1. See Bing, Dov, “Revolution in China: Sneevlietian strategy,” xvii, 247 pages, M.A. thesis, University of Auckland, 1968Google Scholar. The translation into Chinese and publication of this study is being undertaken by the History Department of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. It will appear in the next three or four issues of Shih Ch'ao, the first of which was due out in September of this year.

2. See Sneevliet, H. and Westerveld, , “Toetreding van Europeanen tot de Sarekat Islam” (“Admission of Europeans as Members to the Sarekat Islam”), Het Vrije Woord (The Free World) (Semarang), 10 11 1916Google Scholar. See also Perthus, Max (ed.), Voor Vrijheid en Socialisme (For Freedom and Socialism) (Rotterdam, 1953), p. 52Google Scholar. Only a few copies of this book were issued for private distribution. Besides a series of articles commemorating Sneevliet and his friends, members of the outlawed Marx-Lenin-Luxemburg Front in German-occupied Holland, the book contains four valuable documents on the Chinese Revolution. These are referred to below in footnotes 4, 58, 63 and 76. See also Isaacs, Harold, “Notes on a Conversation with H. Sneevliet: The Chinese Question, 1920–23,” Amsterdam, 19 08 1935Google Scholar; published in The China Quarterly, No. 45 (01–03 1971), pp. 102–109.Google Scholar

3. Blumberger, J. Th. Petrus, De Nationalistiche Beweging in Nederlandsch-Indie (The Nationalistic Movement in the Dutch Indies) (Haarlem, 1931), pp. 65, 76.Google Scholar

4. Het Vrije Woord, 5 09 1920Google Scholar. Sneevliet, 's Sarekat Islam and Partij der Kommunisten in Indie certificate of authority, 5 09 1921Google Scholar; in Voor Vrijheid en Socialisme …, p. 60Google Scholar. The original document was typed on linen to enable Sneevliet to hide it. It was issued at a time when Sneevliet was already in Shanghai and thus it should be noted that he represented the above-mentioned parties without formal authorization to do so. A translation of this document and a detailed analysis of the Second Congress of the Comintern can be found in Bing, Dov, “Revolution in China: Sneevlietian strategy,” pp. 23–44, 160–61.Google Scholar

5. Schram, Stuart R., Mao Tse-tung (Hannondsworth: Penguin, 1966)Google Scholar. Kung-po, Ch'en, The Communist Movement in China, edited with an introduction by Wilbur, C. Martin (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966)Google Scholar. The work of Professors Schram and Wilbur first inspired me to embark upon this venture into Chinese history. I am indebted to both for their encouragement and advice in the preparation of this study.

6. Blumberger, J. Th. Petrus, De Communistische Beweging in Nederlandsch-Indie (The Communist Movement in the Dutch Indies'), second revised edition (Haarlem, 1935) p. 2Google Scholar. Voor Vrijheid en Socialisme…. p. 51.Google Scholar

7. Sneevliet, H., Mijn Uitzetting. Vergeefsch Verweer legen de Eerste Polilieke Externeering ander de Nieuwe Koers (My Expulsion, Unsuccessful Defence against the First Political Expulsion under the New Policy), privately published (Semarang, n.d.). Voor Vrijheid en Socialisme …, p. 59.Google Scholar

8. See note 4. Maring, G., “Niederländisch-Ost-Indien. Bericht für den Kongress der Kommunistischen Internationale. Die sozialen Verhältnisse und die Entwicklung der revolutionären Bewegung” (“Dutch Bast Indies. Report for the Congress of the Communist International. The Social Conditions and the Development of the Revolutionary Movement”), Berichte zum zweiten Kongress der Kommunistische Internationale (Report to the Second Congress of the Communist International) (Hamburg, 1921), pp. 391–410Google Scholar. See Bing, Dov, “Revolution in China: Sneevlietian strategy,” pp. 171–193Google Scholar for a translation of this report. See also “Notes on a Conversation with H. Sneevliet,” The China Quarterly, No. 45. Der Zweite Kongress der Kommunistische Internationale: Protokoll der Verhandlungen vom 19. Juli in Petrograd und vom 23. Juli bis 7. August, 1920 in Moskau (The Second Congress of the Communist International: Protocol of the Proceedings from 19 July in Petrograd and from 23 July till 7 August 1920 in Moscow) (Hamburg, 1921), p. 661.Google Scholar

