24. Vietnamese-language versions of both letters are in BNTS, vol. 1, p. 67. Also see Hong Ha, Thoi thanh nien, pp. 65–68.
25. Jean Lacouture, Ho Chi Minh: A Political Biography, trans. Peter Wiles (New York: Vintage, 1968), p. 23. The sequence of events whereby French authorities were able to identify him conclusively as Nguyen Tat Thanh is not clear from available documents in the French archives. Police reports were vague and sometimes contradictory—for example, on the date of his arrival in France—and reports periodically surfaced that he had spent the latter part of the war in France. The Sûreté still could not confirm his activities in Great Britain during the war. See GGI [Governor-general of Indochine] à Minister of Colonies, October 20, 1919, in SPCE, Carton 364, CAOM. For communications between Paris and the office of the governor-general in French Indochina seeking the identity of the author, see the relevant cables in SPCE, Carton 364, CAOM.
26. Cited in Gaspard, Ho Chi Minh à Paris, pp. 68–69. According to one agent—code-named “Edouard”—who was well acquainted with him, Nguyen Ai Quoc generally approved of Albert Sarraut. See Note Confidentielle, December 20, 1919, in SPCE, Carton 364, CAOM. For the comment about Woodrow Wilson, see his March 5, 1930, report to the Comintern contained in Van kien dang toan tap [Complete Party Documents], vol. 2, 1930 (Hanoi: Chinh tri quoc gia, 1998), p. 31.
27. Nguyen Ai Quoc to Albert Sarraut, governor-general of Indochina, September 7, 1919, in SPCE, Carton 364, CAOM.
28. Several researchers have attempted to determine the precise date of his entrance into the FSP. According to Gaspard, Ho Chi Minh à Paris, p. 73, and Nguyen Thanh, Chu tich Ho Chi Minh, p. 43, there were no Vietnamese in the party in 1918. The latter declares that eighty Vietnamese joined the following year. Kobelev, p. 31, claims he joined the FSP in 1918. The quote at the beginning of the paragraph is from Ho Chi Minh, “The Parh Which Led Me to Leninism,” an article originally written in April 1960 for the Soviet journal Problemyi Vostoka, reproduced in Bernard B. Fall, ed., Ho Chi Minh on Revolution: Selected Writings, 1920–1966 (New York: Praeger, 1967), pp. 23–25.
29. I have discussed this issue at greater length in The Communist Road to Power in Vietnam, 2d ed. (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1996), pp. 26–29. Also see the interesting treatment of the question in Nguyen Khac Vien, ed., Tradition and Revolution in Vietnam (Berkeley, Calif., and Washington, D.C.: n.p., 1974), pp. 15–74.
30. Kobelev, p. 44. The quotation is from Fall, On Revolution, p. 24. For the earlier remark to Jacques Duclos, see Hong Ha, Thoi thanh nien, p. 84. For his early support for Bolshevism, see “Renseignements divers” in SPCE, Carton 365, CAOM. For comments on his ideological naïveté, see Gaspard, Ho Chi Minh à Paris, pp. 113–15, and Nguyen Thanh, Chu tich Ho Chi Minh, p. 52.
31. The article was reprinted in Tap chi Cong san [Communist Review] (Hanoi), April 1984, pp. 69–72.
32. The article, written in Biarritz on October 16, 1919, is located in Ruscio, Textes, pp. 24–28. The author remarks that “Mr. Albert Sarraut is not unknown to me,” thus informing readers that Nguyen Ai Quoc had indeed met Sarraut briefly in the ministry on Rue Oudinot during his interview in early September. According to Gaspard, Ho Chi Minh à Paris, pp. 84–85, some of these early articles were written in collaboration with Phan Chu Trinh, so it should not be assumed they were all his work. On the other hand, there is no reason to doubt chat they represented his views at that time.
33. Agent reports and other analyses of Les opprimés can be found in Gaspard, pp. 94–110; Kobelev, pp. 38–39; and Hémery, Ho Chi Minh, pp. 45–46. A copy of Le procès de la colonisation française is available in English translation in Fall, On Revolution, pp. 73–126.
