Frankly I don't think so.
You have to understand there that the war had indeed opposers and supporters, these being united while being hugely distinct.
Royalists and Louis XVI supported the war : Revolutionnaries were idiots playing politicians that couldn't avoid being crushed badly by the whole of Europe.
Girondins and non-radical (well, too much radicals) were for as well : Not only it would force the king to unveil himself and his ambitions (talk about batman-gambit, that still worked), but it would allow to force-export revolution, to attack preventivly royalist armies and émigrés they hosted.
Opposers were radical revolutionnaries, because they opposed both of these factions, believed that a revolution can't be exported, and because it was seen as only a way to dismiss internal progress towards Liberty and Equality.
Opposed as well were Feuillants, constitutional monarchists that tought (with great points) that the whole war would radicalize Revolution and make the monarchy being crushed (remember that the whole Varennes affair already greatly deligitimized it a lot).
Basically, anti-royalists and royalists being for the war for completly different reasons; and radical revolutionnaries and constitutionalists being against for completly different reasons.
Giving that the lasts either didn't have great influence yet, or lost it...
Let's imagine radical revolutionnaries, as Robespierre, manage to get in power since 1791 (it would be quite hard, but let's dismiss realism for the sake of the conversation). How long would it take before Prussia or Austria put an end to the experiment and put back someone on the throne?
Remember that we're talking of a France not prepared for war, even more troubled by 1791/1793 that is was IOTL.
*Maybe*, really *Maybe* if Feuillants stay in charge; and that would ask Louis XVI to undergo a huge depression making him not even trying to flee, and that if they manage to convince other powers that it's either them, or chaos in France, war could be adverted.