Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-08-31
Reject Surrender
/ am deeply Shocked by

news report IN Tne sunday
Star declaring that Chris
tians should find surrender
on the enemy's terms pref
cradle to about atomic war.
This was presented as a
progress report" to the ses-
sion of the World Council Of
Churches in Denmark.
An about war can break
out only between the Chris
tan West and the atheistic
Soviet Union. The latter is
already engaged in war
against the free world and
fights it by all possible means
short of a direct, full-Scale
military attack. This war is
directed against all that
makes life worth living, in
GLIDING religion. Surrender
to such an enemy means sur
rendering not only the prin-
ciples of Christianity but sur
render of all religions to athe-
ism. To advocate "nonvio-
lent resistance" against an
enemy devoid of any moral
and ethical principles is
sheer nonsense. The Soviet
Union possesses space enough
for additional slave labor
camps to house millions of
new nonconformists and Suf-
flcient secret police forces to
liquidate all who would dare
to indulge in passive resist
ance. When the means lie
within their power the So
viets do not hesitate a mo-
ment to destroy all present
and potential enemies. This
has been the case with every
single country taken over by
the SovietS. Since the uni
versal extinction of religion
is one of their openly pro-
fesSed principal goals, it
would be folly to suppose
that the Christian churches
of the free world would be
allowed even to exist, let
alone be permitted to carry
out a campaign of 'nonvio-
lent resistance" as advocated
by this study.
Such a defeatiSt recon-
mendation to surrender would
be an open invitation to at
tack and would provoke the
very holocaust 1t seeks to pre-
vent. If we are to live by our
principles, we must be pre-
pared to stand up for our
convictions, and If need be,
fight.
KarliS Kalnins.
Il Il
Franklin Kameny recon-
mends thu 1t the United
States, "for the sake of fu-
ture generations" surrender
to Russia rather than fight
a nuclear war. He says that
discretion is often the bet
ter part of valor."
If one means by "discre-
ton" a planned, tactical.
orderly retreat or maneuver
in the face of overwhelming
opposition, designed to en-
able one to fight on and win
at a later time, then perhaps
discretion may be the bet
ter part of valor." If by dis
erection one means the abb
ject, groveling surrender to
evil to avoid current or fu-
ture pain, trouble or death,
or the refusal to dare great
things because the price of
failure is high, then discre-
ton is not the better part of
valor, and in fact never has
been. 1t is safe to say that
all the great triumphs of the
human spirit have been
brought about by men who
knew little of discretion but
much about valor. Would
Moses have dared to deliver
ultimatumS to Pharaoh if he
knew discretion? Would
Washington have continued
through the terrible winter
at Valley Forge? Would the
Raj, those few to whom so
many owed so much, have
risen against the mighty Luft-
waite in 1889 and 1910? 1t is
fairly obvious that American
Congressional Medal of Honor
winners don't pay much at
tention to discretion. To sum
up, 1t is doubtful if the words
discretion and valor should
even be used in the same
English sentence.
Mr.. Kameny indicates that
surrender shortly after the
commencement of hostilities
may be the only farsighted
course of action particularly
If we are not the aggressors,
and in view Of the present
Russian superiority in many
types Of weapons" Whence
comes this superiority other