9. Graftdijk, K., “Sneevliet's Rijke Rode Leven” (“Sneevliet's Rich Red Life”), Het Vrije Volk (The Free People) (Amsterdam), No. 6706 (8 04 1967).Google Scholar

10. Voor Vrijheid en Socialisme …, p. 60.Google Scholar

11. Maring, M., “Bericht des Genossen H. Maring für die Executive”Google Scholar (“Report of Comrade H. Maring for the Executive”). This is Sneevliet's report to the Executive Committee of the Comintern (ECCI), which he submitted after his first mission to China. The original manuscript dated Moscow, 11 July 1922, is 13 folio pages long, typed in German and contains a complete and detailed account of Sneevliet's activities in China up to May 1922 as well as his recommendations on the Chinese question to the ECCI. An English translation of the manuscript will appear in my forthcoming book on the establishment and first years of the CCP. The report also contains much valuable information on the Communist Parties of Korea, Japan and Indonesia. While in Holland in May-June 1922, Sneevliet apparently forwarded a copy of his report by ordinary mail to the ECCI in Moscow. Thanks to the efficiency of the Dutch Centrale Inlichtingendienst (Central Intelligence Agency) this manuscript is now available in the Archives of the Dutch Ministry of Justice.

12. Maring, M., “Bericht des Genossen H. Mating …,” p. 1.Google Scholar

13. Letter No. 124 by the “Concession Française de Shanghai Garde Municipale” to “Monsieur le Consul General de Hollande, Shanghai,” 7 06 1921Google Scholar. G 156, No. 2349 (all “G” references are to documents in the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs). Sneevliet arrived on the Italian Lloyd Triestino ship Acquila and stayed at the Oriental Hotel, Nanking Road. He called himself Andresen.

14. Kuo-fao, Chang, “Wo ti hui-i,” (“My Memoirs”), Ming-pao yüeh-k'an (Ming Pao Monthly), (Hong Kong) Vol. I, No. 6 (1966), p. 63Google Scholar. Shumiatsky, B. Z., “Iz istorii Komsomola i Kompartii Kitaia Pamiati odnogo iz organizatorov Komsomola i Kompartii Kitaia tov. Chang T'ai-lei” (“On the Comsomol and the CCP. In memory of one of the organizers of the Comsomol and CCP, Comrade Chang T'ai-lei”), Revoliutsionnyi Vostok (Revolutionary East), No. 4–5 (1928), p. 216.Google Scholar

15. “Notes on a Conversation with H. Sneevliet,” The China Quarterly, No. 45.

16. Ibid.

17. lao-jen, Ch'i-wu, “Chung-kuo kung-ch'an-tang ch'eng-li ch'ien-hou ti chienwen,” (“Recollections of the Events Surrounding the Founding of the CCP”), Hsin kuan-ch'a (New Observer) (Peking), 1 07 1957Google Scholar. Ch'i-wu lao-jen is the pen name of Pao Hui-sheng who was one of the founding members of the CCP.

18. Maring, M., “Bericht des Genossen H. Maring….” p. 1.Google Scholar

19. lao-jen, Ch'i-wu, “Chung-kuo kung-ch'an-tang …”Google ScholarMaring, M., “Bericht des Genossen H. Maring …,” p. 3.Google Scholar

