As for books, a useful publication was produced by the literary historian M.C. Putna, who covered the history and culture of the Russian exile between 1917 and 1991 in the form of portraits of particular personalities [69]. A comprehensive survey of the affairs of the "white" exile was published by S. Tejchmanovв [70]. In an interesting, "mirror-like" way, Ivan Savicky presented the life of Czechs in Russia and Russians in Czechia in a separate book [71]. Z. Slвdek and L. Belosevskв also took part in publication of documents of the Russian exile from Czechoslovak archives [72].

While the Russian exile was given immense attention, by far less in the focus was the Ukrainian exile, let alone Byelorussian. No studies have been published on the Jewish [73] or Caucasian exile. Similarly neglected by the specialists was how the Czech society received the immigrants and replied their activities.

The overall survey of the research and discussion on the Russian exile was presented by Zdenek Slвdek [74], who also was the only Czech author to publish a number of papers in foreign journals as well as in the great synthesis survey edited by K. Schlogel in Germany [75].

USSR in World War 2

is a question, which - compared with the question of the exile - decidedly is not experiencing an ebb of interest. On the contrary, publications of this kind are still much in demand, especially those dealing immediately with military operations [76-84].

A new topic of interest were for example the problem of co-operation of oriental nations in the USSR with Germans [85], and that of Vlasov's army [86; 87].

However, research into the problems of war-time civil life in the USSR, state of society, supplying provisions and ways of surviving in those difficult times remains scarce. The exception is M. Borвk's studies about Polish army officers who were murdered in Khatyn by order of the Soviet leadership [88; 89].

* Research of the latest history of Russia (or USSR) after 1945

including Ukraine, Byelorussia and other territories seems to be the weakest point within the scope of the research. This is partly due to chronological limitation of the research, introduced in the Academy of Sciences for the Institute of History (up to 1945, including East Europe) and the Institute of Modern History (Czech or Czechoslovak history after 1945 in a wider background but excluding East Europe) after the dissolution of the Institute of History of East Europe in 1993.

As for syntheses, a team publication was prepared on the establishment, crisis and break-up of the Soviet block as early as in the early 1990s [90]. When the former Institute of History of East Europe was still in existence, the staff were also systematically involved in theoretical study of the problems of the post-war USSR and Soviet block [91-93]. Similarly, other specific problems of the post-war development until the decline of the USSR were dealt with. Nevertheless, this publication

activity was discontinued after 1993, to be only amended by occasional individual or collective papers, again mostly published by the former Institute staff.

Among the topics were the USSR internal politics development, the upheaval following Stalin's death, USSR foreign policy, stagnation under Brezhnev's leadership, development of the dissent, and political and economic development in the perestroika period up to the break-up of the Soviet empire.

Equally attractive for a reader and a historian are biographies of famous personalities of Russian history, though they may differ in quality. In minor writings, some representatives of the Russian exile were dealt with (e.g. historian A.V. Florovsky) as well as leaders of the former Soviet state: studies were published about Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky but also about the pre-war Soviet ambassador to Czechoslovakia S. A. Alexandrovsky and Marshal I.S. Konev [94]. The period of the tzarist Russia was not neglected in biographical studies either. An interesting study on an unknown Lithuanian astronomer, T. Zebrauskas (1714-1758) was published but has regretfully remained just one of its kind (and beyond the chronological limits of this presentation) [95]. As far as I know, neither Vl. Moulis with his Khruscov nor M. Svankmajer with his monograph on Catherine the Great have managed to publish their manuscripts so far. It is a delight to read the already quoted monograph on Peter the Great, newly out of print by the latter author, a part of the output of his life-long studies.

Still neglected are the lives of representatives of the Russian exile who were active in Czechoslovakia. Among these are the outstanding Russian economist P. B. Struve, who spent one period of his intellectually rich life (1920s) in Czechoslovakia as well; the Nobel prize sociologist P. Sorokin, who also participated