I don't think so. The Great War was so horrifying. So many British men were killed, and Britain's leaders were willing to do anything and everything to maintain peace after the trauma of World War I. Also, Italy and Japan were rising,aggressive powers, and the British Empire was wary of tackling all of three of them at once when they were severely weakened after the First War. Strategically speaking, Chamberlain did not understand as to why Britain would pursue war again for the interests of a small, CEE country, that Germany historically always considered within its sphere of influence. The United Kingdom was unable to wage war in 1938, but Germany was far weaker. The Anglo-French betrayal of the Czechs ranks among the worst foreign policy disasters of the twentieth century. Granting the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia to the Nazis gave Germany momentum, new territory, and resources, and it allowed them to ultimately rearm faster than the Western powers. Of course, hindsight is 20/20, and the British army underestimated its own capabilities (The Ten Year Rule) and British intelligence during the interwar period severely overestimated the strength of the Wehrmacht. Scholarly opinion about Chamberlain is divided (e.x. The Guilty Men), but Chamberlain was actually incredibly strong-willed and popular as a P.M. He guided the Conservative Party with an iron fist that could even be characterized as dictatorial. Appeasement was the dominant trend in Britain's interwar foreign policy dating back to Stanley Baldwin. The appeasers, while they were in power, even pursued various rearmament strategies while negotiating with Hitler. Chamberlain was not so much weak and bad as he was misguided and naive. Of course, the real hero of that hour was Churchill, who is my personal hero, but Chamberlain strikes me as a sympathetic figure who's been somewhat unfairly treated by anti-appeasers. See the latest book on Appeasement. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/04/books/review-appeasement-chamberlain-hitler-churchill-tim-bouverie.html