34. Report of Edouard, December 20, 1919, in F7–13405, SPCE, Carton 364, CAOM, cited in Nguyen Phan Quang, “Nguyen Ai Quoc va Phan Chau Trinh o Phap (1917–1923),” an undated clipping in my possession.
35. See Report of August 10, 1920, in SPCE, Carton 364, CAOM. As for Quoc’s role in the 1908 demonstrations in central Vietnam, see “Note de Jean,” December 8, 1919 in SPCE, Carton 364, CAOM.
36. Quoted in Gaspard, Ho Chi Minh à Paris, pp. 131–32. I have assumed that this incident took place on September 17, when, according to material in the French archives, Nguyen Ai Quoc was called into the Ministry for a conversation—see Report on surveillance of Nguyen Ai Quoc, September 18, 1920, in SPCE, Carton 364, CAOM. In a declaration that he filled out before leaving the ministry, Quoc declared that he had arrived in Paris in June–July 1919, and that he had come on a Chargeurs Réunis liner from Saigon to Marseilles. He did not recall the name of the ship. On arrival he lived first at no. 5 or 7 Rue Monsieur-le-Prince, then moved to 6 Villa des Gobelins. See Nguyen Ai Quoc, declaration, September 17, 1920, in ibid.
37. Gaspard, Ho Chi Minh à Paris, pp. 107–8.
38. Kobelev, pp. 46–47, Hong Ha, Thoi thanh nien, p. 88.
39. Tran Thanh, “Bien nien Chu tich,” p. 67. Gaspard, p. 157, implies that Nguyen Ai Quoc may have attended this congress. That seems very unlikely, given the fact that he was called to the ministry in mid-September.
40. Tran Thanh, “Bien nien Chu rich,” pp. 70–72 The quore is in Avec l’Oncle Ho, pp. 45–46. According to Ho Chi Minh, who recounted the story, his listeners responded with condescending sympathy toward a colleague who was too young and naïve to grasp the complexity of the problem.
41. See Ho Chi Minh’s reminiscences in Avec l’Oncle Ho, p. 46. Also see Kobelev, p. 46.
42. For the original French version of the speech, see Ruscio, Textes, pp. 31–33. An English-language version is in Fall, On Revolution, pp. 21–22. On one other occasion in the speech, Nguyen Ai Quoc was interrupted by a delegate from Turkey. For a reference, see Gaspard, Ho Chi Minh à Paris, pp. 114–123, and Tran Thanh, “Bien nien Chu tich,” p. 73.
43. See Dang Hoa, Bac Ho: Nhung nam thang o nuoc ngoai [Uncle Ho; the Months and Years Abroad] (Hanoi: Thong tin, 1990), p. 33. In his reminiscences, Ho Chi Minh recounted a conversation with a certain Rose, the stenographer at the conference who had attempted to explain the theoretical issues discussed at the conference to the naïve young Vietnamese. When she heard that Quoc had voted in favor of the motion, she asked why. “It’s simple,” he replied. “I didn’t undersrand you when you talked of strategy of proletarian racrics, and still other points. But there is one thing that I understand clearly: the Third International is directly interested in the problem of emancipating the colonies, it has declared that it would assist the oppressed peoples to reconquer their liberty and their independence. As for the Second International, it has never made the least reference to the fate of the colonies. What I want is liberty for my compatriots, independence for my country. That’s why I voted for the Third International. That’s what I understood. Do you agree?” “Comrade,” Rose replied, “you’ve made some progress.” See Avec l’Oncle Ho, p. 47.
44. Gaspard, Ho Chi Minh à Paris, p. 128, citing Charles Fourniau and Léo Figuères, eds., Ho Chi Mink: Notre Camarade (Paris: Editions Sociales, 1970), pp. 203–4.
