Originally Posted by Iron's Rite

It's not a faulty premise when the need to defend against aggressive action is the core justification given all but universally (and legitimately in the case of both World Wars on the part of the allied nations) for engaging in Warfare in modern history.
Hitler may have used the fear of economic collapse and loss of German Sovereignty to militarize the populace but he was still creating the idea of something that needed to be fought against for the defense of the nation.
A percieved threat can still be "defended" against even if the threat does not actually exist or the energy intended to halt it is not focused properly.
Going back to the example of Hitler; can you imagine how the German people would react today if someone attempted to rise to power under the principles that he advocated? Even if they were under similar duress, do you really think that they would make the same mistake twice?