„Az orosz történetet az oroszoknak kell írniuk, miért avatkoznak ebbe bele a magyarok?” (Mikrohistoriográfiai etűd)

The present article analyzes documents to introduce the antecedents and the story of a scandalous, failed PhD defense, which took place in Russia in 1992, in the midst of the neoliberal economic shock therapy. Apparently, this case was an attempt to prevent the future academic career of a young Hungarian historian, who would have deserved a better fate, but, in fact, this case study in micro-historiography reveals the state of Russian historiography after the glasnost'. It describes how the imperial conception of history, which has remained persistent even after the change of regimes, breeds xenophobia, and how the “nationalist” perspective is elevated to the level of chauvinism. Even though this is a Russian story, the lessons should be observed by all national historiographies. The author of the attacked dissertation was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Russia was in ruins but at the Historical Faculty of the Petrograd University a strong “hardcore” was formed, which became triumphant under the leadership of the dean. This group refused to reconcile with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the loss of national greatness and pride, which occurred thanks to their own political leaders and the West. In the Russia of 1992, the time was not ripe for a change of paradigm in historiography and the new conception of history. Furthermore, the author shows that at this particular historical moment the change of perspective at the Historical Faculty of the Petrograd University – ironically – was even less likely than back in 1984, in the Soviet era, when he had defended his PhD. Even though 1992 marked a post-glasnost' year, the aforementioned case shows that freedom of speech and academic freedom could only trigger xenophobia as a novel contribution to the imperial conception of history.