20. Ch'en Kung-po Chou Fu-hai hui i le ho p'ien (Memoirs of Ch'en Kung-po and Chou Fu-hai) (Hong Kong, 1967), p. 142Google Scholar. Kung-fei huo-kuo shih shih (Abridged Version of the Compiled Historical Materials of the Communist Rebellion in China) (Taipei, 1963), p. 10Google Scholar. Kung-po, Ch'en, Han Feng Chi (Collected Writings), (n.p. Ti-fang hsing-cheng she, 1944), Vol. I, pp. 206, 207Google Scholar. T'anch'iu, Ch'en, “Chung-kung t'i-i tz'u tai-pdao ta-hui ti hui-i” (“Reminiscences of the First Congress of the Chinese Communist Party”), Kung-ch'an kuo-chi (Communist International), Vol. VII, No. 4–5 (Moscow, 1936), pp. 83–88.Google Scholar

21. Ch'en Kung-po Chou Fu-hai hui i le ho p'ien, p. 142Google Scholar. Kung-fei huo-kuo shih shih, p. 10.Google Scholar

22. It was, I submit, at Sneevliet's insistence that the documents of the First Congress were never published. Ch'en Kung-po Chou Fu-hai hui i le ho p'ien, pp. 19, 142Google Scholar. Kung-po, Ch'en, The Communist Movement in China, p. 82.Google Scholar

23. Maring, M., “Bericht des Genossen H. Maring …,” p. 3Google Scholar. Kung-po, Ch'en, The Communist Movement in China, pp. 102–105Google Scholar. Shumiatsky, B. Z., “Iz istorii …,” Revoliutsionnyi Vostok, No. 4–5 (1928), pp. 218–222.Google Scholar

24. lao-jen, Ch'i-wu, “Chung-kuo kung-ch'an-tang …,” Hsin-kuan-ch'a, 1 07 1957Google Scholar. Maring, M., “Bericht des Genossen H. Maring …,” p. 3Google Scholar. Kuo-t'ao, Chang, hui-i, Wo ti, Ming-pao yüeh-k'an, Vol. I, No. 6, p. 69Google Scholar. According to documents in the Dutch Foreign Ministry archives, Sneevliet left the Oriental Hotel, Nanking Road, on 14 June 1921, and went to live in a boarding house at No. 32, Markham Road. Towards the end of September he went to live with the Russian family Rjazanoff at Wayside Road. At this address he remained until 10 December 1921.

25. Sneevliet, H., “Met en bij Soen Yat-sen, enige Persoonlijke Herinneringen” (“My Association with Sun Yat-sen, some Personal Memoirs”), Klassenstrijd (Class Struggle) (Amsterdam) No. 3 (03 1926)Google Scholar. Sneevliet, H., “Persoonlijke Indrukken van Soen Yat Sen” (“Personal Impressions of Sun Yat-sen”), De Arbeid (Labour) (Amsterdam), 28 03 1925, p. 2Google Scholar. Ke-ming wen-hsien (Documents of the Revolution), Vol. II (Taipei, 1954), pp. 518–519Google Scholar. Kai-shek, Chiang, “Cheng-li wen-hua i-ch'an yü kai-chin min-tsu hsi-hsing” (“Reorganization of the Cultural Heritage and Improvement of the National Character”), Chung-kuo i-chou (China Weekly) (Taipei), No. 112, 16 06 1952.Google Scholar

26. Kai-shek, Chiang, Soviet Russia in China (London, 1957), p. 17Google Scholar. Sneevliet, H., “Persoonlijke Herinneringen van Soen Yat Sen,” De Arbeid, 28 03 1925, p. 2Google Scholar. Sneevliet, H., “Met en bij Soen Yat Sen …,” Klassenstrijd, 03 1926.Google Scholar

27. “Notes on a Conversation with H. Sneevliet,” The China Quarterly, No. 45. Sneevliet, H., “Met en bij Soen Yat Sen…,” Klassenstrijd (03 1926)Google Scholar. Maring, M., “Bericht des Genossen H. Maring …,” p. 10Google Scholar. Ke-ming wen hsien, Vol. II, pp. 518–520.Google Scholar

