There is a great controversy surrounding the Munich Pact and the appeasement of Hitler. Some historians argue that Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Germany's fuhrer was a great mistake; while others suggest that the British Prime Minister made the right decision in a difficult situation. Looking at the Munich Conference from an historical point of view, it is clear that the best solution would have been British military intervention in Czechoslovakia. However it is unfair to judge Chamberlain's decision without putting ourselves in his place. Perhaps with his limited knowledge (limited in the sense of not knowing everything about the German situation) and the state of Britain, he did not make a mistake in signing the Munich Pact.
             In September of 1938, the four powers of Western Europe (Britain, France, Germany, and Italy) met at Munich to decide the fate of Czechoslovakia. Hitler wanted the annexation of the Sudetenland (west end of Czechoslovakia, bordering Germany), arguing that the three million Germans living in this area desired to live in their native country. On September 30, Chamberlain, Daladier, Hitler, and Mussolini signed the Munich Pact, allowing the Sudetenland to come under German rule, with Hitler's promise that this would be the last of his territorial conquests. Chamberlain went back home declaring "peace in our time". He was widely praised for avoiding a war with Germany, although Winston Churchill thought differently: "We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat. All is over," he proclaimed to the House of Commons. He went on to say that it is better to fight a war sooner than later if war is unavoidable. In Germany, Hitler received similar praise, for his people were against fighting another war as well. Was it possible for both countries to walk away from Munich as victors? Was Chamberlain correct in thinking the agreement was, "symbolic of the desire of our...