[VOA]

Given the circumstances (a weak and vascillating France and a half-hearted
Parliment), he did the only thing he could do at Munich to buy
enough time to build up the RAF. Had he done otherwise, both
Britain and France might well have been defeated if war had begun in 1938.

That is a reasonable scenario with some merit.
At the same time, IIRC, Chamberlain called his policy appeasement,
even as early as 1934. IMHO, his failures were
1. to treat a lying sociopath like Hitler in a gentlemanly fashion
and
2. to not fully heed critics like Churchill that were sounding the
alarms long before 1938.

In fairness to Chamberlain, he did have a hard row, given that
it was hard for England to contemplate another large war after losing
a generation of men. And there didn't seem to be much help from
others (France, etc.) that should have also stepped up.

I just hope that Dubya's diplomatic approach to "moderate Islam"
isn't just a replay of Chamberlain's strategy.

[attiladhun2]

Even Churchill moderated his stanch visa vis fascist Spain. There were many in Britain who wanted the allies to invade Spain during WWII. Churchill wisely chose to conciliate Franco rather than antagonize him. Unlike Hitler, he thought it was important not to create new enemies when the situation on the ground was still in doubt. The Normandy invasion was more important than extending democracy to Spain.
By the way, there are moderate Muslims--they are assisting us and risking their lives for us every day. Never forget that.