Britain and France did spend a lot of time in the 1930s campaigning for peace. It's kind of hard to justify an argument along the lines of "Britain and France caused a war", when they attempted to broker a deal with the Germans for peace a year before the war started. They were even willing to betray Czechoslovakia in order to appease Hitler, with the Munich agreement of 1938, which gave the Sudetenland to Germany. The argument that appeasement caused the war is a bit flimsy, because it was Hitler's demands for territory which were forcing the allies to respond to them. They wanted peace, they ceded territory.

France first broke the Treaty by invading the Ruhr in late 1922 (If I am correct)

Germany was consistently underpaying the reparations they technically owed, so the French took control of the industrial region of the Ruhr in order to extract the value of goods which they believed they were rightfully theirs. This caused the hyperinflation crisis, as the German government continued to pay German workers in the area, which they could not afford to do, so they simply printed money. This shouldn't really be considered to have been the main cause of the war either though, the Weimar government did recover with the introduction of the Rentenmark and was actually doing fairly well until the Great Depression.

The Treaty of Versailles for one demanded unrealistic reparations & unjustly blamed Germany for starting the war etc.

While it may have seemed that way at the time, due to prominent economists such as Keynes (who was present at the Versaille talks), historians like Sally Marks have argued that Germany could have easily paid the reparations had they been willing to. The main problem here is Germany did not accept she was defeated. The vast majority of Germany was intact, compared to North-East France, which was devastated. This was what propagated the idea of dolchstoss ('stab in the back'). Sally Marks suggests that the most effective way of affecting German public opinion would have been to have soldiers march down Unter den Linden. Again, this was just a manipulation of the German public to believe they had been betrayed, in order to justify aggression, rather than the British and French actually imposing unrealistic demands.

Hope that answered your question.

Check here for more on Marks: http://www.h-net.org/~diplo/reviews/PDF/AR429.pdf

Otherwise just look up the Munich agreement/invasion of Czechoslovakia on wikipedia, should tell you all you really want to know.

EDIT: Minor tidying, and clarified some arguments.

I'd have to challenge the premise - ie that they are not blamed.

The treaty of Versailles is commonly cited as a major cause of WWII. And describing a diplomatic strategy as "appeasement" ever since has universally been taken as a condemnation.

Whether or not they should be blamed is a larger question that I'll leave to others. But there certainly has been blame.

No, the occupation of the Ruhr was technically legal under the Treaty, as the Reparations Commission had declared Germany in default with payments.

The reparations were not unrealistic as such, it's more important that the Germans did almost everything they could to avoid paying them and the Allies had no real enforcement mechanism. An important part of the 1923 hyperinflation was created by the Germans themselves, paying striking Ruhr workers and just printing money to do this. As someone who has studied and written a dissertation on reparations and the Treaty, it is irritating to see people throwing around the rhetoric of Keynes unquestioned - he wrote his book to make specific points and arguments and overstated/understated things where it suited him to do so.

Really, the biggest problem with the Treaty was that it was both harsh enough for the Germans to feel aggrieved, but not harsh enough and lacking in actual enforcement mechanisms to bring their defeat home to them as a reality.

The war guilt clause was more of a legal fudge that was jumped on by German nationalists and those opposed to the Treaty than specifically blaming Germany for the whole mess. Article 231 was immediately followed by a clause which actually limited potential reparations. The clause was inserted to help provide legal justification for reparations - if the war was Germany's fault, then it was legally justified to demand that they pay damages for it.

Frankly as a basic point, the only state who had the choice whether or not to start the war in 1939 was Germany. Trying to play some weak 'contributory negligence'-esque card at Britain and France as somehow culpable for the German decision to invade Poland and expand aggressively is ridiculous.