My point is that if there wasn't appeasement there'd have been no need to sacrifcie those men and women (and the children who died from civil air attacks); there'd have been no death camps; there'd have been no second world war.
The crime of that century was carried out on top of the building blocks of ignoring an existential threat to democracy.
As the Martin Niemöller quote goes...
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
With hindsight I agree that it’s easy to say appeasement was a terribly ineffective and short-sighted decision by Britain, France and other nations.
Yet, hindsight is hindsight and it quite naively ignores so much of the history, feelings and sentiment that had emerged from two decades earlier.
This was a generation that had rushes to war in 1914, with great energy and pomp, to only come back with millions injured, butchered and dammed.
This was a generation of leaders that had seen (and often served in) the horrendous slaughter of the 14-18 war, with many of their comrades lost.
This was a generation who was quite literally mentally and physically scared by quickly comforting a rising power through direct military action.
Forgive me for saying, however I feel that many of us have no concept of how much they must have desired a peaceful compromise, knowing all that.
Appeasement didn’t work and we now know the dreadful consequences of this, but at the time I suspect their actions weren’t out of cowardice.
A crime? No, it’s a crime for people to look back with their own bigotry and short-sightedness and criticise people for wanting a peaceful solution.
If you want to slog people from the time, slog those who didn’t push the Saar Offensive because that could and should have endee it.