History · Reviews

Remarks on Arthur Bryant’s Unfinished Victory (1940)

I recently read Arthur Bryant’s book Unfinished Victory. It was released in 1940 and attempts to explain why Europe, and in particular Weimar Germany, developed the way they did after the Great War. This book is a quick and enjoyable read. In particular, it points out aspects that are completely ignored by the mainstream narrative today, for instance the shockingly unfair and vengeful treatment Germany received after the Great War, or the engineered hyperinflation of Weimar Germany. I want to highlight a few points I found quite remarkable.

Most interestingly, Bryant points out why there was anti-semitism in Germany, drawing attention to the scheming of the Jews. He does not babble about their supposedly high IQ but instead points to nepotism, usury, and financial engineering. One aspect I was not aware of was that many German doctors and lawyers were pushed out of their chosen profession because they could no longer afford to practice it, due to the deleterious effects of hyperinflation. Meanwhile, as Bryant points out, many Jews had international contacts, which gave them access to foreign currency. Consequently, this put them at a considerable financial advantage over Germans. In contrast, most Germans were reduced to living in abject poverty, which could be both directly and indirectly blamed on the Jews. This is the backdrop that made the rise of Hitler possible. If the common man had not been in such a vulnerable position, Hitler’s speeches would not have resonated at all with the public. Again, this is a very plausible explanation and certainly a much more reasonable one than musing about something “innately evil” in the German race, or some similar bullshit such as that the German’s had a dislike for Jews “for no reason at all.”

The German Nazi regime has not received a fair assessment in our history books, to put it mildly. It is commonly depicted as the embodiment of evil. Yet, this is again where Bryant’s perspective helps. One such instance is that the Nazis controlled the press, the so-called “Gleichschaltung”. This can be explained as a mandatory element of a totalitarian state. Yet, once could very well make the point that a totalitarian or authoritarian state could just as well nourish its own opposition. They are just for show, of course. Still, the optics are probably a bit better if you’re a totalitarian ruler and allow some renegade press to exist. So, why did the Nazis suppress freedom of speech? Bryant argues that it was a counter-reaction to how the Nazis were treated themselves. He writes that the political campaign of the NSDAP was barred from “the wireless”, i.e. radio transmission and they had great difficulty with newspapers as well. (This is just like today’s “deplatformign” of anybody who objects to the mainstream narrative.) Bryant does not draw the following conclusion, but to me it seems clear that this is the reason why Hitler was such an incredibly captivating speaker, sometimes holding four rallies a day. They had to do this because otherwise they would not have reached a wide audience. Arguably, the immense practice Hitler got as an orator was an unintended consequence of the Left denying him and his party access to regular means of mass communications.

The parallels to the current year are quite stark in other regards as well, I think. Hitler’s NSDAP had to combat a frenzied mob of leftists. He had to amass his own private army, which had to first beat up the communist mob before he could speak. Similarly, today Antifa and other thugs are used to suppress opinions the shadow government does not like. Violence is again used as a tool to limit freedom of speech. Now, would the Nazi regime possibly have been a bit less repressive had they not faced over a decade of violent, incessant prosecution by the Left? Countless leading Nazis were killed by communists, and they often didn’t even get a slap on the wrist. On the other hand, Nazi storm troopers (“Saalschutz”, which morphed into the later SA) put many more members of the red plague out of their miserable existence. However, the violence of the Right was a reaction to the violence of the Left. It was an all-out civil war back then. Could we be heading into the same direction? Considering the increasingly violent rhetoric and the immense suppression of any criticism of the globo-homo agenda, it is certainly the case that the ruling class is very afraid of a popular uprising. Violent attacks are also getting more common. We might see a civil war indeed, or maybe Western society will collapse before we get to that point. I am tempted to believe that the latter is a more likely outcome. (EDIT: I wrote the first draft of this post long before Covid-19 hit the mainstream. Now, societal collapse looks like a pretty realistic prospect.)

Bryant’s book is not without its flaws, though. For instance, he repeatedly dismisses some parts of Nazi ideology outright, without discussing them at all. He quotes from Hitler’s Mein Kampf, in which the author mocks the belief of leftist academics that heredity plays no role in humans, yet at the same time they pay great attention to the breeding of cats, dogs, and horses. This part of Hitler’s opus magnum fits the current year just as well. In the same context, Bryant dismisses Darwin’s theory of evolution, together with evolutionary genetics as a whole, as pseudo-science, which is quite something. He’s clearly throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Sure, you may not like the results of genetics, but then you should be brave enough to say that it applies to neither humans nor animals. Of course, this would be ludicrous, which is why Bryant prefers his double-think.

