The archive.

Economic self-sufficiency promised security to the Danubian successor states; in Richard Schüller’s reading of Antonín Basch, it instead weakened their markets and exposed them to German pressure. This 1944 review is especially revealing where approval becomes correction: Schüller calls Basch’s criticism of Czechoslovak protectionism too mild, pointing out that a country dependent on regional export markets was restricting imports from its own customers. He values Basch’s practical knowledge while testing his proposals for postwar reconstruction against the costs of agricultural protection, the limits of administrative control, and the prospects for modest cooperation rather than federation. The closing comment on Western and Russian influence adds a pointed wartime qualification: economic plans cannot be separated from the political power under which they must operate.

Britain’s anticipated postwar payments gap posed a practical choice: restrict imports or enlarge the trade that could pay for them. In this 1944 article, Richard Schüller challenges proposals from the Federation of British Industries and the Economist for exchange controls, quotas, and a preferential sterling bloc. His objection turns on how these instruments work: allocating scarce dollars, licensing imports, and preserving historical trading shares could obstruct the export expansion they were meant to support. Yet his alternative is not simply unrestricted world trade. Alongside commercial treaties and imperial preference, he proposes reciprocal free trade with Denmark, Norway, Holland, and Belgium, without common external tariffs or political institutions. The article offers a concrete distinction between regional cooperation built around restrictions and cooperation that makes freer exchange the rule.

Exchange control and quotas tend to restore the balance of payments by shortening the long leg, not by lengthening the short.

A gain in British imports from Belgium need not mean a gain in world trade. That distinction anchors Richard Schüller’s reply to Professor Morgan on postwar British trade policy: exchange controls, he argues, may facilitate individual transactions while restricting trade overall. His alternative rests on a pointed reversal—Britain’s large import surplus is not merely a payments problem but a source of bargaining power. This brief rejoinder clarifies what Schüller means by negotiated trade expansion, including reciprocal free trade without a common external tariff. Its interest lies in the practical boundary he draws between accepting controls during the transition from war and making them permanent, and in his willingness to consider quotas alongside freer trade rather than offer an unqualified laissez-faire prescription.

Trieste could change sovereigns without recovering the trade that sustained it. Writing in December 1946, Richard Schüller examines the disputed port through its railways, shipping companies, tariffs, and links to the Danube rather than through national claims alone. His experience as an Austrian economic official gives the article a practical institutional focus, alongside an acknowledged attachment to Austrian administration. An exclusively Austrian free zone that failed through delays and added costs offers a pointed example of the limits of nationally bounded solutions. Schüller argues that international status likewise cannot guarantee prosperity without cooperation across borders. The article lets readers distinguish the struggle to possess Trieste from the harder task of making its commercial networks function amid Italian–Yugoslav antagonism and Soviet–Western rivalry.

A tariff concession means little when a state trading monopoly can exclude foreign goods simply by declining to buy them. This problem of reciprocity gives Richard Schüller’s 1947 article a concrete entry into the tensions of postwar trade policy. He argues that Soviet resistance to American nondiscrimination stems less from bilateral commercial conflict than from the dependence of Soviet neighbors on markets beyond Moscow’s control. His defense of multilateral trade is nevertheless critical of the compromises made in its name: British demands for import quotas and elaborate charter provisions may weaken the system they are intended to secure. The article offers a way to distinguish political ambitions from trading necessities—and to understand why neither a sterling bloc nor a ruble bloc could readily replace wider commercial exchange.

Dismantling nationalist myths does not guarantee a convincing account of the past—or a democratic future. In this 1948 review of Rustem Vambery’s Hungary, To Be or Not To Be, Richard Schüller praises the author’s attack on Magyar self-glorification while questioning his treatment of Habsburg rule and his confidence in Soviet-backed reconstruction. Schüller’s distinctive objection is that Vambery hopes for a Danubian federation and customs union while discounting the regional integration the Austrian Empire had provided. Minority expulsions, political purges, and restrictive press legislation further test those hopes. This brief review offers a pointed distinction between the courage required to criticize an old ruling order and the judgement needed to assess its successor.

Greater need does not necessarily give a worker greater power to demand higher pay: family responsibilities may instead make leaving a poorly paid job harder. This tension anchors Richard Schüller’s account of workers’ demands as conditions for accepting employment, rather than wishes or a fixed subsistence minimum. He examines how savings, information, mobility and union support turn preferences into effective bargaining power. His distinctive claim is that the poorest workers do not automatically set wage levels: employers must also meet the demands of workers whose services they cannot replace. Readers can discover why partial unionization may matter, why dangerous work need not command a premium, and why labour supply depends on the terms offered. Schüller’s racial and national stereotypes also expose limits in his comparative analysis.