Tenet and MAD superpower conflict in the 1960s: the end of moral superiority

Kevin Brianton, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia

The recent film *Tenet* looked at the possibility of worldwide destruction, where civilsation is eliminated.
Image courtesy of eMovie Poster.

The recent film Tenet (2020) looked at the possibility of worldwide destruction, where everything is destroyed, in order to satisfy the crazed needs of a suitably deranged villian. The film is the latest of a long line of films, where the world faces destruction through nuclear annnihilation that stretches back to the 1960s, when fears about nuclear weapons began to be discussed more openly. In the 1950s, science fiction films, often had themes of nuclear armageddon, but this was usually disguised as aliens or monsters being unleashed in Them or Earth versus Flying Sources. Direct discussion of this issue was clearly too painful during this decade, because it simply did not happen.

While nuclear fears were discussed in these films in allegorical terms, the biblical epics of the 1950s created a cultural mythology that assured the eventual destruction of the communist empires. As communists gained power in China and Russia became a nuclear power, the American people needed reassurance that this rising threat of a Sino-Soviet bloc with more soldiers and nuclear weapons would inevitably fail. At the time, communism appeared to be on the march, with the Korean war beginning and McCarthy’s allegations of communist conspiracy within the United States Government. The biblical epics provided another depiction which showed the communists empires vulnerable to resistance based on spiritual values. The rhetoric of historian Arnold Toynbee, evangelist Billy Graham and State Department head John Foster Dulles linked religious conviction with national strength. It was this message which was eagerly taken up by the American people.

Cold war messages were contained in all these films, but they received their most reverent and inspired treatment in DeMille’s The Ten Commandments. The biblical epics created the cultural myth for Americans that society needed a firm moral basis to succeed and flourish. Communism lacked this moral basis and may flourish for a while, but they would wither in time because of this absence. The image of doomed or damned communism was highly reassuring to audiences. The domestic and international political strengths contained within the United States would eventually lead to the destruction of communism and the re-birth of freedom. The Ten Commandments (1956) painted a picture of the irresistible conflict between the superpowers. The spiritual strength was the only permanent bulwark against the rise of the Soviet Union.

Almost exactly one year to the day after the release of The Ten Commandments, the satellite Sputnik was launched by the Soviet Union on 4 October 1957, destroying American certainties of technological superiority.[1] Previously, the Communsit powers had gained advances by duplcity. Now, the Soviet Union was a step ahead. These fears would crystallise in 1962, when the Cuban Missile Crisis led to the two superpowers coming perilously close to nuclear conflict. As the real impact of a possible conflict between the superpowers began to sink in, these ideas of moral superiority began to lose their hold, and with the change, cinema began to shift directions. Superpower conflict was not going to be an event with moral strength prevailing – everyone was going to die and civilisation was going to end. The term ‘mutually assured destruction’ had its origins in this period, and it began to be seared into the American political consciousness.[2] No one was going to win the nuclear war.

*The Manchurian Candidate* was a black political satire which said the political extremes had joined forces against the United States. (Image courtesy of eMoviePoster.)

The Manchurian Candidate (1962) was the first film to cast doubt on the idea of a Manichean conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States. The book and film feature a McCarthyite figure in the United States who is an unwitting dupe of the communists. The film had a short run, and some have suggested it was removed from public view considering sensitivities regarding the Kennedy Assassination in 1963. Kennedy’s assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, had spent some time in the USSR, and one theory argued that he was brainwashed there to shoot the president. Whatever the reasons for its short run, the film had a massive impact, and the film’s title entered popular language. It was remade in 2004, with a different political setting in the Iraq war. Most recently, President Donald Trump has been called: “A Manchurian Candidate,” for his foreign policy positions – particularly with Russia.[3] The film is notable in that it began to blur the lines between the super patriots and the communist threats – both were dangerous to the political system.

The United States President, played by Henry Fonda, must release a nucelar weapon over New York, after US fail safes are broken and Moscow is destroyed. (Image courtesy of eMoviePoster.)

