13. Quoc’s undated report to the Comintern Executive Committee was probably written in late September. A copy is contained in Toan Tap I, vol. 3, pp. 27–28.
14. The article is published in A. Neuberg, ed., Armed Insurrection (London: NLB, 1970), pp. 255–71 (emphasis in original). According to Pierre Rousset, the article had been ordered by Ossip Piatnitsky, the new head of the Comintern, later to be purged by Stalin. Erich Wollenberg helped to edit the article and later remarked that Nguyen Ai Quoc opposed the decision by the CCP leadership to launch the Canton uprising and said that it was doomed to failure—see Rousset, Communisme, pp. 62–63. Rousset raises doubts that Quoc wrote the article, since it did not mention Vietnam, but the latter had specifically mentioned to acquaintances that he was writing an article on the subject of the Chinese revolution. For a brief discussion of Quoc’s views, see Nguyen Ai Quoc o Quang Chau [Nguyen Ai Quoc in Canton] (Hanoi: Chinh tri Quoc gia, 1998), pp. 159–61.
15. For Nguyen Ai Quoc’s comments in these discussions and his colleagues’ response, see the Declaration of Ngo Duc Tri, in SPCE, Carton 367, CAOM. In his March 1930 report to the Comintern, Quoc criticized Party cadres for prematurely forming “sovier” organizations in villages not under their firm control—see “Bao cao gui Quoc te Cong san,” pp. 35–36.
16. The document is contained in Van kien Dang (1920–1945) [Party Documents (1930–1945)], vol. 1 (Hanoi: Ban nghien cuu lich su Dang truong uong, 1977), pp. 58–60. The author of this directive is not indicated. The only copy available was evidently located in the Comintern archives and bore the notation “Lettre du CC Comité région en Annam Concernant les Soviets, septembre 1930.” The directive was signed Trung uong (Central). Because there was no formal central committee inside the country at the time, I have concluded that it was probably drafted by Nguyen Ai Quoc, with the possible assistance of Tran Phu and any other members of the provisional central committee who had already arrived in Hong Kong for the first plenum. Trung uong became the common term within the Party to refer to the central leadership.
17. Cited in Trung Chinh, “Tinh chat tu phat cua xo viet Nghe Tinh” [The spontaneous character of the Nghe Tinh soviets], in NCLS, no. 31 (October 1961), p. 4, Where the journal was published in unclear.
18. A French-language translation of this circular is contained in SPCE, dossier 2637, Carton 326, CAOM. It seems likely that this message was issued before the regional committee’s admonishment had been received. The provincial committee did concede that the movement had suffered severe losses in recent weeks as the result of a lack of discipline and poor planning. I have been unable to locate any accurate information regarding the number of assassinations that took place at the time.
19. Declaration of Ngo Duc Tri, in SPCE, Carton 367, CAOM. There is some discrepancy on dates in the recollections of various participants, perhaps because some of them were referring to the lunar calendar. Also see Bui Lam’s memoirs of the meeting in Tap chi Cong san [Communist Review], no. 9 (September 1982), and the Declaration of Nguyen Van Sau in SPCE, Carton 365, CAOM.
20. Declaration of Nguyen Van Sau, in SPCE, Carton 365, CAOM. The sequence of events during this period is somewhat confusing, and it is possible that the trip to Shanghai was undertaken prior to the final decision to hold the conference.
21. Declaration of Ngo Duc Tri in SPCE, Carton 367, CAOM; Van kien Dang Toan tap, vol. 2, p. 268. Others in attendance were Tran Phu (Ly Quy), Le Mao (Cat), Nguyen Trong Nghia (Nhat), and Ngo Duc Tri (Van) representing Cochin China, Ho Tung Mau (Ich), Bui Cong Trung, and Bui Lam. Tran Van Lam (Giap) was the delegate who got lost in Hong Kong. See Bui Lam, “Nguyen Ai Quoc and the First Plenum of the Party Central Committee (October),” in Tap chi Cong san, no. 9 (September 1982), translated in JPRS, no. 82,610.
