Was the British government's decision to follow a policy of appeasement during the 1930s a wise one?

During the 1930s, the British government chose to follow a policy of appeasement in order to prevent a war from breaking out between Britain and Germany, and the decision to do so was certainly a wise one. The policy has become synonymous with the name Neville Chamberlain, the prime minister from 1937 to 1940, who did all he could to prevent war, including meeting Hitler on three occasions over the course of 1938. There are several reasons as to why the policy of appeasement was a suitable, wise one. Firstly, British forces were unprepared and simply unable to fight; a policy of rearmament had only been adopted by Stanley Baldwin between 1935 and 1937, and, even then, it was slow and steady. Given the vast superiority of the German military, especially the Luftwaffe, meant that risking a war with Hitler was too risky. Therefore, concessions, with the aim of pleasing him, were sought after. Secondly, the British public favoured the policy; the public had been very anti-war since 1918 (there were no celebrations in 1939, very different to the atmosphere in 1914), and they also opposed the policy of swift rearmament. The government was obliged to appease Hitler, as it please the public by preventing the outbreak of war. Finally, whether or not the end result was going to be war (war was not a certainty at any point until the invasion of Poland), by delaying it through appeasement, the British were able to rearm effectively, meaning they were much more prepared in 1939 than they were in 1935. All of these reasons meant that appeasement was a suitable, and very strategic, policy for the British government to follow.

However, there are certainly reasons as to why it was not a wise decision. Firstly, Hitler can be said to be unscrupulous and greedy. Every time a concession was made, he sought another territorial gain elsewhere; his thirst was unquenchable. Secondly, Britain could have easily stood up against Germany early on, and would have avoided war and the need for appeasement. For example, when the Nazis entered the demilitarised Rhineland in 1936 (and remilitarised it, against the Treaty of Versailles), they were given orders by Hitler to turn back in peace if they came into contact with any enemy forces. Therefore, if the had have stood against Hitler, as Churchill so passionately championed, he would have been humiliated, and possibly even brought down from power. However, the French government was too divided to effectively stand against Germany, meaning Britain had no allies, and the British public, so eager to avoid war, saw the Rhineland as being Germany's 'back garden', believing they had every right to be there. In conclusion, Britain's choice to adopt a policy of appeasement during the 1930s was a wise decision, as it delayed war, prolonged the amount of time the country had to build up arms, and pleased the public. However, it cannot be forgotten that, despite the best efforts of Chamberlain, Hitler still brought the world into its darkest hour.