On a side note, Bryant correctly identifies the Nazi regime as a socialist one, which is flat-out denied by today’s mainstream narrative. In fact, Bryant points out that the Nazi flag has a red background because this links it to the traditional color of socialism. Today, we call the Nazi regime a right-wing terror regime. Yet, their policies were clearly influenced by socialism, but with a national as opposed to an international bent. Heck, it’s in the very name: National Socialism. It seems you have to be put through years upon years of “liberal” education to develop the kind of double-think that makes it possible to believe that the Nazis weren’t socialists.


Did you enjoy this article? Great! If you want to read more by Aaron, check out his excellent books, the latest of which is Meditation Without Bullshit. Aaron is available for one-on-one consultation sessions if you want honest advice. Lastly, donations for the upkeep of this site are highly appreciated.

27 thoughts on “Remarks on Arthur Bryant’s Unfinished Victory (1940)

  1. Speaking of illuminating books from the 1930s I can also recommend HILAIRE BELLOC’S L (an emiment Catholic man of letters of the Edwardian period) stunning “The Jews”, which is practically unknown today (have a wild guess why!). I’m currently reading it and it is really worth the time:

    He doles out some tough love towards both sides: he shows how & why Europeans are giant cucks & cowards, letting themselves readily get looted and their societies undermined while he also historically demonstrates, how Jews habitually have zero respect for the lands they inhabit. It was written before WW II (2nd edition in 1937) so there’s no mention of the holocaust in it. Basically the same grievances that the Nazi’s had in the 1930s were present and repeatedly culminating in Europe for decades & centuries prior. He also foreshadows a great catastrophe for the European jews impending, should neither Europeans nor jews come to terms eith the pressing issues of the jewish question. Highly foreshadowing!

    It is utterly remarkable that a book written a century ago for a specific purpose could so acutely address the same peril facing Western Nations. Truly, this is a perennial topic for Europeans. So there’s timeless insights inside these pages as well…

    1. “the same peril facing Western Nations.”
      It seems you are distinguishing between western Europe and the United States. Are you?

      If I look at the opposition to the lockdown in Michigan and compare it to the half assed stuff Europe is pulling off, it seems pretty clear that these two are not the same type of “West”.
      Well, it helps having a second amendment that lets you go out in front of the capital and remind the politicians, that there are more guns than citizens in your country. Can’t do that in Europe.

  2. In my comment I referred to “Western nations” with regard to Belloc’s book as the nations of Western Europe. I didn’t mean to confuse at all, even though I actually might have.
    The situation in the U.S. is quite fascinating to say the least. Let us see how all of this is going to play out…

    As far as Belloc’s writing is concerned I’m going to read myself through his extremely fascinating oevre, which has until now been completely unknown go me. Yurns out he has written eminent and immediately captivating books on such diverse topics as Joan of Arc, Charlemaigne, The great heresies, Islam, Capitalism (“The Servile State”), The history and the enemies of the Catholic Church, the French revolution, on the Battle of Malplaquet, liberalism – and even witty children’s books… apparently I got hooked on some new crack! 😉

  3. I closely follow an Italian Economist who speaks a lot about the Euro area from an economic and political point of view. One of his main concerns is the fact that the governments championing it (left wing governments) are supporting conditions of deflation and unemployment that in fact in the past have led to the rise of dictatorial regimes such as the Nazi regime (exactly because those regimes provided solutions to those untenable economic conditions). In other words, they are reproducing conditions that in the past have led to conflict.
    Regarding the unfair treatment of Germany and its consequences on the German economy and Europe, I found out that Keynes write “the economic consequences of the peace”. I have not read it, but it sounds like it could be a good complement to the book reviewed in this post (which I will buy as well)
    I think the same happened in Greece. Regardless of their responsibilities for their economic conditions, the measures imposed on them were just disproportionate and inhumane from my point of view and they did not promote the sense of responsibility that they were meant to (even at the IMF few years later they declared that they had exaggerated), and the investors had to accept a cut anyway (and today Greece in order to survive is controlling capital movements – great achievement for an economic area where they claim they want to promote free trade)

