I'm referring to the Munich Pact of 1938, and I'm mostly interested in what the regular people, the politicians, and perhaps the military commanders (on all sides) thought of it at at time, i.e. before and shortly after the agreement was signed and prior to the outbreak of WWII. Thank you!
I think its pretty simple:
For - No one wanted another war, I don't even think Hitler did. Against - Hitler and the Nazis weren't to be trusted.
Chamberlain was hailed as a great statesman for getting the agreement signed and "taming" Hitler. It all relied on Hitler keeping his word, which of course didn't happen. In hindsight it was naive to believe he would, but given the aversion to war (for leaders and the general public alike) I guess every possible avenue had to be tried before war became inevitable.
if you can find it you might be interested in reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilty_Men
It's easy to see with hindsight how bad the policy was, but at the time it seemed like the only option. The Allied Appeasement policy was seen as being very effective in 1920s and 1930s. It was used during the German reoccupation of the Rhineland, Munich Conference and also during the Abyssinian Crisis of October 1935. Mussolini wanted to invade Abyssinia, and the Allies went against the League of Nations' ruling against the conflict in order to not lose Italy as a possible future ally against Nazi Germany. The relationship between France and Britain had deteriorated post-WWI so they were very keen to get Italy involved and try and get a European ally further east.
Other factors include:- -The legacy of WWI, and an obvious desire not to repeat it -A feeling within both France and Britain that neither country was strong enough to fight a war. Neither country was benefiting from rearmament, and France was divided politically. -Internal opposition to war, especially in France was important. There was a lot of French pacifism which contributed to Appeasement. -the France-German Committee for Veterans. Quite niche, but there was a joint veterans association between France and Germany (not sure how large) that desired Appeasement. Also shows that the two peoples were a lot closer pre-WWII than pre-WWI
Book-wise, check out Anthony Adamthwaite, a British historian who's written on 20th century European relations. Also look at Marc Bloch Strange Defeat, French historian who famously wrote an explanation for the fall of France straight after it had happened. He does discuss Munich and the threat of Nazism (amongst a lot of other things). I think he says something like 'how could any Frenchman look at Nazism and Mein Kampf and not see Hitler's intentions for European dominance'. Something very vaguely along those lines.
Not too sure about Churchill. I know he was opposed to Appeasement but he was opposed to a lot of things.