Is history too forgiving of UK Prime Minister  Chamberlains 'Peace for our time' speach and agreement with Hitler? ?

I don't think it's been "forgiving" at all.

The reason he's criticized is because we all know - with the benefit of hindsight - that it didn't work. If it had, he'd probably be remembered as an heroic peacemaker.

No, their reaction is NOT "always" that. How many people over 50 have you asked? Have you done a scientifically-sampled poll? No. So you're just making this up, or using a ridiculously small or biased sample.

I know quite a few people in England over 50, and I can't think of a single one who excuses Chamberlain's stupidity.

Some historians say that the Munich Agreement (giving "peace in our time") was a pragmatic way to gain time for Britain to build up its armed forces for a war which seemed inevitable.

All Chamberlain was doing was playing for time. Even he knew war was coming but the country was ill-prepared:  and the way it went for the BEF in 1940 he was quite correct. He did sell Czechoslovakia down the river, so I doubt they are that forgiving.

And what is your response to the question?

"What else could he have done?"

Chamberlain is rightly regarded as a failure for the Munich Agreement, but at the time (for anyone now over 95), he was celebrated both by Germans and Britons (for his success at averting war) and hatred from the Czechs.

Bit like Obama and his predecessors , did nothing with North Korea etc. 

What history books have you been reading? Is this a case of schrödinger's Chamberlain? Simultaneously given free pass and heavily criticised for his actions leading up to WW2?