45. For other excerpts from the original French version, see Gaspard, Ho Chi Minh à Paris, pp. 138–39.
46. The text of the article is in Ruscio, Textes, pp. 34–37.
47. For the text, see ibid., pp. 38–39. For the September article, see Gaspard, Ho Chi Minh à Paris, pp. 164–65.
48. Gaspard, Ho Chi Minh à Paris, p. 132, The date of the interview is not certain. According to BNTS, vol. 1, p. 107, Nguyen Ai Quoc was called to the ministry sometime in February. According to other archival evidence, he was in Cochin Hospital from January to early March and a police informant reported a conversation with Quoc while he was in the hospital in which Quoc mentioned his interview with Sarraut. See Note, February 26, 1921, in SPCE, Carton 364, CAOM.
49. Note by Devèze, December 27, 1920 in SPCE, Carton 364, CAOM; also see BNTS, vol. 1, p. 108. The woman involved was a Mlle. Brière, believed by police to be Nguyen Ai Quoc’s former mistress.
50. Kobe
lev, p. 37; BNTS, vol. 1, p. 119; Report of Devèze, July 16, 1921, in SPCE, Carton 364, CAOM. According to police files, the previous October Nguyen Ai Quoc had been responsible for the breakup of Vo Van Toan and his fiancée, Mlle. Germaine Lambert. An agent reported that Quoc had demanded that she give up her entire salary to the cause, do the family washing on Sunday, and obey her husband blindly. She refused and broke off the relationship. According to the agent, she probably did not like the Communist Party. See Note, October 12, 1920, in SPCE, Carton 364, CAOM.
51. Avec l’Oncle Ho, p. 39; Dang Hoa, Bac Ho, p. 34. Vietnamese émigré circles declare that he had a wife and child, but I have seen no evidence to confirm this. See the article in the magazine. Thuc Tinh (Paris), no. 3, p. 19.
52. Note by Devèze, July 29, 1921, in SPCE, Carton 364, CAOM; “Renseignements divers” in SPCE, Carton 365, CAOM. Nguyen Ai Quoc, declaration, September 17, 1920, in SPCE, Carton 364, CAOM. It may have been at this time that someone in the Party, perhaps Paul Vaillant-Couturier, obtained him a work permit. See Gaspard, Ho Chi Minh à Paris, p. 76.
53. The police reported that six strangers had visited Phan Van Truong at the apartment on the day before the debate. See Notes by Devèze, July 9 and 13, 1921, in SPCE, Carton 364, CAOM.
54. For a copy of the manifesto, dated May 1922, see Ruscio, Textes, pp. 42–43.
55. At a meeting held on February 14, 1923, at a bookshop on Rue St. Severin, a European in attendance complained about the membership requirement, which stated that one had to be a colonial subject or born of such parents to join. Why, he asked, not open membership to all regardless of origin? Quoc asked why the speaker had come, and added that if he came to spy, he could just leave. The European retorted that socialists had no frontiers, since they were all exploited. The question of membership was turned over to the Executive Committee for study. See Series III, Note by Agent de Villier, June 15, 1923, in SLOTFOM, Carton 109, CAOM. The agent also reported that Phan Van Truong wanted to revive the purely Vietnamese group, because the Intercolonial Union was too broad and the Vietnamese wanted to speak their own language. Nguyen Ai Quoc had apparently taken the headquarters of the Association of Annamite Patriots with him when he moved to Impasse Compoint, and it had apparently been disbanded with the formation of the union. Now he said that he had no objection to reconstituting the organization, but apparently little was done before his departure from Paris. See Note sur les Associations des Indochinois à Paris, in ibid.
56. Gaspard, Ho Chi Minh à Paris, p. 180.
57. For a comprehensive survey of the background of the journal, see The Tap, “Le Paria,” Hoc Tap (April 1972), An English-language version of this article is located in JPRS, no. 56,396, Translations on North Vietnam, no. 1186.
58. Gaspard, Ho Chi Minh à Paris, pp. 207–9. In his reminiscences, Ho Chi Minh claims that many Vietnamese students were afraid to read it out of feat that they might be apprehended by the authorities. See Avec l’Oncle Ho, p. 44.