22. Report titled “L’Action déterminante de Nguyen Ai Quoc dans la création du Parti National Communiste Annamite,” appendix 1 (“Critique du travail”) in SPCE, Carton 367, CAOM.
23. “Tho cua trung uong gui cho cac cap dang bo” [Letter by the Center to all Party branches], in Van kien Dang (1930–1945), vol. 1, pp. 189–200. For a French-language version, see “Lettre du CC au sections différentes,” December 9, 1930, in SPCE, Carton 367, CAOM. For an interesting discussion of the issue of the “growing over” of the revolution, see Rousset, Communisme, p. 108.
24. Tran Van Cung, Buoc ngoat vi dai cua lich su cach mang Via Nam [A great step for the history of the Vietnamese revolution] (Hanoi: Ban Nghien cuu lich su Dang, n.d.), pp. 78–79. The program is reproduced in Van kien Dang (1930–1945), vol. 1, pp. 61–77. Nguyen Ai Quoc, of course, had criticized the Tam Tam Xa on his arrival in Canton in late 1924 for precisely those tendencies.
25. See “Truyen don giai thiec viec doi ten Dang” [Announcement on the decision to change the name of the Party], in Van kien Dang (1930–1945), vol. 1, pp. 177–78. Also see “Thong cao cho eac xu uy” [A directive to all regional committees], in ibid., pp. 182–86.
26. “An nghi quyet cua trung uong toan the hoi nghi ve tinh hinh hien tai o Dong duong va nhiem vu cap kip cua Dang” [Resolution by the Central Committee on the current situation in Indochina and the urgent tasks of the Party], report dated October 1930, in ibid., pp. 78–92. These views were passed on to Party members inside Indochina in an undared report titled “Thu gui cho Dang Cong san Dong duong” [Letter to the Indochinese Communist Party], in Van kien Dang Toan tap, vol. 2, pp. 284–314. I surmise that the author was Tran Phu.
27. “Thong cao cho dong chi” [Directive to Comrades], in Van kien Dang (1930–1945), vol. 1, pp. 169–71.
28. Declaration of Ngo Duc Tri in SPCE, Carton 367, CAOM. Names of other members of the Central Committee, as well as key members of the various regional committees, are located in T.C, “Cac co so,” pp. 21–23; and dossier 18, Note Périodique (April-May 1931), in SLOTFOM, Series III, Carton 48, CAOM.
29. See Declaration of Ngo Duc Tri in SPCE, Carton 367, CAOM. Also Bui Lam, “Nguyen Ai Quoc.” Some observers in Vietnam and abroad maintain that Nguyen Ai Quoc did not attend the October plenum. From the evidence, it seems clear that he did.
30. Van kien Dang (1930–1945), vol, 1, pp. 175–81. This decree is puzzling, since it implicitly contradicts many of the views expressed by the Tran Phu faction in October. Some scholars in Hanoi speculate that the November circular might have been wtitten by Nguyen Ai Quoc himself, but it is specifically indicated that it had been issued by the Standing Committee. See I. N. Ognetov, “Kominterni tevoliutsionnoe dvizhenie vo Vietname” [The Comintern and the Revolutionary Movement in Vietnam], in Ksmintem i Vostok [The Comintern and the East] (Moscow; n.p., 1969), p. 435.
31. “Tho cua Trung uong ghi,” pp. 189–200. For similar comments on the reactionary character of the bourgeoisie, see “Thu gut cho Dang Cong,” pp. 284–314. In so defining the united Front, the Sranding Committee was only carrying out Comintern directives—see Noulens’ letter of November 13, 1930, to the ICP in Van kien Dang Toan tap, vol. 2, p. 274–83.
32. “Thong cao cac xu uy” [Directive to all regional committees], in Van kien Dang (1930–1945), pp. 201–11. For a version in French, see “Lettre du sécretariat aux organes régionaux,” in SPCE, Carton 367, CAOM.