While The Manchurian Candidate was a black political satire, other films delved into the impact of the Cold War. The first cinematic response to the possibility of mutually assured destruction was Fail Safe (1964), directed by Sidney Lumet, was based on the 1962 novel of the same name by Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler. The film was released in early 1964 and it portrayed an accident leading to nuclear war, with destruction for Moscow and New York. While the film enjoyed critical success, it was not popular at the box office. It is an overwelmingly bleak assessment of the chances of nuclear war.

Dr Strangelove, played with impeccable comic style by Peter Sellers, depicted the moral morass that the United States found itself in deploying nuclear weapons.
(Image courtesy of eMoviePoster.)

The bleak vision of nuclear conflict was followed by Dr. Strangelove’s black satire, directed by Stanley Kubrick, which was also released in 1962. With the comedic genius Peter Sellars playing three roles, including the crazed scientist Dr. Strangelove, the film argued that the whole system was a mess, and a madman could release the nuclear holocaust. Based on the Democrat presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson, Peter Sellers also played a US President fighting being the greatest mass murderer in world history. He also played the unforgettable Dr Strangelove, a clearly insane scientist, who has taken the world to a nuclear abyss. In most films, a James Bond hero manages to meet all the challenges, but the worse does happen in this film, and the world is destroyed. Even satire provided no escape from nuclear terrors.

A further film, The Bedford Incident (1965), showed a clash between a US destroyer and a Soviet submarine that leads to the destruction of both in an exchange of nuclear weapons. The depicted clash that occurred before or during the Cuban Missile Crisis – accounts differ. In October 1962, a Soviet submarine was pursued by the US Navy. When the nuclear-armed Soviet vessel failed to surface, the destroyers began dropping training non-lethal depth charges. The officers on the submarine argued over deploying the weapon, believing that World War Three had begun. Senior officer Vasili Arkhipov prevented any escalation by refusing to launch the weapon. After an argument, it was agreed that the submarine would surface and await orders from Moscow.[4]

This small group of films was criticised for being alarmist about the possibility of an accident or a madman leading to a nuclear war. In time, it would be demonstrated that the film’s writers and the directors were close to the truth. The United States and the Soviet Union could have easily gone to war, as the security around nuclear weapons were poor, and systems were haphazard. Both The Bedford Incident and Fail-Safe had an underlying message that nuclear weapons were too dangerous and would inevitably lead to destruction. The safeguards were not in place. In sharp contrast, The Manchurian Candidate and Dr. Strangelove depicted the whole government apparatus as insane. The political certainties of the Eisenhower period were being eroded. [5] Its political system looked rickety, its religious shield was ineffectual, and its technological lead looked shaky. The moral certainity of the Ten Commandments (1956) had all but disappeared.

[1] The Ten Commandments was released on 5 October 1956.

[2] The term “mutual assured destruction” was coined by Donald Brennan, a strategist working in Herman Kahn’s Hudson Institute in 1962. Daniel Deudney, Whole Earth Security: A Geopolitics of Peace, Washington: Worldwatch Institute, July 1983, 32-33, accessed at https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED233950 on 18 November 2020.

[3] Travis M. Andrews, “Some call Trump a ‘Manchurian Candidate.’ Here’s where the phrase originated,” Washington Post, 13 January 2017.

[4] Nickola Davis, “Soviet submarine officer who averted nuclear war honoured with prize, The Guardian, ,” 27 October 2017.

[5] Eric Schlosser, “Almost Everyhting in “Dr. Strangelove” was True,” 17 January 2014.

Them! and nuclear fears

The themes of fears of nuclear weapons, communist subversion and invasion were continued in *Them!* (1954). Image courtesy of eMoviePoster.com.

Kevin Brianton

Strategic Communication Senior Lecturer, Melbourne: Australia.

Subversion, literally having the political ground taken away from you is a constant theme in American political culture. “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” is an essay by American historian Richard J. Hofstadter, first published in Harper’s Magazine in November 1964; and it served as the title essay of a book by the author in the same year. The book dealt with these ideas, which he related back through American history.

