Bush n Blair!

Man Im too young to talk politics but what do the UK and USA members here think of bush's visit to London? Has all the protesting and mass rebelion against bushs visit been broadcasted in the US?
Later

i don't know if they have been shown in the US but they have been shown here in Australia.

i was wondering if the protesters ever think about how ironic it is, that they are matching and protesting for peace and yet they get into fights with the police and people who don't agree with them.

Yes, they were broadcast here along with the fact that they didn't have as large a turn out as was expected.

Anyway, as much as I love politics, this is the wrong section of the forum to discuss them. Take it to the open discusion.

thread moved :)

Originally posted by PonyOne
I think that Bush is one of the worst presidents we've had in the history of this nation...[/B]

I don't know about that. We've had WAY worse presidents than Bush. Take Garfield, Hayes, Tyler, and Filmore for example. Clinton, too, was a worse president than Bush has been so far. I mean, look at Clinton's presidency! It started out on the crestwave of an economic boom, Clinton represented the nations new need for a moderate president (supporting states rights and whatnot). He rode into office a popular man considering that he had beaten a president who at one point held the highest approval rating EVER. Clinton then began large spending programs to help the poor. Everything seemed to be going Clinton. Then, straight out of hell itself, the federal government seemed to be running out of the money it had promised to states for Block and catagorical grants. Clinton had, as most idiots do, failed to realize that federal money is limited. Soon the USS Cole was bombed. Clinton decided that instead of taking action, he would launch 1 or 2 cruise missiles. Such impotency is unforgiveable. Clinton also bombed Baghdad for a week and a half straight. Where were the so-called "no war for oil" protesters then? Probably in the same place as Monica Lewinsky, under Clinton's desk. At the end of Clinton's presidency, the economy tanked, leaving us with the recession that we still live under today. Now the economy is back on the rise, and unemployment is going down. Whose doing is this? I can't tell you, but it's certainly not Clinton's!

Originally posted by b_hoves
i was wondering if the protesters ever think about how ironic it is, that they are matching and protesting for peace and yet they get into fights with the police and people who don't agree with them.

Its not really ironic, not as ironic as having a war in the name of peace. I do hate all these anti-war protestors wholl shout at anyone who agrees with the war, and people on the pro-war side who think Im some anti-American just cos I dont support the war, ignoring the fact I can make my own mind up.

Originally posted by Jolly McJollyson

Originally posted by PonyOne
I think that Bush is one of the worst presidents we've had in the history of this nation...

I don't know about that. We've had WAY worse presidents than Bush. Take Garfield, Hayes, Tyler, and Filmore for example. Clinton, too, was a worse president than Bush has been so far. I mean, look at Clinton's presidency! It started out on the crestwave of an economic boom, Clinton represented the nations new need for a moderate president (supporting states rights and whatnot). He rode into office a popular man considering that he had beaten a president who at one point held the highest approval rating EVER. Clinton then began large spending programs to help the poor. Everything seemed to be going Clinton. Then, straight out of hell itself, the federal government seemed to be running out of the money it had promised to states for Block and catagorical grants. Clinton had, as most idiots do, failed to realize that federal money is limited. Soon the USS Cole was bombed. Clinton decided that instead of taking action, he would launch 1 or 2 cruise missiles. Such impotency is unforgiveable. Clinton also bombed Baghdad for a week and a half straight. Where were the so-called "no war for oil" protesters then? Probably in the same place as Monica Lewinsky, under Clinton's desk. At the end of Clinton's presidency, the economy tanked, leaving us with the recession that we still live under today. Now the economy is back on the rise, and unemployment is going down. Whose doing is this? I can't tell you, but it's certainly not Clinton's! [/B]

You obviously don't know anything about Bill Clinton whatsoever.

Bill Clinton was the only President in the HISTORY of the United States to have a BUDGET SURPLUS. Just so you know, that means we weren't in debt. His economic boom was also the longest in the history of the United States. He lowered unemployment to the lowest it has been in 40 something years. He also saved Social Security. The last Republican to have a nice economic run? Ronald Reagan, and the budget deficet was tripled during that time.

Right now, the economy sucks. But if you knew anything about the economy and how it works then you would realize that it's a cycle that repeats itself over and over. We go through a rise, then a recession, back to a rise, then a recession. Over and over and over again. Clinton sustained this rise in economic activity longer than anyone else.

