One of the main arguments in favor of appeasement is that it is the best way to avoid war. If a country can make concessions to an aggressive power, it may be able to prevent that country from attacking. This is what Britain hoped to do by appeasing Hitler in the 1930s. By giving Hitler the Sudetenland, Britain hoped to prevent him from attacking the rest of Czechoslovakia and starting a world war.
Another argument in favor of appeasement is that it can give a country time to prepare for war. If a country knows that it is likely to be attacked, it can use the time it gains through appeasement to build up its military forces. This is what Britain did in the 1930s. By appeasing Hitler, Britain gained time to rebuild its Royal Air Force and to prepare its army for war.
However, there are also strong arguments against appeasement. One of the main arguments against appeasement is that it encourages an aggressor. If a country makes concessions to an aggressive power, it may only increase the aggressor's appetite for conquest. This is what happened with Hitler. By appeasing Hitler, Britain only encouraged him to become more aggressive. He went on to invade the rest of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and much of Europe.
Another argument against appeasement is that it can lead to a false sense of security. If a country believes that it can appease an aggressor, it may not take the necessary steps to prepare for war. This is what happened with Britain in the 1930s. By appeasing Hitler, Britain gave him the impression that it would not fight back if he attacked. This led Hitler to believe that he could conquer Britain with little resistance.
In conclusion, there are strong arguments both in favor and against appeasement. The policy is ultimately a matter of judgment, and there is no easy answer. In Britain's case, the policy of appeasement was ultimately unsuccessful, as it failed to prevent World War II. However, it is possible that appeasement could be successful in other circumstances.