Appeasement in Europe

My mistake! I posted that forgetting that I had a specific topic.

Okay so appeasement. In this chapter, there is  considerate focus on British appeasement. Reasons stated include a lack of enthusiasm for war because of the horrors of WWI and tight economic situations due to the depression, a desire to revise Versailles upon the opinion that it may have been too harsh, other worries including Japan and Italy, and Hitler's convincing argument that he, had few ambitions. Personally I think these are excuses. Hitler was very vocal in Germany regarding his goals, and anyone who heard him speak would know him to be ambitious. Additionally, the League of Nations was created as an international powerhouse dedicated to the promotion of peace, so Britain was acting alone. Any action they would have taken would have been supported by the League. Finally without actually revising Versailles, letting Hitler take any action he chose gave him power. The decision to lighten up was a fine one, but it needed to be done as an International pardon, not Hitler testing his boundaries. So tell me what you guys think, were British reasons for appeasing good or just excuses?

American Action, or Lack There of In Japan

A commonality in American history is a supposed stance of disapproval that is never quite followed through upon. We saw it in WWI, with a neutrality marked by immense economic and material-based support of the allies, and we see it again in the early makings of WWII. Though highly against Japanese actions in Asia we continued to support them heavily. Until 1941 we continued to provide Japan with war time essentials. This was accompanied by America protesting Japanese action, and threats of military build up. What I don't understand is why our nation seems so unlikely to ever truly stand against an action we disagree with. True we might protest or publicly resent a nation's decisions, but it's our trade that ultimately supports the action.

On top of that our discussion in class got me thinking. We talked about whether or not the president should make decisions for the people, and there was an argument about Americans being uninformed. I wonder what you guys think, just because someone is uninformed does that make what they want any less important? Our government is supposed to actualize what the people want, but is it okay to ignore them if their wishes are unbacked by knowledge?