  4. “Most interestingly, Bryant points out why there was anti-semitism in Germany, drawing attention to the scheming of the Jews. He does not babble about their supposedly high IQ but instead points to nepotism, usury, and financial engineering. One aspect I was not aware of was that many German doctors and lawyers were pushed out of their chosen profession because they could no longer afford to practice it, due to the deleterious effects of hyperinflation. Meanwhile, as Bryant points out, many Jews had international contacts, which gave them access to foreign currency. Consequently, this put them at a considerable financial advantage over Germans. In contrast, most Germans were reduced to living in abject poverty, which could be both directly and indirectly blamed on the Jews. This is the backdrop that made the rise of Hitler possible. If the common man had not been in such a vulnerable position, Hitler’s speeches would not have resonated at all with the public. Again, this is a very plausible explanation and certainly a much more reasonable one than musing about something “innately evil” in the German race, or some similar bullshit such as that the German’s had a dislike for Jews “for no reason at all.””

    I am curious. The history of anti-Semitism predates Hitler. It already developed in Germany during the late 19th century. See wikipedia entry on anti-Semitism, etymology section:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism

    What is the primary sources that Bryant used to construct this so-called Jewish conspiracy.

    ” Bryant argues that it was a counter-reaction to how the Nazis were treated themselves.”
    This seems to be similar to the argument that the Communists suppress freedom of press due to the fact that they were repressed themselves by any kind of former government. They also tended to only trust comrades who had spent years in prisons.

    Have you read the book German book “Germany’s Aims in the First World War” by Fritz Fischer. It emphasizes the fact that many of Nazy policies dated back the policies of the Second Reich.

    I do not share his view that Germany was majorly responsible for the First World War, but I think he has examined almost the entire German archives related to the First World War.

    1. Anti-semitism has been around for as long as Jews have been around. Of course, we can no longer discuss this issue openly and instead have to pretend that the fact that the Jews have been kicked out from basically every country they ever entered is completely inexplicable.

      Bryant wrote this book as a contemporary observer. He had first-hand knowledge himself.

    2. Sorry to break it to you, but Fischer is garbage. He quotes his sources very selectively, or misinterprets them outright to fit his narrative. He pretends to convince you that the war was deliberately engineered by Germany, the same way Bismarck purposefully engineered the wars of 1862, 1866 and 1870-71, but can only do so by being intellectually dishonest.

      For example, he takes several quotes from Naumann, Bethmann-Hollweg and the Kaiser himself during the July Crisis, arguing in favor of war, that “the timing is right.” However, if you put them in context, the quotes refer to war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. They were actually counting on the Entente powers (UK, France, Russia) to stand aside, they thought it unlikely these countries would actually go to war with Germany over Serbia.

      It was a risky gamble and it backfired spectacularly, but its easy to see in hindsight. At the time it was much less obvious.

  5. “Anti-semitism has been around for as long as Jews have been around. Of course, we can no longer discuss this issue openly and instead have to pretend that the fact that the Jews have been kicked out from basically every country they ever entered is completely inexplicable.”

    A lot of these hatred seem to be unfounded. The Jews themselves didn’t seem to eradicate any kind of ethnic groups. Among some of forms of Anti-Semitism that I read about during the medieval period is the fact that they were tax-collectors and money-lenders. There were only a small portion of Jews who involved in these activities. Some of these acts were outright stealing, like the confiscation of Parisian Jews in 1182 by king Philippe II Augustus. The reason was that French crowns lacked money and thought of ways to enrich themselves. This is similar to the act of looting Buddhist temples for their wealth during the reign of Emperor Tang Wuzong (會昌毀佛) “The Destruction during Wuchang Era”. The Jews were in no ways the only usurers in Western Europe.

    If you are particularly interested in this topic, here is a free detailed Phd Disserations:
    https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/23845403

    I still think anti-Semitism during the Third Reich is distinct from older anti-Semitism. They emphasized racial inferiority.

    Many of these allegations are false, like the fact that Jews didn’t enter into military service of the German Empire.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth#/media/File:1920_poster_12000_Jewish_soldiers_KIA_for_the_fatherland.jpg

    https://jewish-history-online.net/article/lohalm-roth-jewish-census

    I think the Germans were unable to cope with the fact that they were defeated in the World War I. They find multiple reasons to explain for their defeats, among them were unfounded anti-Semitic sentiments.

