他在这里的评论中，奈马克都认为更好的结果确实是可行的，但他也意识到影响这种结果的许多因素。即使是不同意奈马克论点的具体方面或广泛主旨的学者，也可以欣赏他重新审视有关冷战起源的关键问题的努力。为了强调斯大林的重要性和欧洲的命运，我们请来了三位杰出的专家——Vojtech Mastny、Vít Smetana 和 Vladimir Pechatnov——就本书发表评论。他们的评价差别很大。尽管三位评论家都承认奈马克著作的重要性，但他们的评价范围从普遍称赞的（Pechatnov）到怀疑和批评的（Smetana）。这本书不会是关于东欧战后命运和冷战起源的定论，但评论表明，奈马克重新思考这一时期的尝试已经达到了其主要目的；即，就许多人认为早已解决的问题进行热烈的讨论和辩论。我们将随 Naimark 的回复逐一发布这三篇评论。他们的评价差别很大。尽管三位评论家都承认奈马克著作的重要性，但他们的评价范围从普遍称赞的（Pechatnov）到怀疑和批评的（Smetana）。这本书不会是关于东欧战后命运和冷战起源的定论，但评论表明，奈马克重新思考这一时期的尝试已经达到了其主要目的；即，就许多人认为早已解决的问题进行热烈的讨论和辩论。我们将随 Naimark 的回复逐一发布这三篇评论。他们的评价差别很大。尽管三位评论家都承认奈马克著作的重要性，但他们的评价范围从普遍称赞的（Pechatnov）到怀疑和批评的（Smetana）。这本书不会是关于东欧战后命运和冷战起源的定论，但评论表明，奈马克重新思考这一时期的尝试已经达到了其主要目的；即，就许多人认为早已解决的问题进行热烈的讨论和辩论。我们将随 Naimark 的回复逐一发布这三篇评论。这本书不会是关于东欧战后命运和冷战起源的定论，但评论表明，奈马克重新思考这一时期的尝试已经达到了其主要目的；即，就许多人认为早已解决的问题进行热烈的讨论和辩论。我们将随 Naimark 的回复逐一发布这三篇评论。这本书不会是关于东欧战后命运和冷战起源的定论，但评论表明，奈马克重新思考这一时期的尝试已经达到了其主要目的；即，就许多人认为早已解决的问题进行热烈的讨论和辩论。我们将随 Naimark 的回复逐一发布这三篇评论。