I think part of the answer comes from why Neville Chamberlain himself acted as he did: war fatigue. Chamberlain recoiled from the horrors of the Great War of 1914-1918, and did not want to see such a thing repeated.
America today has that same war fatigue. After Afghanistan and Iraq, few Americans want another open conflict. There is little support for one, necessary or not.
Of course, part of the answer also comes from the fools at the top who are negotiating for America. But that's another story.
Thank you for your reply. Put that way it is more understandable, although no less dangerous. Mr. Chamberlain is, after all, human.
I myself am tired of wars that don’t end and forcing America’s best to follow rules of engagement that put them at a disadvantage.
To me, there are several problems with this approach:
1) Britain in 1938-39 was already outproducing German in fighter aircraft; and clearly had a massive lead that Germany could not overcome in surface naval ships. Britain would never be able to match Germany's land force size.
2) When Hitler went into the Rhineland, the neighboring nations of France, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, plus Britain, outnumbered Germany 140 divisions to five. Even when Hitler went into Czechoslovakia, the Allies vastly outnumbered the Germans . . . without Russia.
3) There was absolutely no military advantage to be gained by waiting.