    1. So you are claiming that Bryant made up his explanation for anti-semitism in Weimar Germany? Bryant’s position makes a lot of sense. In contrast, you seem to be making an unfounded claim, so maybe you want to share some of your reasoning. Right now, it amounts to little more than stating that you don’t believe the Jews did anything wrong.

      Also, you should acknowledge that Bryant makes a much more nuanced argument. He does not make all-encompassing claims accusing “all jews” of X, Y, or Z. Thus, it is quite irrelevant that some Jews may have been killed in the Great War.

  6. “So you are claiming that Bryant made up his explanation for anti-semitism in Weimar Germany? Bryant’s position makes a lot of sense. In contrast, you seem to be making an unfounded claim, so maybe you want to share some of your reasoning. Right now, it amounts to little more than stating that you don’t believe the Jews did anything wrong.”
    How can I claim something if I don’t even know what is the description of Bryant on the Jewish wrongdoings. That is why I ask you to share some of his descriptions.

    The quality of any historical work lies in its inclusion of sources. This is why I ask you what is the sources that Bryant use to construct the wrongdoings of the Jews in the Weimar Republic. You state that he is a contemporary and has first-hand knowledge. My view is that the fact that he is a contemporary does lend itself some merits, but we have to consider what is his “first-hand knowledge”. Was he personally in Germany during the formation of the Third Reich, was he an official in the government of Hitler. Almost all historical sources are blended with biases from the authors, so it is valuable to detect them. Also, if he gives some references to the wrongdoings of the Jews, we can cross-examine sources to verify his claims.

    I am just stating that many forms of anti-Semitism in imperial era and post-war period are simply unfounded.

    1. You may want to read the book or at least the parts relevant to this point before rushing to the defense of the Jews. Bryant was a mainstream historian. He is using mainstream sources in his book.

      1. Which page is it? I will read them when I have time.

        What is the mainstream sources, for example?

      2. Bryant uses Mainstream newspapers like the Times etc. You can’t expect me to do your legwork. Frankly, it’s a bit ridiculous that your position is that you believe I’m wrong (or Bryant) and instead of checking out the book yourself, I’m supposed to provide you with page numbers and sources. You could have found out that Bryant is using mainstream sources by clicking on the link I provided in the article and simply flicking through the book in the PDF viewer on archive.org.

      3. Here is an excerpt from page 139:

        “In the 1924 Reichstag nearly a quarter of the Social Democratic representatives were Jews.”

        I am unable to find his reference to the source that he uses for this. You know German, so you may be able to obtain a list of all representatives of the 1924 Reichtag election.

        “In business, according to figures published in 1931 by a Jewish statistician, they controlled 57% of metal trade, 22% of the grain and 39% of textiles. Of 98 members of the Berlin Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 50, or more than half were Jewish, and of the 1474 of the Stock Exchange in 1930 no less than 1200…”

        The paragraph is longer, but I couldn’t find any mention of primary sources that contain these figures. I have actually spent a good half hour looking on google with various relevant keywords, but couldn’t locate the primary sources of these numbers.

        On page 140:

        “…a telephone conversation between three Jews in Ministerial Offices could effect the suspension any newspaper in the State. It was a power that was frequently used.”

        He cites “Germany puts the clocks back”, page 177, but I was able to locate this passage on page 228 of this book:

        https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.180182/page/n269/mode/2up/search/telephone

        The work doesn’t cite any primary source for these instances.

        On page 141:

        “as if Germans culturally life was to be completely transformed into Jewish hands,…”

        He cites Montz Goldstein, but didn’t specify the source for this quote.

        Luckily, I was able to trace it to this article of Goldstein “German Jewry’s Dilemma: The Story of a Provocative Essay”:

        https://academic.oup.com/leobaeck/article-abstract/2/1/236/927415?redirectedFrom=fulltext

        I don’t have access to this journal portal, so if you have, please download and read it to make sure that author was not quoted out of context.

        The same article of Goldstein also mentioned these:

        “Sex seems to be regarded as a Jewish vice of which the good German people know nothing except the procreation of children in legal wedlock.”

        “Scandal trails are recorded when the defendants were Jews, suggesting that no such crimes were committed by the non-Jews.”

        These are evidences that Jews were discriminated in Hitler’s time.