So what that the guy got head from someone other than his wife. People get divorced every day of the year, but just because he's leading our country he's supposed to be perfect. I don't think so.

Here's an article for you to read:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1110165.stm

In case you are to lazy to read it, I'll some up some key points:

1)"During the eight years of the presidency, the economy expanded by 50% in real terms, and by the end of his tenure the US had a gross national product of $10,000bn - one quarter of the entire world economic output.:

2)"The booming US economy has brought economic benefits right across the income spectrum."

3)"The unemployment rate has dropped by half, to 4%, a 40-year-low, while the economy has created some 15 million jobs."

My 2c.

the main problem of this planet is the current monetary system.

The media tells us that we live in "the best of all worlds", that we have never made such a tremendous amount of progress and that the future perspectives are very promising. But noone realy dares to look behind the system to realize that our society stands at the brink of decay and is doomed to fall, and that our current World is by no means one of the best. a review of our history shows, that (as pantallica said) the mechanisms keep repeating themselves and that the present is not an exception from that. the development is always from boom to crash to crisis to war. and the development of the monetary system has always been the driving force to that.

Usury has rightly made itself hated becasue money ITSELF is now the source of profit. money is not used to what it should be. It has been made for the exchange of goods. but interests are money FROM money and therefore is the most unnatural line of business" - Aristoteles

Our interest-system is a system with expiry date. You can look at it as if it was a monopoly game. Someone is lucky to start under good conditions and earns more money then the others. he gives loans from that capital and demands interests. that was he earns even more money and can give even more lonas etc etc.. the others in the game lose more and more of their money and the pressure and competition increases. the amounts that are paid to the winners multiply themselves very quickly. at an interest rate of 7% the amount of interests that have to be payed doubles every 10 years for example.
i´ll take germany as an example (for obvious reasons since it is our neighbour country): germany had to pay (a few years ago when there was still the old currency) 1000 billion DM of interests (depts of the country, business, housholds and indirect interests). in 50 years it will be 64,000 billon DM and in 100 years 2,048,000 billion DM. HOW should that be payed????

If we want to understand history and learn from the failures of the past, we first have to understand the basicas of money. Culture is based on the society. society is based on economy and economy is based on the monetary system. So when there are problems in the monetary system they instantly affect on the economy, society and culture. when the financial system collapses completely, then society collapses aswell.

And when you search for the driving force in the monetary system you´ll find the compulsion of every economic area to get into dept.
the depts can NEVER be repaid, but instead grow each year by the given interest-rate. it is important to not only look at the depts of the state, but also at the depts of the economy and the private housholds. when for example the country - as in america - causes less depts, the growth of depts in the ecomomy rises even more.

On balance you can say that everywhere on the planet at any time when there was a monetary system with interests to be paid, the depts exploded and lead to a collapse. the growth of depts is the absolute counterpart to natural growth. while every natural growth starts fast and slows down after a while, the growth of interests starts slow but after a while it explodes into infinity. compound interest is making it even worse. but since we live in a finite world, an infinite system HAS to fail and lead into chaos. its the same as cancer. at the beginning it is only one cell, but it divides onto 2, 4, 8, 16, etc. untill there is no space left and the body dies. its the same with an avalanche or an atomic bomb. every system that is based on an exponantial compond interest MUST fail.
the final stage is normally accompanied by a boom at the stock-market because the ever growing interest-capital is in need for further means of beeing invested. a crash and economic crisis is the direct result. and that leads in most cases to war which creates new posibilities to invest the capital profitably.

a good example for a interest-system in the final stage is the crisis of 1873. enterprises have been founded with massive indebteness and converted into joint-stock companies. the companies where extremely overrated. the value of the stock was in most cases 3 or 4 times bigger then the actual value of the company. more and more peeps entered the stock marked (does this sound familiar?). with all sorts of tricks (mostly trough mass-media) more and more people where lead to the stock market. in 1871 and 1872 there was virtually 1 new enterprise at the sock market PER DAY. the development was acompanied by ever rising costs for lodging. because from the upper strata of society there was a massive run for luxurious property. the development terminated in march 1873 in a collapse and the population was plunged onto poverty. hundred-thousands lost the basis of their livelihood. the crisis lasted 23 years and ended around the turn of the century in a time where booms and crashes alternated untill the whole development lead to World War I.