59. For excerpts, see Gaspard, Ho Chi Minh à Paris, pp. 200–201. Also see Toan Tap I, vol, 1, pp. 505–6. Unfortunately, no version of the play appears to be extant. Kobelev (p. 53) says it was published in Paris and performed at a festival sponsored by the newspaper L’Humanité. Nguyen Thanh, Chu tich Ho Chi Minh, p. 130, says it was organized by the Club du Faubourg. His father’s remark was quoted in “Nguyen Ai Quoc,” Sûreté note, January 1, 1928, in dossier labeled “Correspondance 1927 à 1930,” in SPCE, Carton 368, CAOM.
60. A French-language version of the letter is in Gaspard, Ho Chi Minh à Paris, pp. 183–87. Gaspard notes that although Trinh refused to join the Communist Party, he continued to admire many of its humanitarian ideas and principles (see pp. 188–89). But Trinh’s inadequate grasp of recent history is shown in his comment that “even Marx and Lenin, whom you evidently admire, did not stay abroad but went home to fight for their ideas.”
61. The question of his employment, like so much about his years in Paris, is often confusing. Police sources seem firm that he was dismissed from his job at 7 Impasse Compoint in November 1921. Various reasons are advanced, including the charge that he was a poor worker or that fellow workers complained about his tubercular condition. See undated note by Devèze in SPCE, Carton 364, CAOM. After that he was briefly unemployed, but returned to the job in mid-1922—see BNTS, vol. 1, p. 138, 147. Kobelev (pp. 56–57) implies that he was dismissed in December 1921 as a result of his political activities, leading the authorities to threaten his employer and revoke his work permit. Kobelev’s date, however, is in error, and as usual he gives no source.
62. Kobelev, p. 56. Although there is no proof to that effect, it seems likely that this conversation took place during the meeting at the ministry in June 1922. Also see Nguyen Thanh, Chu tich Ho Chi Minh, p. 133.
63. “An Open Letter to M. Albert Sarraut, Minister of Colonies,” in Ho Chi Minh: Selected Works, vol. 1, (Hanoi: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1960), pp. 28–29. Also see Nguyen Thanh, Chu tich Ho Chi Minh, p. 133.
64. Hong Ha, Thoi thanh nien, pp. 114–15; Kobelev, p. 55.
65. Nguyen Ai Quoc, “Some considerations on the Colonial Question,” in L’Humanité, May 25, 1922, cited in Fall, On Revolution, pp. 25–27.
66. Cited in Gaspard, Ho Chi Minh à Paris, p. 75. Doriot later left the FCP and became a supporter of Nazi Germany.
67. BNTS, vol. 1, p. 175; Dang Hoa, Bac Ho, p. 40.
68. Dang Hoa, Bac Ho, p. 47; Kobelev, p. 57. Gaspard, Ho Chi Minh à Paris, p. 243, surmises that it was now too dangerous for Quoc to remain in Paris.
69. The date of his departure for Moscow has long been a matter of dispute. Ruth Fischer, a German Communist, claimed that he had attended the Comintern Congress in Moscow in 1922. A similar claim is made by the Indian Communist M. N. Roy. Other sources stated that he did not leave France until the fall of 1923. Archival sources in France now confirm the date and the circumstances as described here. See Series III, Carton 103, Note on Nguyen Ai Quoc, SLOTFOM, CAOM. Ruth Fischer, “Ho Chi Minh: Disciplined Communist,” in Foreign Affairs, vol. no. 1 (October 1954), p. 88, and M.N. Roy’s memoirs (Bombay: Allied Publishers, n.d.), p. 511.
70. Avec l’Oncle Ho, pp. 51–52; BNTS, vol. 1, p. 184; Glimpses/Life, p. 28; Kobelev, pp. 58–59.
71. Trinh à Monsieur Ai, in dossier labeled “1923,” in SPCE, Carton 365, CAOM. Nguyen Van Ai had become one of Nguyen Ai Quoc’s most vocal critics.