        In general, I won’t say that Bryant is inaccurate, but I find his lack of citing sources violates the code of historians. We must cite sources to ensure that our readers are able to cross-check, hence affirming our conclusion.

      4. Don’t you find it more plausible that anything that is obvious or which was, at the time of writing, widely acknowledged as true wouldn’t be referenced with a source or an explanatory footnote? The German Social Democratic Party (SDP) was a stronghold of Jews. Every educated German, even nowadays, is familiar with names like Rosa Luxemburg who was a Jewish revolutionary and a member of the SPD.

        I appreciate your criticism, but you also need to take into account that some facts where, at the time of writing, simply widely known to be true. Likewise, Jewish dominance in certain industries is not seriously disputed. In fact, Jews often boast about it. It’s only downplayed when it’s a problem. The case of Jeffrey Epstein is an excellent case in point. His Wikipedia page used to refer to him as a “Jewish financier”, but once he had fallen from grace, his profile got significantly “de-jewed”. On a similar note, the quote on p. 140 may strike you as outlandish, but Jewish domination of the German newspaper industry in Weimar Germany is a simple fact. Jewish influence on German culture, for instance their dominance in the theater industry, is also undisputed.

        To further illustrate the major issue with your style of inquiry: Imagine someone wrote a book on recent Germany history that is primarily intended for the general public. Do you think they would bother citing primary sources for contemporary events? Also, the kind of sources you may have in mind (academic, “serious” works) tend to get written decades after the fact. You can’t expect someone to cite doctoral dissertations and academic journal articles in such circumstances.

        Lastly, if you want to dispute the author, it would be your task to do so by citing contradictory evidence.

      5. Well, I am not an expert in the field of Jewish people in Weimar republic. I have tried to read further from other sources and it seems that the Jews played a prominent role in Post-war Germany. Like this document:

        https://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%207794.pdf

        What bothers me is that it seems you are sympathetic to the Holocaust and that the prominence of some Jews in Weimar republic is just reason for the infamous extermination.

        This reminds me of the Hua (Chinese) prominence in the Southern Vietnam (Republic of Vietnam) economy. They bribed the officials and evaded taxes. They were later expunged due to the Sino-Vietnamese War in 1979.

        I still think that expulsion and extermination of people based on the so-called concept of race is morally damnable. No reasons can justify for such a massive and systematic killing.

        I have read that many Jews already assimilated into German culture, and regarded their Jewish origin as only one among other identities.

        I want to read more on why the Nazi hated the Jews. From what I have read from my textbooks, they were blamed for the defeat of Germany in WWI. This is the stab-in-the-back myth. These allegations are clearly false because the Judenzählung (Jewish census) taken by the German Imperial Army in 1916 was wrong:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judenz%C3%A4hlung

        I have also read Fritz’s book as mentioned above and I find that anti-Semitism and racism had already existed in the pre-WWI Germany. It was an abhorrent ideology.

      6. Scapegoating of minorities is not a new phenomena, nor is it limited to the jewish people, although is it the example that comes more readily to mind in western culture.

        This is worse in the case of “successful” minorities, that is, successful in comparison to the majority of the population. Happens to jews, happens to chinese diaspora communities, happend to lebanese diaspora communities, happened to armenians in Turkey, still happens to european descended peoples in some parts of Africa and Latin America as well. That by itself, of the fact that they dominate certain economic sectors does not tell you as much as people sometimes assume.

        I know there is a debate about whether the inflation in Germany was a consequence of excessive reparations or if t was deliberate, I have not a firm position on that yet. I used to be on the latter side of the debate, but the more I read the more I gravitate to the former. If true, it was very much in line with the objective of german nationalists to sabotage the reparations scheme, as a first step to undermine the unjust Versailles system.

        Even if this were not thecase, its a stretch to say it was engineered by jews for profit – taking opportunistic advantage of circumstances is not proof that these circumstances were engineered to benefit any particular group. You can just as plausibly make the case that jewish bussiness culture and practices make them more resilient to economic disruption more generally.

        Sorry Aaron, but pointing out jews often get kicked out of places seems to imply they somehow deserved it? Would you say the same of the white africans kicked out from Zimbabwe of South Africa?

