A contribution to the discussion on the general perception of Russian history has been made by a group of Prague historians (M. Svankmajer, V. Veber, Z. Sladek), who initiated the elaboration of theses on the problem of continuity [110; 111]. The theses express a strong view, which is rather disputable at a time; this was probably on purpose, as the authors intended to bring forth a substantial discussion. A kind of analogy can be found in contemporary American historiography of Russia, e.g. the dispute between R. Pipes and M. Malia.

The principal thesis is the idea of the "continuity of Russian history from the beginning up to now". This concept is largely the methodological basis of Svankmajer's history of Russia. The authors - in my opinion - somewhat overestimated the aspect of continuity, and underestimated the factor of discontinuity. I find such a concept too ideological, stressing some factors but treating some others as marginal, without making the authors think about comparisons with "more civilized" world (such as the development of the British or German Empires). To som extent, the same problem that is being discussed among Russian Studies professionals in Germany: a closed character of Russian Studies, an insufficient correlation of "Ostforschung" or Russian history with the general history, or at least the history of Europe.

As for syntheses: in this field the Czech historiography of Russia is in the heaviest debt. As a matter of fact, only one major work was published by a team of four authors: M. Svankmajer, V. Veber, Z. Sladek and Vl. Moulis. It met a due response and had three editions at short intervals at the Lidove noviny publishing (first 1995, last 1999), all of them revised and supplemented. The authors all come from the "1968 generation" and - not to be forgotten - are also the authors of the academic survey of History of Russia of 1967.

No similar new work has been published so far on the history of the USSR, its origin, development and decline. Compare - say - Poland!

It would be very useful to elaborate and publish works on the latest period of Soviet or Russian history, the break-up of the USSR and the Soviet block, its causes and historical connections. The H&H publishing company has given up a lot of its impressive and far-reaching plans. A number of works, including History of the Soviet Empire in 20th Century by Z. Slвdek, Vl. Moulis and E. Vorвcek, which had been ready for print, were rejected by the publisher in 1992 as unmarketable. The former two authors participated on the above mentioned survey of Russian history later, whose concept was somewhat different.

A concise survey on this period of Russian history, the history of the USSR, keeps still waiting for its author. This circumstance we find a great debt of Czech historiography of Russia from the point of view of both students and professional public.

Conclusion

In the period following November 1989, a number of research topics were opened that had been taboo ones, and the availability of so far inaccessible archive funds increased. Understandably, the opening of the archives also brought some new, so far unknown facts, which in turn produced new questions. The scope of topics widened substantially, but on the other hand those topics that decidedly require a new critical approach and re-interpretation were nearly missed out. The possibility of contacts and co-operation with the wide international specialist community, including Czech historians who were active abroad, certainly was inspiring for specialists back home, but also held a mirror to the domestic research to judge with criticism its results, level of professional education, quality of publications and methodology. The question is how to reflect the mirror. So far, better conditions have not given results in more or less fundamental monographs but rather in a number of detailed studies. The youngest generation are making their way through book reviews, but virtually hardly any positions are being made ready for them at renowned institutions. A number of monographs, however, are ready for print, trying to find a publisher [112-114]. Obviously, fundamental works of quality will - with some possible exceptions - take their time. These will mark another, next period.

Making an attempt to summarize the results of the research in 1990 on the basis of own reviews, we can clearly see that the Czech historiography of Russia responds to topical questions and has started fillin in the "white spots of history". But, on the whole, the topics are chosen more or less