"The system of capitalism means eternal war. Wars are attempts to solve economic problems in a capitalistic way. the decisive question of the peace movement is: 'will we succeed in removing capitalism from the society?' When capitalism prevails, then the age of everlasting war will continue irrespective of all peace-conferences." - prof. Ruhland, System of political economy, 1908

couldnt have said it any better Azreal..im tired of people saying that Bush or whoever the president was sucks..Truthfully, could any of you do better as a president then them? if yes then why the hell dont i see you running for president.. alot of people here will just complain about it but wont get off their lazy asses and do anything about it..im probably gonna get crap for this post but i dont care.

i was not saying bush is a good president. by far not. hes actually one of those who maintain that system. "we must fight terrorism" - i say no - we must not. thats fighting the symthoms - but we should rather fight the course.
right now we are in a stage where we NEED war to maintain the system. thats the true reson behind it. nothing else. and we can only seel war to peeps by saying that its for the sake of peace. those who say otherwise are just to blind to see. we are heading towards the fall. mark these words well. you will remember them - but then it will be too late. sounds pathetic, but its the truth. i give us maybe another 10 years.

[Edited by Azrael on 11-26-2003 at 05:43 AM]

Originally posted by Azrael
i give us maybe another 10 years.

The United States or the World?

War has to exist to have peace, in the same manner that there has to be dark for there to be light. Those who think that if we keep fighting we'll have peace are fools. We'll just keep fighting. The world needs to choose it's battles better for things to get better, not perfect. There will always be war, because there are always fools to start it. There is only one war that had to be fought in the last century, that's World War II. That was a war for a real cause, for humanity.

This last war on Iraq was just to conquer new lands. Notice how before the war "we weren't occupying", now Bush is quoting saying "occupied". Terrorism my ass! Who's the real enemy on the war on terrorism, that's the question I ponder now? Sure the Al-Quida is a group of violent vigilantes, but they are also fighting for there way of life in some sense. Twisted as it may be, I'm not pro-al-quida. But I understanding because it's similar to 18th century America in that the Brits saw the american rebels as terrorist because they faught to be free. On the other side, Bush n Blair are dropping bombs on towns, then rebuilding it in their own face. Their fighting to keep us from changing there way of life, we're putting computers and nice shiny technology in there back yard. To me that's just throwing gasoline on a fire and makes us look like the terrorists. As a president thats a horrible choice to even the simplest of minds, and I don't believe he's that dumb.

Terrorism must be fought with an understanding (even though I believe it is too late), cause every gunshot on the field of battle puts terror into a thousand minds. America needs to pull out of the middle east and stop trying to be the prince valiant for peace. We are really only the bringers of more terror. The only true way to defeat terror is to deny it battle. If it must be fought shouldn't we be fighting the terrorists, not an already weakened nation like some bully saying, "we'll show them the might of the US military". That'll solve it all. :rolleyes: I'm sure they're quivering in there boots right now. "LOL"

I know it's a step away from the economic debate going on now, but my answer to America's reccession is "well billions of dollars building another nation".

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 11-26-2003 at 09:03 AM]

Originally posted by ketsueki15
couldnt have said it any better Azreal..im tired of people saying that Bush or whoever the president was sucks..Truthfully, could any of you do better as a president then them? if yes then why the hell dont i see you running for president.. alot of people here will just complain about it but wont get off their lazy asses and do anything about it..im probably gonna get crap for this post but i dont care.

I could imitate a dead horse and do better, but unfortuneatly nobody wants to give a few billion dollars to a middle class nobody from a small town in America. Or maybe I would...

Originally posted by noticingthemistake
There is only one war that had to be fought in the last century, that's World War II. That was a war for a real cause, for humanity.

*sighs* you realy believe that, dont you? ok..

Bad economic development is the basics for a military conflicts.

