There is a general consensus that Judeao/Christianity is on a collision course with Islam. Many seem to feel appeasement is the card to play to avoid a fatal crash. Are they correct?

It would be great if we had a time machine and could go forward into the future and see the verdict of history on the actions that were being taken today. Unfortunately, our time machine only goes backward. So let us take a look at a similar situation in the past.

Consider what the world might be like today, if we had taken Hitler's writings, Mein Kamp, in 1925-26, and his speeches at face value. We are well aware of what happened because we did not. Now we are faced with the writings and speeches of Mahmound Ahmadinejad, the recently elected President of Iran. Ahmadinejad has said to the world, "America is the 'world oppressor.' Israel 'must be wiped off the map. 'The Holocaust is a myth.' A world without America and Zionism is attainable and surely can be achieved." Should we take what he is saying at face value?

Many in the Western world have adopted the "Neville Chamberlain mind-set," for a combination of political, financial and religious reasons. Neville Chamberlain became Prime Minister of Britain on 28th May, 1937. Over the next two years Chamberlain's Conservative government became associated with the foreign policy that later became known as "appeasement."

Neville Chamberlain believed that Germany had been badly treated by the Allies after it was defeated in the First World War. He therefore thought the German Government had genuine grievances and that these needed to be addressed. He also thought that by agreeing to some of the demands being made by Adolf Hitler of Germany, and Benito Mussolini of Italy, he could avoid a European war.

Neville Chamberlain was wrong, and those today, who in any way, for any reason, would adopt a policy of appeasement towards radical Islam, are doomed to experience the consequences of appeasement. If we do not learn history's lessons, we are destined to repeat them.

To obtain "Peace in Our Time," Adolf Hitler, Neville Chamberlain, and Benito Mussolini signed the Munich Agreement in September 1938. This land for peace deal approved the transferred to Germany of the Sudetenland, a fortified frontier region under the control of Czechoslovakia that contained a large German-speaking population.

The Munich Agreement was popular with most people in Britain because it appeared to have prevented a war with Germany.

In March 1939, the German Army seized the rest of Czechoslovakia, and in April 1939 Mussolini took over Albania. The treachery of the Munich Agreement was at last obvious, even to Neville Chamberlain. He realized that Hitler could not be trusted and his appeasement policy came to an end.

A firm stand by France and Britain, under the authority of the League of Nations, in the late 1930's would have enabled the more prudent elements of the German Army to gain their proper position, and would not have given Hitler, the political head of Germany, the enormous ascendancy which enabled him to move forward with his vision for the Third Reich. Unfortunately, the advent of Hitler to power in 1933 had coincided with a high tide of wholly irrational pacifist sentiment in Britain, which caused profound damage both at home and abroad. At home it immensely aggravated the difficulty of having the British people appreciate and face up to the new situation that Hitler was creating. Also, it served to tempt Hitler and others to suppose that in shaping their policies, Britain need not be taken too seriously.

It is no exaggeration to say that many prominent representatives of Britain's Conservative Party, speaking for powerful land and financial interests in the country, would have welcomed Hitler and the German Army if they believed that such was the only alternative to the establishment of Socialism in their country.

Their blatant and noisy approval of German and Italian ferocity and frightfulness in Spain in 1938 and 39, and their utter lack of concern for the sinking of British ships and the sacrifice of British lives, provides abundant proof of this contention.

The Nazis knew that in all capitalist countries there were men such as these ready to betray their own people, if by that means they could save their own property and privilege.

Let us reword the last several paragraphs to reflect how a historian might write them in 2050 to describe the present clash with Islam:

A firm stand by the Western nations under the authority of the United Nations, in 2006 would have enabled the dissident elements of the Iranian people to effect a regime change, and would not have given Aytatollah Ali Khamanrithe, the religious leader and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the political leade,r the enormous ascendancy which enabled them to move forward with their vision of a Muslim world. Unfortunately, the advent of George Bush to power in 2002 gave birth to a high tide of wholly irrational pacifist sentiment among liberals in the United States, which caused profound damage both at home and abroad. At home it immensely aggravated the difficulty of having the American people appreciate and face up to the new situation which Islamic Radicals were creating.

It is no exaggeration to say that many prominent representatives of America's Democratic Party, speaking for powerful liberal groups and financial interests in the country, would have welcomed all Muslims if they believed that such was the only alternative to a Republican President and Congress.

Their blatant approval of the Palestinians, Hezbollah, Hamas ferocity and frightfulness in Israel, Iraq, and throughout the world, and their utter lack of concern for the sacrifice of Israeli lives, provides abundant proof of this contention.

The Radical Muslims knew that in all capitalist countries there were men such as these ready to betray their own people, if by that means they could save their own property and privilege.

We all contribute to history, day by day, as we deal with the clash of, not only ideologies but civilizations. Rosa Parks, the mother of the Civil Rights movement, is an excellent example of what one person can accomplish with a simple act, such as where they sit on a bus.

Just think of the potential of getting off the bus, out of the stands and becoming a player rather than a spectator.

Contending with radical Islam with policies of appeasement, similar to those used to deal with Hitler would qualify for history's seal of stupidity. To use the same polices and expect dramatically different results is Einstein's definition of insanity. So, let us learn from the lessons of history. If we make mistakes, at least let them be new ones.

You may email Angus at: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it