Definitely. Any real understanding of Neville Chamberlain reveals that he was extremely inclined to avoid fighting. He didn't understand that Munich was a cease-fire in Europe, not a permanent peace.
France and Poland teaming up without the UK seems likely. More to the point, however, there was a system of alliances in place in the Balkans, once again. Hungary, Italy and Bulgaria were friendly and had claims on the same countries. Yugoslavia and Romania were also on good terms.
This Suggests a France/Poland/Yugoslavia/Romania vs Germany/Italy/Hungary/Bulgaria matchup, one that I think favors Germany. Still the position of the Soviet Union is likely to be critical. For what it's worth, France enjoys better relations with the Soviet Union in March 1939 than Germany, while Poland is antagonistic towards the Soviets. Not to worry though, the Romanians might well offer transit for the Soviets.
However, I suspect that Stalin will simply cut a deal his own neutrality and hope that communism wins in the end. If he wins up bargaining with Germany, you get something like OTL territorial concessions in the Baltics, Romania, Poland and Finland. If he bargains with France and the New Entente, they will probably provide $$$ and technology. Stalin will probably accept the latter, but he'll be building up forts and the Red Army just in case...
While Poland is doomed, Germany has to think carefully about 1940.
DoWing Belgium is likely to provoke a UK response. The Maginot Line mitigates the threat of a German attack into Strassbourg, while the Germans probably are going to leave more troops on their own Siegfried Line than OTL to deter a French attack. Meanwhile, Poland is beaten up. After the fighting in Poland comes to an end, the Germans head south to finish Romania and Yugoslavia, with help from their allies.
Still, France is a hard shell to crack in this situation, and I don't know how the fighting would end.