^1. There is some disagreement over the date of his arrival, some saying 12 1924, others early 1925. I am inclined to accept the earlier date which seems to be accepted in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.Google Scholar

^2. By comparison Indonesia had a fully-fledged communist party by 1921, and there was a South Seas Communist Party in Singapore by 1925.Google Scholar

^3. The details can be found in Phan Boi Chau's autobiography, Phan Boi Chau Nien Bieu (A Chronological Autobiography of Phan Boi Chau) (Hanoi, 1957), pp. 190–1. For a short analysis of Phan Boi Chau's approach to socialism, see my article, “Phan Boi Chau: Asian revolutionary in a changing world” in the Journal of Asian Studies, 11 1971.Google Scholar

^4. A recent Russian source says that the first paper on scientific socialism translated into Vietnamese was Marx's and Engels' Communist Manifesto, published in the journal Annam in 1925.Google Scholar See Mkhitarian, Suren A., Rabochii Klass i Natsional' no-Osvoboditel' noe Dvizhenie vo Vietname (The Working Class and the National-Liberation Movement in Vietnam) (Moscow, 1967), p. 153. Mkhitarian's work is the standard in the USSR on this period of Vietnamese history. It is particularly useful to the western scholar because Mkhitarian had access to D.R.V. archives and a number of works published in the north not now available outside the country.Google Scholar

^5. Besides Nguyen Ai Quoc himself there were labour union organizer Ton Duc Thang, Bui Lam, Duong Bach Mai, Bui Cong Trung, and Nguyen Van Tao. The latter later became a member of the Central Committee of the FCP and a delegate to the 6th Congress of the Comintern. See A. Ognetov, “Borba za Leninskuiu strategiu i taktiku v natsional'no-osvoboditel'nom dvizhenii vo Vietname” (“The struggle for a Leninist strategy and tactics in the National-Liberation Movement in Vietnam”) in Komintern i Vostok (Comintern and the East) (Moscow, 1969), p. 425.Google Scholar

^6. Several sources comment on FCP indifference. See McLane, Charles B., Soviet Strategies in Southeast Asia (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1966), p. 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For Nguyen's speech, see Jane, Degras (ed.), The Communist International: Documents (London: Oxford University Press, 1960), Vol. II, p. 156.Google Scholar

^7. It is not hard to imagine French socialists running for cover to avoid the lectures on colonialism provided by the young Vietnamese. See Jean, Fort, “Tri Butilky Champagne” (“Three bottles of champagne”) in Nash President Kho Shi Minh (Our President Ho Chi Minh) (Hanoi, 1963), p. 68.Google Scholar

^8. See Ho Chi Minh: Notre Camarade (Ho Chi Minh: Our Comrade) (Paris: Editions Sociales, 1970), p. 25.Google Scholar For Ho's own version, see his “The path to Leninism” in Gettleman, Marvin E. (ed.), Vietnam: History, Documents and Opinions on a Major World Crisis (New York: Fawcett, 1965), pp. 30–32.Google Scholar

^9. For information on his trip to Moscow, see “ Ho Chu Tich Noi Ve Chu Nghia Le Ninh Va Cach Mang Viet Nam” (“Chairman Ho talks about Leninism and the Vietnamese Revolution”) in Hoc Tap (03 1970), pp. 3–4.Google Scholar

^10. For a recent discussion of moderate nationalism in the 1920s, see Smith, R. B., “Bui Quang Chieu and the Constitutionalist Party in French Cochin China” in Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 3, Part 2 (04, 1969), pp. 133–50.Google Scholar

^11. Information on Pham Hong Thai is located in Tran Huy, Lieuet al., Tai Lieu Tham Khao Lich Su Cach Mang Can Dai Viet Nam (Historical Research Materials Concerning the Modern Revolution in Vietnam) (hereafter Cach Mang Can Dai), 12 volumes, Volume IVGoogle Scholar, Phong Trao Dau Tranh Doi Tu Do Dan Chu Va Cac Chinh Dang Thanh Lap Sau Dai Chien Lan Thu Nhat (The Struggle Movement for Democratic Freedoms and all the Political Parties Formed after the First World War) (Hanoi, 1958), pp. 121–6Google Scholar; see also Phan Boi, Chau (tr. Chuong Thau), Truyen Pham Hong Thai (The Story of Pham Hong Thai) (Hanoi, 1967), pp. 108–44.Google Scholar