The Communist threat shown in the film starts right away with the film’s title card in Them! (1954), the only thing in colour for the entire run of the film, the word Them! which is in brilliant red. Then of course, there is the hive mind, of the ants, and the fact that they now threaten the American way of life! The fears of nuclear weapons, communist subversion and invasion were continued. It is one film that deals with an amalgam of fears. The film began with a girl in shock, wandering through the desert. The only thing she would said was ‘Them!’[1] Police searched the desert and discovered that several people had been killed or were missing and that great damage had been done to houses, cars and caravans. The local cop on the case, Sergeant Ben Peterson, played by James Whitmore, was soon joined by FBI agent Robert Graham, played by James Arness, and scientists Dr Harold Medford, played by Edward Gwenn, and his daughter Robyn, played by Joan Weldon. Giant mutant ants, products of nuclear bomb testing were ravaging the area. Peterson, Graham and Medford found and burned out a nest of ants in the desert. But the queen ants had already escaped and they were traced to the sewers of Los Angeles. In the finale, the Peterson and Graham searched the sewer for two boys who were trapped inside. The boys were rescued and the ants were burnt to death.

In one scene, Dr Medford lectured members of the senior armed forces on the danger of the ants:

Apart form man, … ants are the only creatures on earth that make war. They campaign. They are chronic aggressors and they make slave labourers of captors, they don’t kill. None of the ants previously seen by men were little more than an inch in length. Most are considerably under that size. But even the most minute of them have an instinct for talent and industry and social organisation and savagery that makes man look feeble by comparison.[2]

He then continued on about the problems of failing to eradicate the ants:

… Unless these queens are located and destroyed before they establish more colonies and heaven knows how many more queens, out man goes as he dominant species within a year.[3]

It is tempting to simply replace the word ‘ant’ or ‘queens with ‘communist’ and the word ‘man’ with ‘United States’, and the word ‘species’ with ‘nation’. Near the conclusion of he film, the people of Los Angeles were told of their peril:

By direction of the President of the United States, the Governor of the State of California and the Mayor of Los Angeles in the interests of public safety is hereby declared martial law … Curfew is at 1800 hours. Any persons on the street or outside their quarters by 6 pm will be subject to arrest by military police. Now for the reasons for this most drastic decision. A couple of months ago in the desert of New Mexico, a colony of giant ants were discovered. They are similar in appearance and character to the household ant you are familiar with. Except they are mutated, ranging in size from more than 12 feet in length. The New Mexico colony was destroyed but two queen ants escaped. One has been accounted for and destroyed, but the other has not yet been found. It is now known to have established a nest in the storm drains beneath the streets of Los Angeles. It is not known how long or how many of these lethal monsters have hatched. Maybe a few, maybe thousands. If new queen ants have hatched and escaped this nest other American cities may be in danger. These creatures are extremely dangerous. They have already killed a number of persons. Stay in your homes. I repeat stay in your homes. Your personal safety, the safety of the entire city, is dependent on your full co-operation with the military authorities.[4]

The links between communism and the ants were quite clear. If they were not destroyed, they would crush the United States. There was no room for compromise or doubt. As a scientist, Dr Medford was now firmly in step with the military and there was a need for the suppression of civil rights to fight the monsters. Before the news became public, one man was a witness to the ants in flight and was locked up in an insane asylum by the Government before he could tell his story to the public. A doctor asked when could the man be released and was told: ‘The Government will tell you when he is well.’[5] Individual liberties were quickly forfeited involuntarily when faced with the threat form the ants. To survive, you must fully co-operate with the military authorities. That implied co-operation with HUAC or any other government organisation. A constitutional or human right could not be weighed against survival.

The image of nests of ants festering beneath American cities waiting to lash out and destroy the American way of life was unsettling. Image courtesy of eMoviePoster.com.

The image of nests of ants festering beneath American cities waiting to lash out and destroy the American way of life was unsettling. All was the same on the surface, but a threat existed which grew steadily beneath normal life. These threats were spreading from city to city. The only way to thwart these dangers was to fully co-operate with the all –knowing authorities. These authorities may diminish civil liberties, constitutional rights, even human rights, but that is because the threat was so near and so dangerous. Them! Was one of the most explicit statements by the American Right about communist menace within the science fiction genre. It stated that the way to fight the communist menace within the United States was to curtail personal freedoms in order to safeguard the nation.

Despite it extreme views, Them! Had a strong anti-nuclear theme. At its conclusion, Dr Medford, his daughter Robyn and FBI agent Robert Graham watched the burning embers of the giant ants.

