While that's often true in general, Chamberlain was less clearly to blame than he's often made out to be. By the time of the infamous "I have in my hand a piece of paper" thing, it was already too late to stop the Nazis easily (it might have been done earlier, but not then). Chamberlain was told very clearly by his military advisors that the British military could not stop the Nazis by force at that time and he started to increase the rate at which the British military was being increased, especially the RAF (which was rightly thought to be crucial). Chamberlain might have been right. He certainly wasn't as obviously wrong as he's often made out to be.
IMO Chamberlain was wrong - he continued with attempts to negotiate a solution and use appeasement, etc. at the expense of other preparations due to his beliefs even when the writing was on the wall - you also have to widen the perspective a bit to fully see the extent of it i.e. some try to claim he was buying time but that isn't really true/doesn't absolve him - he was the a good part of the reason that time needed to be bought at all same with being already too late to stop the Nazis but again that is partly due to earlier approaches and decisions.
I won't be too critical of Chamberlain as he did many great things for the country domestically and it wasn't solely down to him - many in government held the opinion that increasing globalisation would mean no more major wars and put their heads in the sand at the warning signs which others like the Swiss for instance read correctly in the 30s and began working on their defensive capabilities and is part, though only a part, of the reason they weren't invaded and possibly if a few more countries has done so maybe WW2 would have been a very different story. To his credit he did at least eventually realise the reality of things rather than as some might have done deludedly stuck to his principles until it was completely and utterly too late and did make many good decisions like bolstering the RAF once he finally accepted there was no other option or rather was forced to accept there was no other option.
Back on topic a bit though I think sometimes we need to accept when we are at war and that there really is very little likelihood of resolving a situation any other way even if we don't completely give up on trying diplomacy, etc. a very real risk if things do continue to escalate it will be left too long until far more drastic measures are needed due to calling it what it is being inconvenient and distasteful/unsettling to some - time and time again when it comes to extremism it has been seen that tackling it early might mean a little but of undesirable violence but leaving it to breed while trying to negotiate with something that has no interest in anything you have to offer results in having to ultimately take extreme measures to combat it that could have been avoided.