In 1938, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, had the unenviable task of somehow appeasing Hitler's Germany in such a way that a bloody European war would not be necessary between Germany with its allies, such as Italy, versus Great Britain with its allies, such as France. At that point in time, Chamberlain was successful in getting Hitler to come to an agreement which appeared to be just what was needed to avert a war, which was the very purpose of his diplomacy. Unfortunately, as history tells us, Hitler broke that treaty and his commitment to it, and eventually World War II, was the result.
History has not been kind to Chamberlain, who is often been portrayed as being manipulated and outplayed by Hitler, or just a plain fool. Yet, history as written is always going to be 20:20, which isn't fair to the times as they happened, and in this particular case, does not seem to correctly understand that the very purpose of good diplomacy is to having a meeting of minds in which terrible catastrophes, such as war, are given the proper consideration and space so as to be avoided. Those that try to achieve peace, even when they ultimately fail, have at least tried to do what they could to avert that which brings terrible destruction and death.
When Chamberlain met Hitler, he had an absolute obligation to at a minimum, delay such a war, and specifically to the best of his ability, to do what could be done to avert war, even at the cost of some degree of appeasement. It must be said, that those that will not attempt to be peacemakers are not good diplomats, for humankind has too often shown a propensity to take the low road when it would be better for humankind to take the high road, and which, if that so means to give a little more to the other side in negotiations to avoid a terrible conflict, so be it.
So, Chamberlain did not achieve peace, but had he been dealing with somebody that was honorable, peace could well have been obtained; unfortunately, instead we got another World War, which somehow became known as the “good war”, though, war, is seldom, if ever, good. Further to the point, to believe, somehow, that conflicts between nations should best be resolved with essentially the philosophy that “might makes right” is the very reason why so many nations are so prone to spending such gargantuan amounts of money on armaments and killing machines, as opposed to spending such money on things that would be beneficial and of material worth for the people, at large. This is why it makes sense to try to make peace, and those that put forth the effort to do so, should be accorded respect.
Perhaps, Neville Chamberlain deserves to be remembered the way that history has portrayed him, as a weak-willed credulous Prime Minister, lacking even in integrity. It would be better though, to remember Chamberlain as a man that did what he could to bring peace, knowing that if he failed in doing so, that there would be a terrible world war; of which, it must be said, that all those that insist upon the correct answer to conflict always being the use of the sword, represents the very reason why wars continue to this very day.