33. Toan Tap I, vol. 3, pp. 29–31.
34. Letter from Nguyen Ai Quoc to FEB, January 29, 1931, in SPCE, Carton 367, CAOM.
35. Undated letter in ibid. The context suggests that the letter may have been written on February 12 and sent with a copy of Tran Phu’s previous letter.
36. Dossier 127, Series III, in SLOTFOM, Carton 44, CAOM. Also see SPCE, Carton 368, CAOM.
37. Letter from Lefranc to Fat Eastern Bureau in Shanghai, March 7, 1931, in SPCE, Carton 364, CAOM.
38. Information from “Nga” (Ngo Duc Tri) in Note Confidentielle no. 1967, May 29, 1931, in SPCE, Carton 365, CAOM. Lefranc’s postcard to Quoc in Hong Kong in ibid. read: “My old friend, Here I am well established in the good city of Saigon where it is quite hot. I met your two cousins and I am happy to be
able to tell you that they are doing famously. On Sunday I went to the races but didn’t win anything. Everything goes well here and I think that my affairs will be soon completed. I plan to return to Hong Kong at the anticipated date. Thus, I will see you soon. I will inform you of my arrival. Best wishes, Ferrand.”
39. Letter of executive committee of the regional committee of Annam to the regional committee of Tonkin, March 3, 1931, and decisions of the provincial committee of Ha Tinh, March 25–31, 1931, both in Note Périodique, May 1931, in Series III, SLOTFOM, Carton 49, CAOM. Nguyen Duc Canh was executed by the French in July 1932.
40. The resolution is contained in Van kien Dang (1930–1945), vol. 1, pp. 227–49.
41. According to dossier 3, Note Périodique, May 1931, in SLOTFOM, Series III, Carton 115, Tri was seized on April 2. Under interrogation, he was given the name “Nga.” Several other leaders, including Ho Tung Mau and Nguyen Phong Sac, were arrested in succeeeding weeks (the former British police in Hong Kong). Ho Tung Mau was later released but Sac, who had directed the movement in the central provinces for several months, was executed.
42. “Pis’mo TsK Indo-Kitaya,” dated April 17, 1931, in Comintern archives, Carton 495, folder 154, file 462. Nguyen Ai Quoc shared many of these views, although he placed the responsibility elsewhere. Writing as “Viktor” to Noulens on April 28, Quoc complained that many Party members of worker or peasant extraction were illirerate. Despite their courage, they worked poorly and their ideological awareness was low. As a result, they depended entirely on intellectuals and had strong tendencies toward terrorism and “putschism.” See letter by Viktor in ibid., Carton 495, Folder 154, File 462. In this letter he reported Tran Phu’s escape from the French in early April.
43. The letter, stamped April 2, 1931, is in the Comintern archives, Carton 495, folder 154, file 462. Noulens had become aware that part of the problem within the ICP was rooted in the personality conflict between Nguyen Ai Quoc and Tran Phu. In a letter to Serge Lefranc dated May 20, 1931, he remarked that relations between Quoc and the ICP Central Committee were not especially good, but that the former should eventually be able to resolve the difficulties with his colleagues. See letter from Shanghai to Ducroux, May 20, 1931, in SPCE, Carton 364, CAOM.
44. Letters by Viktor, April 20 and 24, 1931, in SPCE, Carton 365, CAOM.
45. On the death of Tran Phu, see the Letter to Minister of Colonies, March 22, 1933, in SPCE, dossier 640, Carton 55, CAOM, and Ton Quang Duyet, “Mot vai y kien bo sung ve lich su hai dong chi Tran Phu va Nguyen Thi Minh Khai” [Some additional opinions on the biographies of Tran Phu and Nguyen Thi Minh Khai], in NCLS, no. 139 (July–August 1971).
46. Tran Huy Lieu, Les Soviets, p. 40. Reports of the decline of the movement are in SLOTFOM, Series III, Carton 49, CAOM.