28. Loc. cit.

29. Maring, M., “Bericht des Genossen H. Maring …,” p. 10.Google Scholar

30. Maring, H., “Uit het Verre Oosten” (“From the Far East”), 19 03 1922Google Scholar; in De Tribune (The Tribune) (Amsterdam), 6 05 1922, p. 1Google Scholar. Sneevliet, H., “Met en bij Soen Yat Sen …,” Klassenstrijd, 03 1926Google Scholar. Sneevliet, H., “Zwerversbrieven” (“Letters of a Wanderer”), No. VI, Het Vrije Woord (The Free Word), No. 12 (10 05 1922), pp. 1, 2Google Scholar. Dated Shanghai, , 04 1922.Google Scholar

31. Maring, G., “Revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie v iuzhnom Kitae” (“The Revolutionary Movement in South China”), Kommunisticheskii International (Communist International (Moscow), No. 22 (1922) pp. 5803–5816Google Scholar. See Bing, Dov, “Revolution in China: Sneevlietian strategy,” pp. 214–229Google Scholar, for a translation of this article.

32. Sneevliet, H., “De Chineesche General en de Chineesche Revolutie: Tsjen Tsjoen Ming en Tsjang Kai Shek” (“The Chinese General and the Chinese Revolution: Ch'en Chiung-ming and Chiang Kai-shek”), Klassenstrijd, 1927.Google Scholar

33. It is doubtful if Sneevliet did, in fact, visit Wu P'ei-fu. There is no evidence of this in his own writings. This account is based on Ching-wei, Wang, Wang Chingwei hsien-sheng ti wen-chi (Collected writings of Wang Ching-wei) (Shanghai, n.d.), Vol. III, pp. 132–133.Google Scholar

34. Maring, M., “Bericht des Genossen H. Mating …,” pp. 10–11Google Scholar. “Notes on a Conversation with H. Sneevliet,” The China Quarterly, No. 45.

35. Maring, H., “Uit het Verre Oosten,” 19 03 1922Google Scholar, in De Tribune, 8 05 1922, p. 1Google Scholar. Maring, M., “Bericht des Genossen H. Maring ….” pp. 8–12.Google Scholar

36. According to documents in the Dutch Foreign Ministry archives, Sneevliet left Canton on 3 February 1922 on his way to Peking. He travelled via Swatow and Shanghai where he arrived on or about 7 March 1922. He stayed in Shanghai for nearly two weeks and on 19 March he left for Peking where he arrived four days later. He stayed in the Hotel des Wagon Lits and on 29 March left Peking again for Shanghai.

37. Maring, M., “Bericht des Genossen H. Maring …,” p. 12.Google Scholar

38. Ibid.

39. Maring, M., “Bericht des Genossen H. Maring …,” p. 12Google Scholar. For an account of who was present, see “Notes on a Conversation with H. Sneevliet,” The China Quarterly, No. 45, p. 104Google Scholar. This says only “… one other, a very capable Hunanese student whose name I do not remember.” There were two such possible Hunanese students in the Party at that time, Ts'ai Ho-shen and Mao Tse-tung. Since Ts'ai only returned from France in June 1922, it must have been Mao who attended. S. A. Dalin, “Velikii povorot. Sun Yat Sen v 1922 g” (“The Great Turning-point. Sun Yat-sen in 1922”), in Tikhvinskii, S. L. (ed.), Sun Yat Sen 1866–1966. K stoletiu so dnia rozhdeniia, Sbornik stafei vospominanii i materialov (Sun Yat-sen 1866–1966. On the Occasion of the Centenary of his Birth. Collection of articles, reminiscences and materials) (Moscow, 1966), p. 255Google Scholar. Dalin, Sergei, V riadakh kitaiskoi revoliutsii (In the Ranks of the Chinese Revolution) (Moscow, 1926)Google Scholar. See “Iz putevykh ochrekov. Vstrecha I Maia v Guan-chzhou s Sun' Yat-senom” (“Travelling observations: Meeting on the first day of May at Canton with Sun Yat-sen”). Dalin, Sergei, “Sun Yat Sen, k godovshchine smerti” (“Sun Yatsen, Anniversary of his Death”), Izvestiia, 59, 1926Google Scholar. kuo-t'ao, Chang, “Wo-ti hui-i,” Ming pao, Vol. I, No. 8, pp. 76–84.Google Scholar

