Latigo

Because their leadership was afraid. Note how they try to blame the French for their shortcomings again.

Kevinmeath

The leadership and the country as a whole were terrified of another terrible war.

Bish

LMAO, o please don't start. I ain't stopped laughing all night.

Beshides, this is a decent thread. You will only spoil it.

Nemowork

Yeesh, the day Texas goes back to being Spanish speaking and you can pretend we never existed is going to be the happiest of your life isnt it!

Frog33inUK

Indeed. The French were put in an uncomfortable position and were seen as the baddies regarding the treatment of Germany.
History taught them what to expect, hence the harsness of the Versailles Treaty.
On the other end, German economical reconstruction was a great investment opportunity for the UK and particularly the US, so it was good business for them to treat such a good client well and the French were easily seen as pests hindering their plans.

pugsville

US, UK, France were democracies doing something would had to have real public support or it was going to be a short lived response. Everyone had their own problems with the depression.

The US because it simply did not care what happened in Europe.

The French had a really bad experience with a previous occupation of the Ruhr, it would be expensive, unpopular, damaging in international relations (mainly the US wouldn't like it and make it harder to raise US loans). The French were in favour of harsh terms as they knew once Germany recovered France would be the weaker nation. US, UK support could not be relied upon, I think they would have preferred annexing the east bank of the Rhine to create security but this was unacceptable to the US, UK.

The British felt the terms were harsh and why shouldn't the Germans run their own territory. There was a substantial peace movement (there were peace marches and the peace ballot. this started to fade and Munich really was the last straw that broke it's popularity). The UK didn't have the Army to do anything directly. Personal;y sactions would have worked but there was no will (even on the much more obvious problems of the Italians in Ethiopia and Japanese in Manchuria ) and all nations were pretty desperate for what trade they could get.

Up until Munich it was hard to mobilize support for action. As up till then it was all interfering in a nations internal affairs. The Rhineland, Austria, the Nazi regime distasteful policies (race, dissent, human rights) were all internal matters. People were not so greatly informed. Over time propaganda (see films of the time) and actions of the Nazis becoming widely known there was much more popular support.

bartieboy

I. Britain nor France wanted war, world war one inflicted a sort of trauma on these countries causing them to be afraid of war.

II. The French were afraid that a simple police action which would be legalized by the treaty would lead to a full scale war

III. France did not think she could handle Germany and especially not on her own. She therefore sought help from Britain but when they didnt get 100% support they dropped the ''plan'' (no plans were made for an invasion of Germany the last plan was from the early 20's). The French actually never included the Polish and Czechoslovakian powers when they were talking about attacking Germany.
When the government asked an army general if they could beat Germany on their own the general said: Our larger professional army will give us an initial advantage however in the end the German superiority in manpower and industry will beat us.

IV. Some substantial French political groups sympathised with Hitler and wanted to form the Third Republic into a Fascist regime.

and more reasons

Frog33inUK

Agreed, although could you develop your point IV, which "substantial political groups" are you referring to ?

A few historians (one in particular) have written about a sort of "plot", from a part of the French elites during the 1930's (also backed by the same kind of elites in the UK and US) to favour Germany's economical growth (for the latter) and facilitate victory (for the former) in order to get rid of the Republic, Communism, protect financial interests in Germany, get rid of socialist legislation protecting workers, etc
Nevertheless, such historians are usually in a small niche and criticised for having a Marxist vision of history.
Although I have to admit, Annie Lacroix-Riz has uncovered VERY troubling facts about the political, industrial, financial "elite's" behaviour... and not only in France.
If you understand French, I recommend listening to her (lengthy) lectures, available on Dailymotion, on "Le choix de la défaite" and "les élites dans les années 30.
Beyond the Marxist bias, easily identifiable, some of the things she found in the archives are just jaw-dropping...

Gorque

In February 1936, the new Foreign Minister, Anthony Eden, proposed to the Cabinet that Germany be allowed to reoccupy the Rhineland and be given recognition of her special interests in central and south-eastern Europe in return for arms limitation and a guarantee of western Europe to replace the Locarno Treaty. Eden's proposal required a German promise that Germany would not exploit her interests W.N. Mendlicott, Britain and Germany: The Search for Agreement 1930-1937, p. 22

bartieboy

point V Hitler planned the taking of the rhineland at a time when the British parliament was celebrating the weekend in the countryside and the French were about to get an election and war with germany was not a good agenda point when running for the government.

the French Popular Party and other supporters of the February 1934 crisis.