An interesting thing to consider when doing appeasement is the SOCIAL BACKGROUND and political context of the Munich appeasement.
I see too many students arguing 'the Allies were cowards, lacked initiative and thus weakened and exposed themselves to the impending Nazi tide.'
Yes, they did lack initiative; but theres two very important reasons for it.
Firstly,
The end of World War I unified the Allies in the belief that they, infact did not wish to fight or even prepare for another war. Chamberlain's policy of appeasement thus not only reflected the mood of the British political structure, but also of the general opinion of the British and other European factions (including Germany). The start of WWI was met with wild enthusiasm fuelled by nationalism and militarism; the start of WWII in all countries (including Germany) was met with a stony cold silence. Chamberlain would have been indeed unpopular had he chose to engage in war with Germany in '33 when everyone, including the upper class AND middle class British hated the idea of another conflict in their lifetime.
Secondly, appeasement can be viewed within the political context of the Washington System of diplomacy as exemplified by the League of Nations, whereas diplomatic channels and compromise was seen as the halmark of civil progress. Whilst most people viewed League of Nations as something of a farce, nevertheless the movement had a very strong support in the early years. It can be interpreted that the Allies, exemplified by the Munich Agreement, attempte to appease Hitler's actions as an extension of this Washington System. Appeasement can be viewed as a use compromise and attempt to reach an agreement through diplomatic means, rather than simply political cowardice and escapism.
