in establishing Masaryk Sociological Society in Czechoslovakia; the renowned specialist on Russian history G Vernadsky, one of the foremost representatives of the Eurasian movement; P. Savicky; the prominent Constitutional Democratic politician P. Milyukov. All these are still waiting for their Czech authors, as they were also active in Czechoslovakia during their exile period. P. Milyukov, among others, exchanged letters with T. Masaryk as early as at the turn of 19th and 20th centuries. T. G Masaryk's role in the development of Russian studies in Czechoslovakia must not be forgotten, because it was this aspect of his activity that was somewhat ignored. Also the personality of Jan Slavik, the author of amendments in the historical part of Masaryk's Russia and Europe, deserves more attention. Now, we had to limit the scope, only mentioning the Russian exile, while some other nations and periods will require biographical studies as well.
Political science approach is reflected in the writings of untimely deceased Z. Mlynar, though by their nature they are rather memoirs to some extent. Some of them are translations of his older works written during his exile period [96-99].
Historical Russian and Ukrainian studies in Czechia reflect - in a way - the recent problems of Russian and Ukrainian society as well as of their professional public. It is the problem of mutual delimitation, search for new identity, and the old but in Russia still explosive and much discussed questions of relation between Russia and Europe, continuity and discontinuity of history (above all, I mean the Soviet period).
Russia and Europe, or relation of Russia to Europe and vice versa was the theme of the introductory discussion (mentioned above) at the re-established Institute of History of East Europe in spring 1990, but nevertheless we do not seem to be over- concerned about the topic - rather the contrary [100-106]. This formerly Slavophil dilemma, more than 150 years old, was inherent for the personality of T.G Masaryk. Therefore it is so surprising that no one has managed to publish the proceedings of the conference on the very topic (with a special regard to Masaryk's attitude) which took place three years ago, in autumn 1997. It was the notorious financial shortage that made it impossible for the Masaryk Institute to publish the book.
On the other hand, the new edition of Russia and Europe, Masaryk's principal work on Russia, even if this is not a critical edition [107]. Little known but a real contribution is Milan Hauner's work What is Asia to Us (in English), which extremely rich in new documentary facts. In the book, the author concentrated on the development of thought concerning the geopolitical determination of the Russian sphere.
Although a large number of minor, particular studies are available, the professional public would nevertheless expect some substantial monographs, based on documentary facts and written by Czech authors for Czech readers, to cover quite a number of topics. Moreover, such works are needed that would bring syntheses of particular periods.
The new chance of approach to the documents in archives enable new, objective evaluation of those topics that were in discredit before, due to ideological over-concern, such as Czechoslovak-Soviet relations between the World Wars and during World War 2, as well as their particular aspects (e.g. relations of the two Communist parties, a topic totally neglected recently, etc.).
* Documents Editions
Gradually, new publications of documents on Czechoslovak-Soviet relations between 1939 and 1945 occur [108; 109]. Sadly, however, no closer co-operation of Czech and Russian teams has been achieved so far to publish more documents from Russian archives.
Obviously, in the Czech society such topics will be preferred that are more closely connected with Czech history. These will undoubtedly make the gist of the studies, but this does not affect the above mentioned importance of studies immediately oriented towards Russia and other former Soviet territories.
Problems of the research
Very little, not to say unsatisfactorily are studied topics from the demanding field of economic and social history, such as problems of everyday life of the Soviet society, cultural aspects of Stalinism, historical demography. As far as I know, none of the Czech historians is systematically concerned with (or at least professionally interested in) the questions of Russian foreign affairs in 17th and 18th centuries, Russian colonial expansion, concerning North America, Tahiti and Ethiopia - naturally, these may be rather peripheral issues for a Czech research worker indeed, not to speak of the poor availability of the respective documents. (No one to follow V. Zacek, then?) Not sufficiently dealt with are also the problems of nations and russification, although some works that have appeared, especially those by J. Wanner and B. Litera, are certainly of contribution.
We cannot ignore the substantial and keen dispute in western professional