40. Maring, M., “Bericht des Genossen H. Maring …,” p. 12.Google Scholar

41. Maring, M., “Bericht des Genossen H. Maring …,” p. 12Google Scholar. “Notes on a Conversation with H. Sneevliet,” The China Quarterly, No. 45. The decision to adopt “Sneevlietian strategy” has become one of the most debated issues in the early history of the CCP and KMT. The First Plenum has never before been reported. Events surrounding the Second Plenum are most complex and often contradictory. A Third Plenum, also unreported, took place in February 1923. In this brief account of the establishment and first years of the CCP I shall not touch upon these issues, but will do so in another paper.

42. The above-mentioned decisions were taken while Sneevliet was still in Shanghai. Kuo-fao, Chang, “Wo ti hui-i,” Ming-pao yüeh-k'an, Vol. I, No. 8, pp. 75, 76.Google Scholar

43. Sneevliet left Peking on 29 March 1922 and, assuming that he travelled four days to get back to Shanghai, he returned on 2 April 1922. Thus the First Hangchow Plenum must have taken place between 2 and 23 April 1922. Letter from “De Waarnemend Consul-Generaal” to “Zijne Excellentie den Gouverneur van Nederlandsch Indie, Buitenzorg.” Dated Shanghai, , 27 04 1922Google Scholar. G/37, No. 921.

44. Letter from H. S. (H. Sneevliet) to Mrs. E. J. Sneevliet-Brouwer, teacher, Traverdoeli, Semarang, Java. Dated Chita, , 2 09 1922Google Scholar. Letter F6, 4523, No. 698 Geh.A.P. (Archive of the Dutch Ministry of Colonial Affairs). “Aus der Internationale: Sitzung der Exekutive der Komintern vom 17. Juli,” (“From the International: Session of the Executive of the Comintern of 17 July”), Internationale Presse Korrespondenz (International Press Correspondence), No. 145 (Berlin, 25 07 1922), pp. 929, 930Google Scholar. I have identified “Genosse M.” in this report as Comrade Maring, alias Sneevliet.

45. Maring, M., “Bericht des Genossen H. Maring …,” pp. 8–10.Google Scholar

46. Kara-Murza, T. and Mif, P., Strategist i taktika Kominterna v Natsionalno-Kolonialnoi Revoliutsii na primere kitaya (Comintern Strategy and Tactics in the National-Colonial Revolution, for example China) (Moscow, 1934), p. 112.Google Scholar

47. Maring, G., “Revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie v iuzhnom Kaite,” Kommunisticheskii Internasional, No. 22 (1922), pp. 5803–5816Google Scholar. See Bing, Dov, “Revolution in China: Sneevlietian Strategy,” pp. 214–229.Google Scholar

48. “Aus der Internationale: Sitzung …,” Inprekorr, No. 145 (25 07) p. 929.Google Scholar

49. Maring, M., “Bericht des Genossen H. Maring …,” p. 9Google Scholar. Maring, G., “Revoliutsionnoe …,” Kommunisticheskii Internasional, No. 22, pp. 5803–5816Google Scholar. See Bing, Dov, “Revolution in China: Sneevlietian strategy,” pp. 217–219.Google Scholar

50. “Aus der Internationale: Sitzung …,” Inprekorr, No. 145 (25 07), pp. 929, 930.Google Scholar

51. Ibid.

52. Maring, M., “Bericht des Genossen H. Maring …,” p. 3.Google Scholar

53. “Aus der Internationale: Sitzung …,” Inprekorr, No. 145, (25 07 1922), p. 930.Google Scholar

54. Maring, M., “Bericht des Genossen H. Maring …,” p. 12.Google Scholar

55. “Notes on a Conversation with H. Sneevliet,” The China Quarterly, No. 45.