III | Apprentice Revolutionary
1. Kobelev, p. 62; BNTS, vol. 1, pp. 190, 192; Dang Hoa, Bac Ho: Nhung nam thang 0 nuoc ngoai [Uncle Ho: The Months and Years Abroad] (Hanoi: Thong tin, 1990), pp. 51–52. In his reminiscences, Ho Chi Minh presented what may have been a somewhat fanciful account of his arrival in Petrograd. According to this source, Nguyen Ai Quoc wrote to Marcel Cachin and Paul Vaillant-Couturier, who were both in Moscow at the time, to verify his identity. He said that his first words to the immigration official in Petrograd were that he wanted to see the great Lenin, but was informed that Lenin had just died, an obvious untruth. While awaiting permission to leave Petrograd he stayed at the Hotel International, See the excerpt from Glimpses/Life in Avec l’Oncle Ho, pp. 52–54.
2. Charles B. McLane, Soviet Strategies in Southeast Asia (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1966), p. 19; Nguyen Thanh, “The Communist International and the Indochinese Revolution,” in Tap chi Cong san [Communist Review] (February 1983), pp. 53–59, translated in JPRS, no. 83,452. In 1919, Leon Trotsky had already called for vigorous efforts to promote revolution in East Asia—see Anotoly A. Sokotov, Komintern i V’ietnam (Moscow: Iv Ran, 1998), p. 5.
3. Nguyen Thanh, “Communist International,” p. 69.
4. A copy of Quoc’s letter is located in the Ho Chi Minh Museum in Hanoi. Also see Alain Ruscio, ed., Ho Chi Minh: Textes, 1914–1969 (Paris: L’Harmattan, n.d.), pp. 50–53.
5. A Vietnamese-language version of this undated report, titled “Bao cao hui Quoc te Cong San” [Report to the Comintern], is reproduced in Toan Tap II
, vol. 1, pp. 203–5. Notes by “Nguyen Ai Quoc” in preparation for a meeting of the French delegation at the Dalburo on September 21, 1923, are located at the Ho Chi Minh Museum in Hanoi and probably formed the basis of the document. The term “national revolutionary” was adopted by the Comintern as a compromise at the behest of the Indian Communist M. N. Roy.
6. Toan Tap II, vol. 1, p. 204; Hong Ha, Ho Shi Min v Strane Sovetov [Ho Chi Minh in the Land of the Soviets] (Moscow: n.p., 1986), p. 59. This book is a Russian translation of the Vietnamese original. I have not been able to locate a copy of the latter. For the origins of the Peasant Intetnational, see George D. Jackson Jr., Comintern and Peasant in Eastern Europe, 1919–1930 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), chapter 3. On Nguyen Ai Quoc’s initial selection, see Kobelev, p. 61.
7. Hong Ha, V Strane Sovetov, p. 59, According to BNTS, vol. 1, pp. 197–98, he had been invited to make a few remarks on the opening day of the conference. In the speech, he compared Russian and Indochinese peasants. The Russian muzhik, he said, is like a man seated uncomfortably in a chair, while the Indochinese peasant is like a person attached to a post with his head at the bottom. The French-language version of the speech is located in the November 1923 report on the activities of Nguyen Ai Quoc in Russia; Series III, Carton 103, SLOTFOM, CAOM. For a translation into Vietnamese, see Toan Tap I, vol. 1, pp. 153–58. A more easily available indication of his views is his article entitled “Annamese Peasant Conditions,” in La Vie Ouvrière, January 4, 1924, which is contained in Bernard B. Fall, ed., Ho Chi Minh on Revolution: Selected Writings, 1920–1966 (New York: Praeger, 1967), pp. 24–26. Note his continuing use of the word “Annamese” to describe his compatriots. Not until the early 1940s would be begin systematically to use the emotive term “Vietnamese.”
8. Note on Krestintern meeting of 1923, SLOTFOM, Series III, Carton 112, CAOM. According to George D. Jackson, Comintern and Peasant, p. 74, Smirnov later tried to revive a right opposition to Stalin in 1932 and was purged.
Ho Chi Minh Page 83