WW 2:

in the 1920´s, after the first world war, the world was experiencing an enormous economic uplift. stock market literally exploded. that development ended abruptly with the big bang in NY in october 1929. Capital receeded from the market due to ever rising insecurity. that caused a dramatic price-drop. Because of that deflation the turnover of goods receeded also because everyone was waiting for the prices to drop even further. enterprises where forced to fire thousands of people, thus decreasing the purchasing power even more. alot of banks had to close for the loans could not be repaid. the situation was hopeless. only with WW2 the economy rose to new heights because weapon industry offered promising possibilities to invest money again.

in germany the economic situation was even worse after the crash. the amount of money circulating in germany was bound to the gold-standard, meaning that a certain percentage of the value of the money had to be stored in gold and was therefore bound to the value of gold. when amierica retrieved their gold from germany, the gouvernment was forced to take alot of money out of the german economy. at that time the law was, that 1/3 of the value of the currency had to be stored in gold at the reichsbank. so for every unit of gold that was retrieved by america, the gouvernment had to retrieve 3 units worth money from the german economy. that, of course lead to massive deflation. the average income sank by 40% between 1928 and 1932 and the gross-investments even by 75%. economic perspectives where getting darker and darker and there was a big rise in unemployment. in this situation the radical NSDAP managed to rise from a lil party-fragment to the biggest party in germany on a 1:1 ratio with the growth of unemployment.

after a war there is very ofteh the impression, that it was unpredictable. but the truth is, that in most cases, everyone with some basic knowledge in financial matters has been able to forsee it.

here are a few examples:

Prof. Ruhland (1908) warned 6 years before WW1
"when excessivley taking the advantage of loans, with the help of bank and stock-capital, a national aswell as an international chaining of private enterprises takes place in what seems to be a well-planned manner. this, in our belligerent age, will one day lead to a crisis. a crisis of an extent that has hardly been experienced by any nation in history"

Ruhland entitled the war as "source of income for the rich". more and more capital is gathered in the hands a fewer and fewer persons and as a consequence those super-rich will come into conflict and fight themselves. it is because of tremendous depts that nations are involved in conflicts

Graf von Moltke (1800-1891) commander of the prussian army said on behalf of the wars of that time:
the big wars of the new age have been started against the will of the gouvernments. the stock-marked has gained so much power, that it can call to arms on behalf of its goals."

Silvio Gesell, 1918
Silvio Gesell, a german bussinessman in argentinia, who was one of the first to introduce an economic system without interests, warned already in 1918 (!!)- after the peace-yearning of WW1 - of another armed konflict.
"despite the holy promise of nations, to abandon war for all times and despite the cry of millions 'no war ever again' and despite all hopes for a better future, you have to say: when we keep todays monetary system of interest, then i dare to predict, that it wont last for 25 years untill there will be another, even more gruesome war.
i can see the development very clearly. todays technical abilities will help the economy to rise quickly to unknown heights. despite of the big war losses alot of new capital will form within no time and keep the interest low. money will be hoarded. the economic spaces will shirnk and masses of unimployees will fill the streets. you will be able to read signs on the borders saying 'people without work are not permitted - only lazy folks with alot of money are welcome'.
like in the old days there will be conflicts on estates and there will be new weapons to be constructed. at least for the unemployees there will be work again in the weapon industry. within the dissatisfied masses wild, revolutional mindedness will arise and the poisenous plant of over-natianalism will grow rampant again. no country will be able to understand the other and in the end there will be war again"

as you can see, the armed conflicts of the past WHERE predictable. but noone seems to have learned from history. today, war is described as "meassures to bring peace". by that, one understands the attempt to foce brutal dictators by the use of weapons to give in to western doctrines. but that wont change the cause in the financial system, nore will there be piece installed in the soviety.

the bombardements and sanctions on serbia for example threw the country back to the economic level of 1968! with such meassures the preassure on the country grows, to forcefully expand its economic area - sanctions force a country to war.

dont you see where this all leads to?

i give the WORLD another 10, maybe 15 years untill there will be pure, utter chaos. WW3 is not far.

Azreal.. i wasnt implying that you said the presidents suck..i was tlaking about a few other member names i wont mention

Originally posted by Azrael
*sighs* you realy believe that, dont you? ok..

Bad economic development is the basics for a military conflicts. [/B]

Yes I do believe that, I also believe what you believe. Wars do have there seeds planted by bad economic situations, but wars can be started by other means. Hitler and things that happened are directly linked to the bad economic situation after WW1, where I too believe and am disgusting by the crap Germany got afterwards. The reason I believe World war 2 had to be faught didn't become news until the war was almost over but it's a pretty powerful justification. Hitler did have to be stopped for the right of every human being on this planet. Hitler did not fight to fix the ecomonic problem, he used the economic problem to start a war. There is a difference.

