Was Chamberlain's policy of appeasement justified?

Appeasement is most famously attributed with Chamberlain, as he implemented the policy of the British Government in 1938, which finally brought the policy to a halt.  It can be argued that his ultimate aim was to avoid war.  “It sprang also from a passionate desire to avert the horror of war and a firm belief in the possibility of a lasting general peace.”  The ‘horror of war’ is emphasising that after witnessing and experiencing a war already, Chamberlain was certain that he did not want to invite another war: “What Chamberlain did know was that his country had been through the bloodiest war in history in 1914-1918.”  Chamberlain knew that a proposition or settlement had to be conducted, that would not only avoid war, but also establish lasting peace in Europe.  

A revisionist, Taylor explains that Britain was not fearful of losing a war, but genuinely did not want to incite a war: “The British ministers did not fear defeat in war, though they naturally dreaded war for its own sake.”  Britain took a defensive position, as Chamberlain was unaware at the time, what Hitler’s potential was: “ . . . Chamberlain was faced with a terrible dilemma.  He couldn’t have known what would happen in the future.”    This shows that Chamberlain’s policy was justified at the time, as his intentions were understandable and genuine.  Chamberlain had to buy time for Britain to rearm, as they were unprepared for a war.  Some argue that a major reason for not taking action earlier, was the threat from Communism.  Britain was fearful of Communism rapidly spreading through Europe, if Germany was left weak.  This would ruin the continent and lead to global Communist dictation.  

From another point of view people perceive Chamberlain’s appeasement as unjustified as he acted too late with Hitler, and war became inevitable.              “. . . would not have given to the political head of Germany the enormous ascendancy which has enabled him to move forward.”  Churchill explains that if Britain had acted earlier, it would have restricted Hitler’s freedom, and they would not have had to worry about an attack on Czechoslovakia.  However, it is unfair to lay the blame on Chamberlain because when Chamberlain became Prime Minister, Hitler was already armed and ready for war.    

Overall, I partly agree that Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement was justified because his aim was to avert war.  He realised that war was unwelcome, but I still believe that Britain should have acted earlier. When taking over in May 1937, Chamberlain should have taken a firm stand, with an aggressive foreign policy against the Nazi threat, instead of leaving it until September 1938 to address the settlements.  However, Britain had not rearmed enough to face Hitler in war, and there was always the fear of Communism spreading if Germany was left open to attack.  Therefore, in that situation Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement was justified as he had no other option but to try and avoid war, especially as Britain was militarily weaker than Germany at the time.