I don't see any reason to believe that Hitler's calculations of the forces he faced would have been impacted by who lived on Downing Street at the time of Munich or the invasion of Poland. Churchill, for all his eloquence, couldn't create armies and air fleets and armaments out of thin air, and that's what Hitler respected. As marvelous as his rhetorical skills were, he was still only going to be the Prime Minister of Great Britain, which gave him as much authority in France as Hitler did, and without access to France there was no way for Britain to get at Hitler anyway.<quoted text> At the very least Hitler would have been exceedingly more cautious if he had been dealing with Churchill,no matter what the UKs capabilities were. Likewise Putins actions would not be so bold if he was dealing with someone willing to show some backbone.Who ever thought the biggest beneficiary of Hope and Change would have been Vladimir Putin?
The delusion that Obama is somehow responsible for Putin's adventurism makes for a great sound byte, but it's based on magical thinking.
I'll ask you the same question I've asked others: what weakness did the Russians see in Eisenhower in '56, Johnson in '68, and Bush twice (Chechnya and Georgia)? That's four prior times that the Russians have taken aggressive actions toward neighbors in the last 60 years. What strong American leader could unite the Europeans?
You tell me what options the United States has in the Ukraine, and maybe you've got a case against Obama. Until then, it's all hot air.