Like you said the problem is in the materialistic world we live in. That can't change, it's human nature. Really nature itself. Fact is no one wants to give and there is no understanding and share/trade amongst all nations. Post World War 2, the divide between Russia and America. Wars will always be because theres always a fool that keeps peace from happening. No good without evil, no peace without war. There will be many wars, many more hitlers and a decade may be wishful thinking before the next major conflict. Generally they happen every generation, but I too believe a serious one is brewing. It will be without battle lines but guerilla war on the streets of America.

Originally posted by noticingthemistake
There is a difference.

it does not make a difference to those who died and it wond change the fact that hitler would never have come to power with a different economy system.

Like you said the problem is in the materialistic world we live in. That can't change, it's human nature.

wrong - there was a time in europe - in the medievial ages - where it already worked:

the gothic ages where more advanced than our actual society.
"in the medieval ages, the people had more spare time than today. an average of 115 days off a year." (Southgerman Newspaper, 6.4.1999)

the hightime of the "golden medieval age" (1150 to 1450) was the most advanced period in history. at that time, social differences where as little as never before and never after again. those who had much gained it through hard work, and not by waiting for the money to multiply itself trough the use of interest without working for it. the minimum number of holidays a year was 90 and sometimes up to 150 (!). soon monday was a fix day off too so people had to work only 4 days a week. archbishop Antonin von Florenz said that it was quite normal that in order to maintain a good living standard, it was completely sufficient to work only 4 days a week - only to those who were after more money had to work more. the daily worktime in freiburg´s coalmine was only 6 hours per day (!!!). the expliotation of the peasons was inexistant because for those who wanted, there was enough work in the ever growing cities as craftsman for example. the regular income was that high, that even the poorest day labourers could afford 5-6 kg of the most expensive meat PER DAY. In Meissen every bricklayer-apprentice had to get 5 Groschen a week extra cash for bathing! that was in a time when a "scheffel" grain did cost 5-6 groschen. and a "scheffel" was almost 104 LITERS. compared to our modern time, where free-time is rare and the preasue at work is ever increasing, this time was like PARADISE.

the time between 1150 and 1450 was a time of NO crisis in europe. around 1150 archbishop Wichmann startet to issue money (coins) that was exchanged two times a year. the objective was to gather the taxes on a regular and easy basis. 12 old "pfennig" where exchanged by 9 new "pfennig" - the difference was the tax. in order to easily and quickly melt the coins and make new money out of them, they where only made of thin metal and they had a picture on only one side. hence the name "Brakteaten" (bractes = thin tin). very quickly the method spread throughout the land and the gathering of huge amounts of money became unattractive. to avoid the next exchange, the money was given to others as interest-free loans, because only the owner had to pay the tax. thus money was a mere exchange-good - nothing more. thats what true sense of money should be. how immense that economic uplift had been can be seen by the development of german cities at that time. around 1300 there where lots of new cities and a tremendous ammount of economic development, that has never been acceived again in history up to now. this was the time where the big cathedrals were built all over europe. financed by VOLUNTEER DONATIONS of NORMAL citicens. this displays how confident the people must have been in those days, because who would donate for a century-project when he cannot be sure to survive the next day?
the situation changed as greedy salesmen started to introduce (step by step) a currency that has not been exchanged twice a year anymore, but only once every 4 years. this development was driven by the Fuggers. after the introduction of heavy, both-side printed coins between 1480 and 1560 the fuggers where able to make it to the mighthiest clan of those times. money was only given away at HIGH interest rates. for example an investment of 900 gulden got you 30.000 gulden of interest after 6 years. within just a few years the allocation of property moved to the hands of just a few rich ones. alot of the big cathedrals could not be completed anymore- they remained unfinished skeletons for 300 years and more untill they have finally been finished in the last century. the situation for normal people changed so drastically, that it lead to big peasant-wars at the beginning of the 16th century. the guilds where not free for anoyne to join anymore, thus blocking the way to self-employment for most people. new developments where surpressed. for example the invention of the mechanic loom was forbidden and the inventor killed. the peeps could not explain the sudden change to the bad side and therefore started with the inquisitons and blamed it on witches. the dark medieval ages had begun and basically didnt end till today.


as long as we dont see clearly and realize the failure in the system, we will be trapped in the wheel of boom, crash, crisis and war. and the number of victims increases. 70.000 in the war of 1870, 6 million in WW1 and 60 million in WW2 - be prepared for WW3! will be alot of fun.

and to say "its our faith - we just are that way" is absolutely dumb. that way we could just trow it all away and drop the bomb.