ROBERT GRAHAM:	If these monsters got started as a result of the first atomic bomb, what about all those others that have been exploded since.
ROBYN MEDFORD:	I don’t know.
DR MEDFORD:	Nobody knows, Robyn. When man invented the atomic age, he opened a door to new world. Who knows what we will eventually find in that new world.[6]

The camera panned over the heads of the crowd towards the burning flames coming from the ant bodies. It was a chilling ending and touched the other central concern of the time – the fear of nuclear weapons. It was the scientists who had unleashed this new force in the world and it was the scientists and the military who worked in concert to smash it. To finish the film with a shot of flames underlined where the director Douglas thought nuclear weapons would take the world; into the fire.

It was the scientists who had unleashed this new force in the world and it was the scientists and the military who worked in concert to smash it. Image courtesy of eMoviePoster.

[1] Them! Warner, (d) Gordon Douglas, Ted Sherdeman.

[2] Them! Op cit

[3] Them! Op cit.

[4] Them! Op cit.

[5] ibid.

[6] Them! op cit

Aliens Invade: The Day the Earth Stood Still and and The Thing

*The Day The Earth Stood Still* did not depict communists or communism directly, but the fears of nuclear annihilation and communism were linked.
Image courtesy of EmoviePoster

Kevin Brianton

Strategic Communication Senior Lecturer, Melbourne: Australia.

By far the most popular type of science fiction film in the 1950s were the alien invasion films. The peak of their popularity was in the early to mid 1950s which also matched the most unsettling time of the cold war. The cycle of alien invasion films began in earnest in America with two films in 1951, The Thing and The Day the Earth Stood Still. These films were remarkably similar in structure but contain almost diametrically opposed ideas. The tension in the films clustered around the relationship between the scientists, military and alien invaders. The scientist was depicted in both films as being allied with humanitarian or liberal groups and being allied with humanitarian or liberal groups and being in conflict with the military in how to deal with the aliens. In The Day the Earth Stood Still, an alien flying saucer landed in Washington with an important message to the people of the world. The politicians didn’t want to talk to the alien as a group because of mutual suspicions and hatreds, while the military just wanted to blast him. The alien Klaatu, played by Michael Rennie, seemed to be a sober non-threatening being with exceptional intelligence. He had great power at his command and with a few twirls of the dial of the saucer could bring the world to a momentary halt. The military reacted to this demonstration by wanting him destroyed, while the scientists wanted to hear his message. Klaatu’s message was that the world must stop the spread of nuclear of weapons or face destruction.

Screenwriter Edmund H. North and director Robert Wise played on the sympathies of the American audience by showing Klaatu admiring the Lincoln monument. He told a child that Lincoln looked like a great man, the type of man who would listen to his important message to the world. The child replied that there was a man like that working in Washington called Dr Barnhardt. By using the icon of Lincoln in the film, the screenwriter and director were indicating to the audience that Klaatu’s message was important and correct. North and Wise then linked the wisdom of Lincoln to the scientists. The scientist Dr Barnhardt was obviously based on the brilliant physicist Albert Einstein, who was another icon of scientific and philosophical wisdom in the 1950s.[1] By combing the icon on Einstein, who represented scientific wisdom with Lincoln, who represented political wisdom, the filmmakers were packaging their message for an American audience. Even further, Klaatu was brought back to life when killed by the military, perhaps indicating a spiritual dimension to his message as well.

The Day The Earth Stood Still did not depict communists or communism directly, but the fears of nuclear annihilation and communism were linked. Communism was not only a political threat to the United States, but since the development of nuclear weapons, it carried the threat of physical extinction. The liberal vision of a planetary United Nations protecting common interests was one of the few positive images of the science fiction films of the 1950s. The Day The Earth Stood Still belonged with the brief flowering of liberal films of the early 1950s. It argued that nations should meet to thrash out their differences before it was too late. Time and time again, it referred to the world’s ‘petty squabbles’ with a tone to suggest that they were adolescent temper tantrums. The world should grow up and put aside nuclear weapons as ways of resolving disputes. This would mean negotiation and discussions with the Russians which was brave suggestion in 1951. Despite its popularity, The Day the Earth Stood Still did not begin a cycle of science fiction films with liberal leanings. Although It Came From Outer Space (1953) was a notable exception, the vast majority of aliens in popular science fiction films of the 1950s were hostile towards the aliens.

