Was WWII preventable through diplomacy during the 1938 Munich Crisis?

(Irrelevant Prologue)
Another interesting question would be whether if WWII was even preventable through force during the same crisis. According to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, no- not possible. Even if the military was prepared (in which he said wasn't), the people weren't prepared, or rather, unwilling to act. It was simply impossible to overthrow Germany before the war expand globally. No matter how naive he may seem in proclaiming "peace for our time" after the Munich Crisis, his actions were understandable; not everyone is a genious "know-it-all" that knew the perfect, unbiased solution- not even Winston Churchill. But even if Chamberlain failed, was diplomacy a plausible solution for the crisis? Winston Churchill made a statement where war was inevitable after the nations failed to act at the first sign of Hitler's aggression, which was nearly a decade ago. Now, with us knowing how Hitler already decided for war from early on, appeasement, the policy of concession used by Chamberlain, was agreed universally not to work in this situation. Hitler wouldn't stop until Germany was redeemed- an all or nothing future with unknown boundaries, confirmed to at least include conquering the USSR and much of Europe. To be clear, Chamberlain was naive on believing he achieved peace, but the reason for diplomacy wasn't.

Diplomacy is the action of negotation between states which would avoid aggression. The Munich Crisis took place in 1938- WWII started a year later. Diplomacy appeared to have failed in this case, but would direct opposition have prevented the war? The Allies, especially Britain, were passionate about keeping the peace for their own nations. WWII was not preventable through any rational action in diplomacy, due to the fact that Hitler was already bent on a war. In fact, it's unknown if WWII was even preventable by 1938. A direct opposition at the Munich Crisis would merely start the war much earlier, with no plausible means for either the Allies or Axis to win before escalation. It's important to understand a Chamberlain's reasons, opposition, and Hitler's intentions. However, it should also be clear how such topic involves "alternate history", and until we were shown a simulation, we would know not of the infinite possibilities.

Chamberlain defended his actions at Munich with the support of public opinion and military ability of Britain. He made it clear how the people of Britain feared another war. Many historians and Winston Churchill himself stated how war was no longer preventable by 1938, as the Western nations failed to act at Hitler's first grab for power. Hitler secretly declared how he was going full on in a glorious all-or-nothing conflict. However, as the topic is about preventing WWII, Churchill's means of direct action would be irrelevant, as it would only kick start the war earlier. Hitler had plans to attack, and as made clear in one of his speeches that it was to be carried out as soon as possible. If appeasement and direct opposition wasn't going to work, then there would be one last way it would work. The point is that there was no rational, diplomatic way to respond, and that's why the only way to prevent any war would absolute concession. One would have to lose the war before it began, therefore preventing WWII. It's absolutely irrational and unrealistic to just surrender and end a state just like that, but it answers the EQ. As stated before, there was no rational way for diplomacy by the time of 1938, especially after Hitler's Germany already militarized. Of course, one can read a few of Hitler's works and understand things a little better before the assumption of "peace for our time".