[Edited by Azrael on 11-26-2003 at 05:31 PM]

Well I believe Hitlers rise to power was definitely aided by the economic situation of Weimar Germany in the wake of the stock market crash, it wasnt his motivation. There were huge sanctions placed on Germany by the Triple Alliance after WW1, unlike any sanctions placed before or since and were clearly an act of pure revenge on Frances part for Germanys occupation of France after the they won the France-Prussian war(occupieds not the right word but I cant think now), even the venue of Versaille is telling of what the French planned to do. They placed ridiculous sanctions on Germany, many of them economically crippling, but it was more the symbollic act that angered most, especially Hitler. That, for me, was his main motivation for WW2, moreso than his Aryan race asperations. It was the reason it became a world war, Hitler originally wanted just to take back what land Russia had signed over to Germany during WW1, but the Versaille Treaty had given back to Russia, plus parts of Czecheslovakia, Austria, Poland and some balkan states, anywhere where Germanic races lived really. But the humiliation of Versailles made him keep an eye on France. But it could easily have been prevented, Hitler saw the League of Nations stand by as Italy conquered Abyssinia, watched him break the Versailles Treaty with 10 times the army he was supposed to have, Britain even signed a Naval treaty with Hitler allowing him as many submarines as he liked, yet they never suspected a thing. He recaptured the Rhineland and noone batted an eyelid. Neville Chamberlain was smitten with him!! My point is, opression leads to rebellion and rebellion can lead to world wars. Keep an eye of Palestine, Serbia, Iraq, Iran etc.

it does not make a difference to those who died and it wond change the fact that hitler would never have come to power with a different economy system.

I disagree, I think he would have come to power anyway. The Nazi party was just the platform he used, they were supposed to be a socialist party, and one of the first things he did when he came to power was to outlaw all Trade Unions, except for the state run "Union", that all employees and employers had to join. The economic state helped, but as Ive said I think his motivation was revenge above all else and he showed his determination through many years of plotting, even a year in prison.

re-read what i posted and read it carefully - the reason why the NSDAP - a MINOR party frament - could come out that big, was because they used the bad economic system and promised work for everyone. "arbeit macht frei" - it worked. this is not unique in the history of mankind. but we are too stupid to learn - anyway - i said what there is to say and i dont have anything else to say anymore. those who dont want to believe me - fine - dont complain when its too late. einstein was right when he said "two things are infinite - the human stupidity and the universe - though i´m not sure about the latter". i know that, no matter what i post, no matter how logical, reasonable or true it might be, it wont change the attitudes of some of you. and aslong as that attitudes prevail and start making excueses like "No that war had different reasons, mankind wont ever change, etcetc" - as long as that prevails, we all are as guilty as bush, blair, hitler, saddam - you name them. flame me for that, but thats the truth.

[Edited by Azrael on 11-26-2003 at 05:55 PM]

Very good point Az. I think your right, the economy is directly linked to most major conflicts in the civilized history. But not all, there are other causes of war. Like your example of the Medieval Golden age, I wouldn't go so far to say there was no major crisis during that time. I believe that was the time period of the Hundred year war, which had nothing to do with economy. The after effects of this is were you see a problem in economics, since this war costed "ALOT" but it didn't start it or is it directly linked. This is also the time period of the Crusades, where wars were fought over religion. I must say your point was excellent, and the fact that you have an answer to the problem is something I can't say for myself. Although your solution may be hard to sell today. Truth is, there will always be war even if we seem to solve all the problems, new ones pop up. Or my so trivial answer, humanity gets bored with peace.

Would Hitler have came to power if germany didn't have an economic struggle?? In my opinion, No. But for this to be a ideal question you would have to persume that the first world war never happened. Hitler probably would have been a different person since all this anger for non-arayan people came from his idea that germany lost the war because of them, it also lit the spark that made him strive for political office. The government wouldn't have been as weak, thus the german people wouldn't have been looking for a different leader. A ranting Hitler would have been thought crazy and laughed at, rather than an inspirational hero.