47. The Information on the drought is in Report of M. Favre, June 27, 1931, in SPCE, dossier 2686, Carton 333, CAOM.
48. Comintern archives, letter of May 12, 1931, Carton 495, folder 154, file 569.
49. Ton Quang Duyet, “Mot vai y kien.”
50. Lam Duc Thu’s comments about Tuyet Minh’s feelings toward Nguyen Ai Quoc appear in the interrogation of Lesquendieu (Le Quang Dat), October 28, 1931, in SPCE, Carton 367, CAOM. For rumors of her alleged encounter with Quoc in Hong Kong, see ibid. According to Lam Duc Thu, by that time she had already remarried. The letter from Nguyen Ai Quoc to Tuyet Minh expressing sorrow over their separation is in the French archives—see Daniel Hémery, Ho Chi Minh: De l’Indochine au Vietnam (Paris: Gallimard, 1990), p. 145.
51. Both letters, undated, are located in the Comintern archives, Carton 495, Folder 154, File 469. Information on Minh Khai’s arrest in Hong Kong (under the name of Duy) is contained in Declaration of Nguyen Van Sau, September 3, 1931, SPCE, Carton 367, CAOM.
52. Letter of Nguyen Ai Quoc to CC/CPM [Central Committee, Communist Party of Malaya], May 9, 1931. Letter from Ly Phat [Nguyen Ai Quoc] to Joseph Ducroux, May 15, 1931. See SPCE, Carton 364, CAOM. In the latter, written in disappearing ink, Quoc reported that links with Indochina were still broken, as were those with the Siamese Communist Party. “The other route” to Malaya has also been destroyed, since we lost our “Chinese friend.” The author asked Ducroux to work with the Siamese Communist Party as it had “been neglected too long,” In his letter to Lefranc on May 20, Noulens asked him to pass on information on the activities of the Malayan Party since he had lost contact with them. “Is there a Center? Is there any mass work being carried out?” He asked Lefranc to find someone to work in the Dutch East Indies, preferably a Hindu. See ibid.
53. Telegram from Singapore, June 2, 1931, and letter, consulat de France, Hong Kong, June 10, 1931, both in SPCE, Carton 365, CAOM. Also see Jean Onraet, Singapore: A Police Background (London: Dorothy Crisp, 1941), pp. 110–15.
54. The French had already discovered that Quoc was in Hong Kong when they captured his last letter to Tran Phu on a courier in April—see Dang Hoa, Bac Ho: Nhung Nam Thang o Nuoc Ngoai [Uncle Ho: The months and years abroad] (Hanoi: Thong tin, 1990), p. 91. The French consul reported that his address in Hong Kong was 104 Tan Truong Road. Onraet gave his address as 49 Kai Yee Street, which may have been the location of his office. In his memoirs, Ho Chi Minh declared that he had been arrested at 186 Tarn Lung Road in Kowloon—see T. Lan, Vua di duong, Vua ke chuyen [Walking and Talking] (Hanoi: Su that, 1976), p. 40. On the circumstances of his atrest, see Telegram, Sûreté in Saigon to Ditsutge [Director, Sûreté Générale], Hanoi, June 2, 1931, and letter, Consulat de France, Hong Kong, June 10, 1931, both in SPCE, Carton 365, CAOM; cable, Sûreté Générale in Hanoi to French concession in Shanghai, September 26, 1931, in SPCE, Carton 368, CAOM.