Made at the same time as The Day The Earth Stood Still, The Thing had a quite different view of the world. The alien was a pure and simple menace which would not be negotiated with and had to be destroyed. A saucer landed in the Arctic near the North Pole and the military outpost stationed there was sent out to investigate. They discovered flying saucer under the ice and a frozen alien. The saucer was accidently destroyed, but the alien was taken back to camp encased in ice.

The crucial conflict in the film was not with the alien but between the military and the scientists over how to deal with the alien. The scientists wanted to communicate with the alien in order to benefit mankind, while the military wanted to destroy it in order to save mankind. The scientists headed by Dr Carrington believed that ‘There are no enemies in science, just phenomenon to study.’[2] He didn’t realise the enormous threat from the alien, although he described it in chilling terms. IT was a creature without ‘pain or pleasure’ which Dr Carrington envied for having ‘no emotions and no heart’.[3] The communist system in Russia was also viewed as ‘scientific’, a system which worked along rational principles but ignored the role of the individual. Carrington represented all these fears.[4]

Near the conclusion of the film, the tensions between the scientists and the military came to a head as Dr Carrington approached the rampaging alien to talk of peace. Carrington was killed by the alien which then meets its doom at the hands of the military. Screenwriter Ledered and Director Nyby – with the assistance of veteran Howard Hawks – were saying that in times of threat such as during the Cold War, scientists must defer to the military. Scientists had to be geared to national interests. When the scientist joined forces with the military, then the alien forces could be destroyed.

Made at the same time as *The Day The Earth Stood Still*, *The Thing* had a quite different view of the world. The alien was a pure and simple menace which would not be negotiated with and had to be destroyed.
Image courtesy of eMoviePoster

The image of Dr Carrington being knocked aside was one which constantly recurred in films of the 1950s. Horror writer Stephen King believed The Thing was the first movie of the 1950s to show the scientist in the role of the misguided appeaser.[5] He wrote that for the average America, the scientists were deservedly vilified in American cinema in the 1950s as it was this group which had developed the atomic bomb and ushered in the nuclear age. According to King, when Dr Carrington faced the alien, the image that would have come into the minds of the American audience was Hitler and Chamberlain.[6] Appeasement by the United Kingdom had led to a dreadful war with Nazi Germany which had almost been lost. It was better to fight than to appease. When the alien pushed Carrington aside, an American audience could only see it in political terms. Enemies had to be dealt with using a firm hand from the military.

The alien in The Thing was a popular depiction of communism. It was a mobile vegetable and its seeds were planted in soil at the laboratory and they quickly grew. If the alien escaped to more fertile ground, such as the Untied States – it could threaten the world. This alien must be contained and stopped from going any further. In other words, if the alien was not stopped at any early stage, then the threat would simply grow until it became impossible to resist. This was the logic of Cold War containment which drive the United States into the Korean War and later to the Vietnam War. To reinforce the point, after the alien had been destroyed, newspaperman Scotty warned people to remain vigilant: ‘Keep watching the skies. Keep watching the skies.’[7]

It was the message and the images contained in The Thing that really dominated American science fiction cinema for the next six or seven years. Appeasement meant destruction and appeasers were either traitors or fools who ended getting killed. Despite its low budget, The Thing was one of the most successful science fiction films of the year, narrowly edging out The Day the Earth Stood Still.[8] The success of these two films reflected an uncertainty by Americans on how to deal with the Russians. One film argued that the nuclear threat needed to be addressed and the world should stop its petty squabbles, while the other said the appeasement caused destruction. The popularity of both films indicated both the importance and the uncertainty of the issue in the American mind.

[1] Ronald W Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, Avon, New York, 1984, pp. 659 – 710 discusses Einstein’s political role in post-war United States.

[2] The Thing RKO/Winchester (Howard Hawks), (d) Christian Nyby, Charles Lederer.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Other films latched onto the fear of a society based on scientific principles. In The Street With No Name (1948), gangster Alec Stiles, played by Richard Widmark, wanted to ‘build an organisation along scientific lines.’

[5] Stephen King, Danse Macabre: The Anatomy of Horror, MacDonald, London, 1981, p.173.

[6] ibid, p. 174.

[7] The Thing op cit.