^12. It has sometimes been charged that Phan's arrest was deliberately staged by Nguyen Ai Quoc in order to obtain the reward money and create a martyr for the revolutionary cause. Communist sources strenuously deny this and retort that his betrayal was engineered by Nguyen Thuong Huyen, a member of his own organization. Until recently, Nguyen Ai Quoc's involvement has been accepted rather uncritically in western literature. Although evidence now available is not sufficient to prove either case, it is possible that a nationalist later closely associated with the Revolutionary Youth League, Lam Duc Thu, was involved in the plot, but I have seen no evidence that shows that Nguyen Ai Quoc himself was implicated. For a more detailed discussion, see David, Marr, Vietnamese Anti-colonialism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971), pp. 260–1.Google Scholar

^13. For a discussion of Lenin's theories in an Asian context, see , McLane, Soviet Strategies in Southeast Asia, pp. 11–27.Google Scholar

^14. The question had come up at the 5th Congress of the Comintern: if there was no mass party, should the communist party found one? It was decided that leadership should not be left to the bourgeois parties. See Degras, Communist International, Vol. II, p. 156.Google Scholar

^15. Nien Bieu, p. 201.Google Scholar

^16. Some say 1924. Mkhitarian, 158–9.Google Scholar

^17. See Gouvernement Générale de l'Indochine (Direction des Affaires Politiques et de la Sûrété Génerale), Contribution a l'histoire des Mouvements Politiques de I'Indochine Française (henceforward Contribution). Five Volumes, Vol. IV (Dong-Duong Cong San Dang), p. 15.Google Scholar

^18. This did not demand much ideological contortion, for Nguyen Ai Quoc had already accepted the concept of a two-stage revolution, from a bourgeois-democratic first stage to an ultimate socialist stage.Google Scholar

^19. For the organization and statutes, see Cach Mang Can Dai, Vol. IV, pp. 132–3, and 137–42. Later the headquarters were moved to Kwangsi and then Hong Kong when Canton ceased to be friendly to League activities.Google Scholar

^20. Tran Van, Giau, Giai Cap Cong Nhan Viet Nam (The Working Class of Vietnam) (Hanoi, 1961), pp. 389–90. This is perhaps the single most valuable source on the period now available.Google Scholar

^21. For why it was abandoned, see Contribution, Vol. IV, p. 16. Other brief references to the League can be found in Tran Van Giau, p. 369, and Tran Dan, Tien, Nhung Mao Chuyen Ve Doi Hoat Dong Cua Ho Chu Tich (Glimpses of the Life of Ho Chi Minh) (Hanoi, 1960), p. 61.Google Scholar

^22. Those mentioned include Nguyen Ai Quoc, Ho Tung Mau, Le Hong Phong, Le Hong Son, Truong Van Lenh, Luu Quoc Long, and Le Thuat Hung. See Mkhitarian, p. 195. Contribution, Vol. IV, p. 15, mentions six members: Nguyen Ai Quoc, Ho Tung Mau, Le Hong Son, Le Hong Phong, Le Quang Dat, and Truong Van Lenh. Eventually the group apparently expanded to 24. See Vu, Tho, “Qua Trinh Thanh Lap Dang Vo San O Viet Nam Da Duoc Dien Ra Nhu The Nao?” (“How did the process of forming a proletarian party in Vietnam take place?”) in Nghien Cuu Lich Su (Historical Research), No. 71 (02 1965), p. 18.Google Scholar

^23. It was called the Viet Nam Cach Mang Dac Biet Huan Luyen Chinh Tri Ban (Vietnamese Revolutionary Special Political Training Department). Tran Van Giau, p. 369.Google Scholar

^24. Vu Tho, p. 18; Tran Van Giau, p. 392.Google Scholar

^25. This book is not available to me. It is discussed in Tran Van Giau, pp. 380–6.Google Scholar

^26. Ibid. p. 393.

^27. Mkhitarian, p. 163.Google Scholar

^28. Tran Van Giau, p. 383.Google Scholar

^29. Ibid. p. 394.

^30. Contribution, Vol. IV, pp. 19–20, says that most North Vietnamese members were workers, while the membership in the centre and south was mixed. Tran Van Giau disputes this, and asserts that most members in the north were petit bourgeois. See Tran Van Giau, p. 395.Google Scholar

^31. Ibid. pp. 375–6.

