One of the books I read on the conference has this opinion:
“Take Munich. A disaster, right? But since when does a peace conference that actually produces peace a disaster?” Note: I don’t own the book, so it may not be the exact words, but this is basically what it says.
The book also mentions that British was not strong enough to take on Germany, Italy and Japan, so the British decided to remove one of them by appeasement. It also asks the question of whether it would have been more honorable (and morally correct) to do appeasement or fight a war that Britain will lose? The book says that the mistake of Britain and France was not appeasement, but letting Germany get so powerful that by 1938 there was no choice but appeasement.
What do you think of this view? Thank you for responding in advance!
