Preemptive military strikes: Isn't that right out of Hitler's playbook?

Question

Let's see, Poles are causing problems and are a menace to Germans living in the border regions. Let's invade Poland for national defense! Even Eisenhower, as president once said preemptive military strikes were invented by Hitler.

Tisk, tisk, now did I say anything about the current pResident?

Answer 1

And the Nazi's use to stage fake terror attacks and blame the attacks on the country they wanted to invade http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3710767957407328313&q=label%3Aterrorism

In fact Hermann Goering was the one who planted the bombs in one of the Nazi government buildings. After it blew up the Nazi's grabbed a retarded Polish Man and paraded him across Berlin and told people he was the bomber, on orders from the Polish Government. This helped Hitler get support from the people to go to war. SOUND FAMILIAR?

And if anybody questioned the government they used the old "you hate Germany" tactic. If you thought what they were doing was bull crap you were "helping the enemy". SOUND FAMILIAR? Kinda like what Bush and the Republicans are doing, right out of the Nazi playbook.

Let's take a look at the Republican - Nazi guilt trip tactic being used to con the people. Look at the quote below

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Now lets look at a building that's been constructed on orders from the Bush administration. http://www.whale.to/b/sawastika.html

Gee I don't know why people are calling Bush HITLER!!

Answer 2

No, not really. Hitler didn't launch a preemptive strike, he launched an invasion for Lebensraum (living room). He argued that the border region in Czechoslovakia and Poland were full of Aryans who should be part of Germany. The Czechs could have put up a fight, but the Allies tried appeasement and gave away a natural defense. Look where appeasement gets you.

Germany flat out invaded, and then occupied Poland, Finland, France, Belgium, etc. There was no intention of returning power or anything. It became part of the 3rd Reich. Members of these nations fought along side the Nazis on both fronts.

Japan, however, did launch a pre-emptive strike on Pearl Harbor. That was probably a sound tactical move because the US would have entered the war anyway. It was better to hit while the US was not expecting it.

Any political conclusions you may try to draw from this are complete BS. The Nazis used the first jet figter, too. Does that make all countries that use jets evil?

Answer 3

Lolz, Hitler wasn't the first to attack preemptively. You can go all the way back into the Roman Republic (and much further before with other examples) with regards to the Punic wars and see how Carthage assaulted Rome with Hannibal crossing the Alps.

About PMS though (alrite comon, don't be immature here), the idea of them is completely valid. Technically speaking, all attacks are PMS since the attacker hasn't been attacked yet, otherwise, he'd be the defender. There are plenty of times in history when taking the initiative saves lives, time, resources, and bureaucratic red tape (Lybia and Reagan, Sweden and Gustavus Adolphus before the 30 years war, Mongolia and Genghis Khan). Of course there are screw ups as well (Somalia, the Crusades, the Boer War). What matters in real life is that preemption is just another technique. It's not necessarily bad or good in a general and overall scale although it may be bad for a given particular (Hussein invading Kuwait, Hamas taking on Israel, Milosevic ethnically cleansing Kosovo and Bosnia).

Answer 4

Preemptive strikes are done against someone that is a threat to you. It is done with surprise before your enemy has the chance to build up for an invasion. Poland wasn't in any position to strike Germany, the Russians had them depressed. Russia agreed to leave Poland and let Germany have it. Preemptive strikes were probably invented by caveman against a rival tribe that had been causing problems or had threatened to cause it.

Answer 5

In his way Stalin was another Hitler, and Stalin lasted longer in power, and died of old age, still in power. Stalin was in charge of Soviet Russia, a very powerful nation. Since that time there have been several dictators in charge of nations which have had wide influence, e.g.Ghaddafi in Libya (small nation by population, but big influence because of oil), Mao Tse Tung in China and Saddam Hussein in Iraq (oil, again, and look at the chaos in Iraq since he was deposed). Nobody can predict the future, but I would not be surprised to find a dictator in a similar position to Hitler at some time.

Answer 6

No people were attacking other people first before the Crusades.

And also Hitler just attacked, it was not preexmptive but what the heck,

And just because Hitler did it, does not make it evil, while his prisons were evil and his torture of Jews were evil,
He waged a great war, With limited troops he took over all of Europe. He did some very great military moves, and yes it would not be wrong to learn from his military usage, since untill Amercia came in, he defeated all of Europe
(france don't count since they will surrender to anyone)

Answer 7

I'm typing this very slowly and I hope you can follow this. Just because someone says pre-emptive like it is a morally incorrect action, that doesn't mean it is. Also just because it sounds good to you doesn't mean it actually makes sense.

Lets say some one points a gun at you and says "I'm going to kill you". Now you're saying the correct course of action would be to wait till he actually pulled the trigger and killed you before taking any offensive action. Hmm, I guess the next step would be to lay down and die. Or you might shoot him first, but that would be pre-emptive.

"being reasonable and just I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction….for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or lion, because they are not under the ties of the common law of reason, and have no other rule but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as a beast of prey"

"….the law…cannot interpose to secure my life from present force, which if lost is capable of no reparation, permits me my own defense and the right of war, a liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to our common judge, nor the decision of law, for remedy in a case where the mischief may be irreparable."

John Locke

Answer 8

No.... The Poles weren't any kind of threat to Hitler. And if Ike said that Hitler invented the preemptive strike, he was wrong.

Answer 9

Many of the armies of the world have preemptive military stirikes...Ther Prussians, the Austrians, the Romans, and the list goes on and on...

Answer 10

Did you even read Mein Kempf...the fracker wanted to take Poland even before he took power in 1933.

I doubt Ike even said that...unless you can give me the exact quote on the exact date on the exact occasion...

Preemption has been around since...ever. Stop being so ignorant please.