>>You make a strong point and one, which I wish, would become reality. In the case of Chamberlain and others it is easy to condemn them upon looking back upon the events of the day and what followed.
>>
>>A visionary will understand the meaning of a possible threat. His viewpoint may not be popular because many do not wish to think that anything bad will happen. Jozef Klemens Pilsudski was the leader of Poland from its creation after World War I (the big one – the war to end all wars). England and France had promised to protect Poland and they did not. The Polish army was not well equipped but well trained and had great spirit to be free.
>>
>>Adolph Hitler sent two divisions up to the border of Poland in 1935 to invade that country. Pilsudski sent two divisions of Polish Calvary to meet them. Hitler sent a telegram to Philsudski apologizing for his actions and withdrew his Army. The telegram still exists as proof of this action. Pilsudski passed away and shortly after German invaded Poland. The Polish lancers on horse back were no match for German tanks, but they wanted to be free. And here we are today.
>>
>>It is thought that had France and England held true to their promise to protect Poland, that Germany would have been defeated in 1939, and World War II would not have happened as we know it.
>
>That is interesting; I hadn't heard that part.
>
>By the way, I don't believe that nations don't have a right to protect themselves. However, it would be better if this protection is collective. Bahá'u'lláh suggests a sort of treaty, that, if one nation attacks another, all others should jointly stop the aggressor.
>
>Of course, as you seem to point out above, such a treaty must have an adequate follow-up.

Yes, the Treaty of Versailles was a failure but also used as a means to punish all of Germany.