[8] The Thing (1951) made $1.9 million profit, while The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951) made $1.85 million. See Hardy, Science Fiction, p. 387.

The evangelical nature of When World’s Collide

*When Worlds Collide* (1951) which dealt with the destruction of the planet Earth. Image courtesy of eMoviePoster

Kevin Brianton

Strategic Communication Senior Lecturer, Melbourne: Australia.

Nuclear fears of annihilation haunted the 1950s. This depressing view of world destruction continued in George Pal’s next film: When Worlds Collide. Many science fiction films had dealt with the destruction or breakdown of society, but the physical end of the planet was virtually a new area.[1] Cecil B. DeMille had originally been slated for the film in a much earlier period. The rights to the story by Philip Wylie and Edwin Balmer were originally bought in 1933 by Paramount, when director DeMille was planning a related project called “The End of the World.” DeMille had hoped to rush the project into production after filming wrapped on This Day and Age (1933), but the script was never even written and the studio scrapped the project.

In When Worlds Collide scientists discovered that a new sun and its planet were spinning across the galaxy toward earth. The planet would move close to the earth, causing tidal waves and mass destruction, and then the new sun would engulf the earth. The only hope for civilisation was a small spacecraft which could hop planets just before the fatal collision. The film opened with biblical saying:

And God looked upon the earth and behold it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth … And God said unto Noah, ‘The end of flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and , behold I will destroy them with the earth…[2]

This was remarkably close to the vision of evangelist Billy Graham who, after President Truman had announced a nuclear weapon had been exploded in the Soviet Union, had preached in 1949 that the choice for America was now between religious revival and nuclear judgement. The choice was between western culture founded on religion, and communism which was against all religion. The country had abandoned the ten commandments and faced judgement for its misdeeds.[3] In 1949, he delivered a sermon on the fate of the United States which rang with biblical doom.

Let us look for a moment at the political realm. Let’s see what is happening – not only in the city of Los Angeles, but in the western world. The world is divided into two sides. ON the one side we see so-called Western culture. Western culture and its fruit had its foundation in the bible, the Word of God, and in the revivals of he Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Communism on the other hand, had decided against God, against Christ, against the bible, against all religion. Communism is not only an economic interpretation of life – Communism is a religion that is directed and motivated by the Devil himself who has declared war against almighty God. Do you know that the Fifth Columnists, called Communists, are more rampant in Los Angeles than any other city in America? We need a revival.[4]

Just as God had destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, Pompeii, and the Roman empire, he would destroy the United States, and Los Angeles in particular, if it strayed any longer or further from the moral path. The nuclear threat was a biblical judgement for moral failings. These speeches were the catalyst which launched Graham to become a nationwide media celebrity.

Graham’s apocalyptic vision of nuclear judgement resonated throughout When Worlds Collide. The conclusion of the film showed the earth burning as it approached the surface of he new sun. Nuclear-like explosions ripped from its surface as it was absorbed. This image must have terrified the American public of the 1950s with its connotations of nuclear destruction. The most chilling part of When Worlds Collide was the inevitable nature of the destruction of the earth, just as the cold war promised an inevitable nuclear conflagration. The film may have reassured an American public at one level by showing that life would continue in some form after nuclear destruction. However, with its biblical judgement of corruption and the inevitable nature of the world’s destruction, it was an uncomfortable film to watch.

[1][1] The theme had been used before in a film called The Comet (1910) and two German films Himmelskibet (1917) and Verdens Undergang (1916). The two German films probably reflected some of the gloom as the First World War dragged on. A few science fiction films saw the collapse of society such as the British film Things to Come (1936). See the introduction to Phil Hardy, (ed.). Science Fiction: The Complete Film Sourcebook, William Morrow, New York, 1984 for a discussion of the trend.

[2] When Worlds Collide Paramount (George Pal), Sidney Boehm, (d) Rudolp Mate.

[3] Mark Silk, Spiritual Politics: Religion and America since World War II, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1988, p. 65.

[4] William Graham, Revival in Our Time: The Story of Billy Graham Evangelistic Campaign Evangelistic Campaigns, Including Six Of His Sermons, 2^nd edn enl. Van Kampen Press, Wheaton, Illinois, 1950, pp. 72-73.