Collective Security Could Have Prevented World War II From Happening Instead Of Using Appeasement?

Do you think that collective security could have prevented World War II from happening instead of using appeasement? To stop Germany from breaking the Treaty of Versailles and taking over other nations, Neville Chamberlain, the prime minister of Britain believed in appeasement because he knew that if Britain used collective security immediately, they would have definitely lost the war. However, I believe collective security would have been a more effective path to go towards. The most simple definition of collective security: attack one, attack all. This is what technique Britain should have used instead because Germany would immediately back down, as Hitler explained as well.
Hitler explained, in “Mein Kampf,” the book he wrote while in
Hitler did not want to advance on to foreign territory first. He explained that the first thing he wanted to accomplish was to secure all of Germany; he wanted all of Germany to stand with him and support him. While accomplishing this, he decided to secretly grow his military (in 1933-1934). It gave him time to prepare for war and grow the country. Growing his military was a breach of the Treaty of Versailles, but the Allies weren’t aware. However, using appeasement was basically pointless. Although the allies weren’t aware of the secret growth of Hitler’s military, they could have used collective security in the near time future to stand up as a power and attack Germany upfront. It would have been more effective, as appeasing to Hitler was just giving him what he wanted, whenever he
Using violence would have stopped him from rising to power and gaining all of Germany’s trust. The people in Britain were fully aware that appeasement would not prevent war. Appeasement would only delay a war from breaking out. In other words, if Britain used collective security first-hand, World War II would have never happened in the first