        You forgot to mention that Hitler often referred to the enemy as judeo-bolsheviks, which is understandable as plenty of jews supported the communist revolution initially. But it would be stupid to conclude that the communist regime was a jewish plot of some sort – the communists in fact persecuted jews as well, their early support for Israel notwithstanding.

      7. It is a fact that the early Bolshevik leadership was predominantly comprised of Jews. Thus, it is a clear victory of Israeli propaganda that this has now become some kind of “antisemitic canard”.

        Also, financial manipulation to benefit one particular group has happened rather frequently throughout history. Sure, it could all just a strange coincidence.

      8. Srry, little mixup – I meant to say, the more I read about the inflation of the early 20s, the more I am convinced it was deliberate policy.

      9. “Don’t you find it more plausible that anything that is obvious or which was, at the time of writing, widely acknowledged as true wouldn’t be referenced with a source or an explanatory footnote? The German Social Democratic Party (SDP) was a stronghold of Jews. Every educated German, even nowadays, is familiar with names like Rosa Luxemburg who was a Jewish revolutionary and a member of the SPD.”

        I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but without citing clearly where he got his information, how do I know that the stuffs he wrote didn’t come from Nazi propaganda leaflets, movies, documentaries? Propaganda is almost a science for secret intelligence agencies to study.

        The sources must be reliable, quoted directly. Unless he wrote it as an eye-witness account.

      10. “It is a fact that the early Bolshevik leadership was predominantly comprised of Jews. Thus, it is a clear victory of Israeli propaganda that this has now become some kind of “antisemitic canard”.”

        Wiki said this is a conspiracy theory. I don’t understand. Jews normally suffered from segregation. They lived in their ghettos, were constantly abused and discriminated. How do they took part in such an event with great numbers?

  7. Aaron,

    I don’t really see the link between hyperinflation and the rise of the Nazis and Hitler. The hyperinflation lasted from late 1922 to late 1923, and Hitler did not become chancellor until Janury 1933, almost 10 years after the hyperinflation ended.

    The election following the hyperinflation, in May 1924, the National Socialist Freedom Movement (a placeholder party since the Nazi party had been banned after the Beer Hall Putsch) only received 6.5% of the vote. Another election was held in December of the same year, and they received only 3.0 % of the vote. In the election of 1928, the Nazis party had been legalized again, and they received even fewer votes – only 2.8%.

    If there is a link between the hyperinflation and Hitler’s rise to power, I don’t see it in this article. Did I miss something, or is there something in the book that clarifies this?

    By the way, I chuckled at this:

    “He does not babble about their supposedly high IQ but instead points to nepotism, usury, and financial engineering. One aspect I was not aware of was that many German doctors and lawyers were pushed out of their chosen profession because they could no longer afford to practice it, due to the deleterious effects of hyperinflation. Meanwhile, as Bryant points out, many Jews had international contacts, which gave them access to foreign currency. Consequently, this put them at a considerable financial advantage over Germans.”

    This sounds exactly like many complaints about minority Chinese who have achieved great success in other countries in Asia. I don’t know to what extent this played a role in German anti-Semitism, but I guess we can always trust good old human jealousy to get people upset. 🙂

    1. Ooops! I made a mistake in this post – the Nazi share of the vote in 1928 was 2.6%, and not 2.8%. My apologies.

    2. Hyperinflation had some long-term consequences. Due to hyperinflation in Germany, access to foreign money made it possible to buy up assets for cheap.

      There are some parallels between Jews and the Chinese. For instance, many Canadians and Australians complain about getting squeezed out of the real estate market because they can’t compete with Chinese buyers who are looking for a safe haven for their money. However, I would say that the Chinese are much more interested in a symbiotic relationship as opposed to an extractive one. Also, I’d be careful to use the term “jealousy” (“envy” is probably more suitable as it’s about material possessions) to downplay the macro-economic effects. I’d say that both in Weimar Germany as well as in Canada and Australia today, and many other countries, the issue is a weak government, caused by post-war chaos in Germany and liberal fantasies today, that does not protect its citizenry. A war-torn country can’t, but today’s governments simply are not willing to. They happily sell out their countries.

      1. “the issue is a weak government,”

        I’d say the isssue is that the currency can be inflated at all. Everything else is just a side effect.

        Of course, telling a typical gold-bug, that you could still print money under a gold standard is how you trigger them jnto oblivion.

        Fact is: True hard money would’ve made the first and the second World War impossible.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.