[1] With no doubt a handful of exceptions that people will point out. The Faulklands war comes to mind, where the UK deliberately did not invoke the treaty and chose to defend its territory itself, etc...
Without a definition of "attacked militarily" I'm not sure that claim is useful. Perhaps mostly due to the concept of countries "declaring war" on each other having rather gone out of fashion?
Back in 1943, Roosevelt asked (!) the Congress declare a state of war. These days it seems it's more like "shoot first and ask [strike]questions[/strike] Congress later"
That means Poland is now safe from attack.
All the new entrants being discussed are less defensible than Poland. With Ukraine being left to flap in the wind and lose, the value of discussing NATO entrance is now negative.
In 1980, the Greek foreign minister Konstantinos Mitsotakis made remarks about the situation where he could see Greece fully withdrawing from the organisation. However, later diplomatic pressure from the United States led to Greece fully re-integrating with the alliance.[10]"
...and it appears the two mutual alliances pre-World War 1 basically ended up hastening the start of World War 1.
Why do we think that it would be different this time?