^32. Information on the Youth Party can be found in Cach Mang Can Dai, Vol. IV, pp. 15–20Google Scholar, and Tran Huy, Lieu, Dang Thanh Nien (The Youth Party) (Hanoi, 1961). Tran Huy Lieu was once a member of the party himself.Google Scholar

^33. For the sake of brevity and convenience, this party will be referred to hereafter as the Revolutionary Party.Google Scholar

^34. For two opposing views, see Contribution, Vol. I, pp. 1–13, and Tran Van Giau, pp. 397–8.Google Scholar

^35. For an example of the Revolutionary Party's Marxism, see Dao Duy, Anh's “Study of the Vietnamese Revolution” in Contribution, Vol. IGoogle Scholar, and the discussion in Sacks, I. Milton, “Marxism in Vietnam,” in Frank, Trager (ed.), Marxism in Southeast Asia (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1959), p. 120.Google Scholar

^36. There are long discussions of the VNQDD in Contribution, Vol. IIIGoogle Scholar, and Cach Mang Can Dai, Vol. IV.Google Scholar

^37. Contribution, Vol. I, pp. 16–20.Google Scholar

^38. Ibid. p. 35.

^39. Apparently the party headquarters at Vinh was made up of the most conservative elements. Tran Van Giau, p. 399.Google Scholar

^40. Contribution, Vol. I, p. 44, and Vol. II, p. 9.Google Scholar

^41. Ibid. Vol. II, p. 9. Nguyen Ai, Quoc was quite active in Siam. See Fort, Nash President, pp. 135–56.Google Scholar

^42. Tran Van Giau, p. 425.Google Scholar

^43. Ibid. p. 431.

^44. For some of their activities, see Truong, Chinh, President Ho Chi Minh (Hanoi, 1966); and Tran Van Giau, pp. 410–16.Google Scholar

^45. Mkhitarian, p. 212.Google Scholar

^46. Degras, Communist International, Vol. II, p. 527.Google Scholar The Vietnamese delegate who made the speech was Nguyen Van Tao. There were two other Vietnamese there. Whether Nguyen Ai Quoc was one of them is unknown. For comments on Comintern neglect, see , McLane, Soviet Strategy in Southeast Asia, p. 106, n.Google Scholar

^47. For a discussion, see Kermit, McKenzie, Comintern and World Revolution, 1928–1943 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1964), passim, especially pp. 96–110.Google Scholar

^48. Members were Tran Van Cung, Ngo Gia Tu, Trinh Dinh Cuu, Duong Hac Dinh, Nguyen Van Tuan, and Nguyen Duc Canh. Cach Mang Can Dai, Vol. VI, p. 45.Google Scholar

^49. Mkhitarian says that 30 representatives met in April. See Mkhitarian, p. 225. For the secret plans of the group, see Cach Mang Can Dai, Vol. VI, p. 45.Google Scholar

^50. There is some divergence on the number of representatives. For the various figures, see Tran Van, Giau, p. 433; Contribution, Vol. I, pp. 56–7; Mkhitarian, p. 226.Google Scholar

^51. Mkhitarian, p. 226.Google Scholar

^52. There was no indication as to how the voting went. For information on the conference, see Tran Van Giau, pp. 433–4.Google Scholar

^53. There are a number of unfavourable references to Lam Duc Thu in the literature on the period. For example, King, Chen, Vietnam and China, 1938–1954 (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1969), pp. 25–6, refers to his “luxurious living.” Tran Van Giau asserts that other members “lacked confidence in him,” p. 433.Google Scholar

^54. Duong Hac, Dinh stayed, either because of an ideological disagreement or because the renegades wanted to see what happened at the conference after they departed. See Cach Mang Can Dai, Vol. VI, p. 46.Google Scholar

^55. Ibid. Vol. IV, pp. 143–69 has the Vietnamese version. Mkhitarian criticizes the document as too sectarian in its call for confiscation and a dictatorship of the proletariat. Mkhitarian, pp. 228–30. This, he says, merely alienated the petit bourgeosie unnecessarily.