VII | Into the Wilderness
1. International Red Aid was an organization set up to assist revolutionary activitists in need throughout the world. According to Frederick S. Litten, the police found Noulens’s telegraph address among Lefranc’s possessions. After investigation, the Shanghai authorities discovered that Noulens operated out of several addresses, but eventually they located a key for his office in the Central Arcade Building on Nanjing Road, in the heart of Shanghai’s business district. It was here that they found incriminating documents relating to his activities as a Comintern agent. See Litten, “The Noulens Affair,” in China Quarterly, no. 138 (June 1994), p. 494. Hilaire Noulens has sometimes been identified as Paul Ruegge, but Babette Gross, the wife of the German Communist Willi Munzenberg, maintained that the Ruegges, a Swiss couple involved in radical causes, were actually in Moscow at that time. According to information available to the British scholar Dennis Duncanson, Soviet authorities at the time regularly relieved visiting delegates of their passports and copied them or lent them to fellow agents serving abroad. See Babette Gross, Willi Munzenberg (Stuttgart: n.p., 1967), p. 235, cited in Dennis Duncanson, “Ho Chi Minh in Hong Kong, 1931–1932,” in China Quarterly, no. 57 (January–March 1974), fn 25. It is now believed that Noulens was a Ukrainian named either Luft or Jakov Rudnik. See Litten, “Noulens Affait,” and Frederick Wakeman, Jr., Policing Shanghai, 1927–1937 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), pp. 149–150. According to Wakeman, Noulens and his wife were probably eliminated during the Stalin purges of the late 1930s, The South China Morning Post, on July 4, 1931, reported the denial of the Belgian consulate that Noulens and his wife, Mrs. Van der Cruysen, were Belgian—see SPCE, Carton 365, CAOM.
2. Gov Tel 124, July 1, 1931, and Gov Tel 142, July 24, 1931, both in CO 129/535/3. The best single published source for information on Nguyen Ai Quoc’s arrest is Duncanson’s “Ho Chi Minh in Hong Kong.”
3. Duncanson, “Ho Chi Minh in Hong Kong,” p. 92. In T. Lan, Vua di duong, vua ke chuyen [Walking and talking] (Hanoi: Su that, 1976), p. 41, Ho Chi Minh later explained that when Ho Tung Mau heard of his arrest, he told Loseby, who obviously had connections with Communist elements operating in the colony.
4. Duncanson, “Ho Chi Minh in Hong Kong,” pp. 91–94.
5. Letter fro
m Howard Smith of the Foreign Office to the undersecretary in the Colonial Office, July 28, 1931, in CO 129/539/2, PRO. Also see Duncanson, “Ho Chi Minh in Hong Kong,” p. 93.
6. Notes by Calder, August 14 and 17, 1931, and Ransom, August 4, 1931, in dossier titled “Arrest of Nguyen Ai Quoc,” in CO 129/535/3, PRO.
7. Hong Kong Weekly Press, August 28, 1931. Nguyen Ai Quoc was awarded HK $7,500 in damages as compensation for the irregularities in the banishment inquiry. See Duncanson, “Ho Chi Minh in Hong Kong,” pp. 93–95. The young woman, who had been identified by French intelligence sources as Le Ung Thuan, was freed on August 20 from Victotia Prison. In September she arrived in Nanjing, where she stayed at the home of Ho Hoc Lam, her husband’s father and a Kuomintang military officer with close ties to the ICP (see chaptet 8). It was at Lam’s house in Hangzhou that Phan Boi Chau had stayed prior to his arrest by the French. Hanoi telegram, Sûreté Générale to French Concession Shanghai, September 26, 1931, in SPCE, Carton 368, CAOM. Before her departure she met with Nguyen Ai Quoc in prison at his request and told him that she would go to Shanghai to carry out his instructions. See Pinot report, Envoi no. 624, September 8, 1931, marginal note in report of September 9, 1931, signed by S. G, Néron, in ibid.
8. T. Lan, Vua di duong, p. 49. A literal translarion of Ho’s comment to the nurse is “so that employees with blue collars [Chinese nurses] would not have to take orders from superiors with red collars [English chief nurses].” For other comments about how he passed the time, see Glimpses/Life, pp. 37–38, and report of Pinot in Envoi no. 624, September 8, 1931, in dossier labeled “Rapports d’agents 1931,” in SPCE, Carton 369, CAOM. Also see Ly Ung Thuan letter to Lam Duc Thu, Envoi no. 633, October 24, 1931, in ibid.
Ho Chi Minh Page 87
