Abstract
In his work on the history of historiography in terms of contemporary history, the author characterizes the uncontrolled explosion of contemporary history production in Germany (since 1989 the annual production has grown more than fivefold each year), the historiographic superpower which is the closest to the Czech historiographical environment. Basically, this rapid world-wide growth of literary production does hinder its comprehensive critical reception.
Consequently, national historiographies, in fact, retreat into their own shells. In this context, the author poses the question on the relevance of quantification of historiographical production and its review reception and finds that, basically, it involves an exploration of the communication field of this discipline.
The comprehensive examination of printed and also electronic German periodicals revealed that German historians without a Bohemian study specialisation, are not interested in modern Czech (nor any other neighbouring) history at all and consequently not interested in historiography itself either. Those historians specialising in the countries east of Germany do follow, in terms of reviews, the contemporary Czechoslovak/Czech history production in German and English languages reasonably comprehensively.
Bohemian studies specialists exceptionally also review some Czech publications. Thanks to the Munich periodical Bohemia, Czech historiography also enjoys a unique access to German publication media.
However, the question remains what degree of reception Bohemia enjoys from historians outwith the Bohemian studies community?