^56. Tran Van Giau stated what seems to be official opinion when he commented that the rebels were right in feeling that the time was ripe for the creation of a communist party. At the same time he criticizes both sides for their stubbornness. Tran Van Giau, p. 439.Google Scholar

^57. Although it is not clear in the context, this letter appears to be different from a later one sent by the Comintern after the split at the May Conference. Tran Van Giau, pp. 442–5.Google Scholar

^58. For the Vietnamese language version, see Cach Mang Can Dai, Vol. IV, pp. 170–3. The French language version is located in Contribution, Vol. I, annex 2.Google Scholar

^59. Mkhitarian, p. 236, lists the members of the central committee.Google Scholar

^60. An extended discussion of this period is given in Nguyen Nghia, “Cong Cuoc Hop Nhat Cac To Chuc Cong San Dau Tien O Viet Nam Va Vai Tro Cua Dong Chi Nguyen Ai Quoc” (“The Unification of the first communist organizations in Vietnam and the role of Comrade Nguyen Ai Quoc”), NCLS, No. 59 (02 1964), pp. 3–4. According to this source, Tran Tu Thinh, one of the CPI envoys in Cochin China, actually rejected advances by the Annam Communist Party.Google Scholar

^61. There is some disagreement on the date. Tran Van, Giau, p. 457, mentions November 1929. Contribution, Vol. IV, p. 22, and Nguyen Nghia, p. 3, take August as the founding date. No date is mentioned in any sources for the second Hong Kong meeting.Google Scholar

^62. The letter is located in a French version in Contribution, Vol. IV, annex 7. A Vietnamese version is located in Hoc Tap, No. 1 (1960). Comments on the letter are found in Ognetov, Komintern i Vostok, pp. 430–1.Google Scholar

^63. Mkhitarian seems to think so but he is vague on dates. Contribution, Vol. IV, p. 26, says that the letter did not arrive until December, although it was sent in October. This was probably after the first unification meeting.Google Scholar

^64. Several sources discuss the conference. See Nguyen Nghia, pp. 4–5; Tran Van Giau, pp. 481–2. The latter source criticizes the CPI for placing unacceptable conditions on a merger.Google Scholar

^65. Mkhitarian, p. 248, says that there were two delegates from the CPI, Nguyen Duc Canh and Trinh Dinh Cuu. Nguyen Nghia has information on ACP activities during this period, pp. 5–6. It had two leading committees, one in Cochin China and the other in Hong Kong.Google Scholar

^66. Ho Chi Minh: Notre Camarade claims that at least one of the meetings was held in a football stadium during a match. See p. 45.Google Scholar

^67. Cach Mang Can Dai, Vol. VI, pp. 134–40 has the texts in Vietnamese. The North Vietnamese delegates were Trinh Dinh Cuu and Nguyen Duc Canh.Google Scholar

^68. Nguyen, Nghia, “Cong Cuoc Hop Nhat Cac To Chuc Cong San O Trong Nuoc Sau Hoi Nghi Huong Cang Va Viec To Chuc Ban Trung Uong Lam Thoi Dau Tien” (“The unification of all communist organizations in the country after the Hong Kong Conference and the organization of the first Provisional Central Committee”), NCLS, No. 62 (05 1964), pp. 55–9.Google Scholar

^69. Ibid.Ironically, both of those arrested were among those workers the ACP had struggled so hard to find.Google Scholar

^70. The Comintern later found fault with some of the actions taken at the time, notably the unseemly haste, which allowed many fellow-travellers into the party. See , Ognetov, Komintern i Vostok, p. 435.Google Scholar It was also at this meeting that the name of the party was again changed to Indochinese Communist Party (CPI) at the request of the Comintern. For a discussion of the reasons for the name change, see Tran Huy, Lieu, Lich Su Tarn Muoi Nam Chong Phap (The History of 80 Years of Resistance to the French) (Hanoi: Van Su Dia, 1958), Vol. II, part A, pp. 35–6.Google Scholar

^71. The difficulties in maintaining contact must have only increased when the CPI Central Committee moved to Saigon in mid-1930.Google Scholar

^72. There is a discussion of this issue in Tran Huy, Lieu, see Lich Su, Vol. II, part A, p. 60.Google Scholar The October Political Programme is given in a Vietnamese version in Buoc Ngoat Vi Dai cua Lich Su Cach Mang Viet Nam (A Great Step in the History of the Vietnamese Revolution) (Hanoi: Bureau for the History of the Party, no date), pp. 78–89.Google Scholar

^73. Cach Mang Can Dai, Vol. VI, p. 93.Google Scholar

^74. Not surprisingly, the Comintern was quick to criticize the errors of the CPI, although in a letter from the Far Eastern Bureau to Nguyen Ai Quoc in Hong Kong in May 1931, the Comintern criticized tactics more than strategy. The Vietnamese translation of the letter is in Cach Mang Can Dai, Vol. VI, pp. 185–92. A French version is in Contribution, Vol. IV.Google Scholar

^75. See Sacks, “Marxism in Vietnam,” pp. 133–43.Google Scholar