56. Maring, M., “Bericht des Genossen H. Maring …,” p. 12.Google Scholar

57. Ibid.

58. “Aus der Internationale: Sitzung …,” Inprekorr, No. 145 (25 07 1922), p. 930Google Scholar. “It was decided to issue a letter to the Communist Parties of China and Japan. Comrade M. was entrusted with the formulation of these letters.” Communist International order for the Chinese Communist Party, 18 July 1922. “The Central Committee of the Communist Party of China according to the decision of the Presidium of Comintern of 18 July must remove its seat to Canton immediately after receiving this note and do all its work in close contact with Comr. PHILIPP.” Comrade Philipp was one of Sneevliet's many Comintern names. The original document was typed on linen to enable Sneevliet to hide it. Voor Vrijheid en Socialisme …, p. 60.Google Scholar

59. “Notes on a Conversation with H. Sneevliet,” The China Quarterly, No. 45Google Scholar. See also Bing, Dov, “Revolution in China: Sneevlietian strategy,” Chapter XIII, pp. 125–147.Google Scholar

60. Chung-kuo kung-ch'an-tang tui-yü shih-chü ti chu-chang (Manifesto of the CCP on the Current Situation), 15 06 1922Google Scholar (n.p., Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, 17 June 1922).

61. Ibid.

62. Kuo-t'ao, Chang, “Wo ti hui-i,” Ming-pao yüeh-k'an, Vol. I, No. 8, pp. 72–82Google Scholar. Tu-hsiu, Ch'en, Kao ch'üan-tang t'ung-chih shu (Letter to all Comrades of the Party) (Shanghai, 10 12 1929), p. 2Google Scholar. Kung-po, Ch'en, The Communist Movement in China, p. 89Google Scholar. Chang claims that the First Manifesto was mainly based on the decisions of the First Congress of the Toilers of the Far East which he had attended in January 1922 in Moscow and Petrograd. Ch'en Kung-po and Ch'en Tu-hsiu support Chang in this assertion. No doubt this Congress influenced the Chinese Communists to some extent, though it should be pointed out that the First Hangchow Plenum must have played a more decisive role in this respect Both Ch'en Tu-hsiu and Chang Kuo-t'ao did not mention the First Hangchow Plenum in their accounts of the event Chang even went so far as to point out: “Ma-lin went back to Moscow two weeks before I came back from Shanghai.… He did not suggest to Ch'en Tu-hsiu to join the KMT before he left Shanghai.” At the same time, however, Chang mentions that he returned from Moscow in March 1922. This means that Chang was in Shanghai when the First Plenum took place. Sneevliet left Shanghai on 23 April 1923 and not in February-March as Chang points out. Moreover, Sneevliet's “Bericht des Genossen H. Maring für die Executive” is an official document and was written only three months after the event. Ch'en Tu-hsiu and Chang's versions were written respectively seven and 44 years later.

63. Sneevliet's appointment as correspondent for the Far East of the Communist International and International Press Correspondence, Moscow, 24 July 1922. Signed by Radek, Karl, Voor Vrijheid en Socialisme, p. 60. Kung-fei huo-kuo shih shih (Taipei, 1963), p. 13Google Scholar. Letter from I. Podolsky, Shanghai, Boone-road 12, Rosta News Agency to Mrs Sneevliet, Java. Dated Shanghai, , 19 08 1922Google Scholar. G/299, No. 2249. China Year Book, 1924, p. 858Google Scholar. North China Herald, 19 08 1922Google Scholar. Kuo-t'ao, Chang, “Wo ti hui-i,” Ming-poo yüeh-k'an, Vol. I, No. 8, p. 84Google Scholar. Sneevliet and Abraham Joffe left Moscow on or about 24 July 1922. On or about 4 August they arrived in Chita and five days later were in Harbin. They arrived in Peking on 12 August 1922. Joffe remained in Peking, while Sneevliet continued his travels to Shanghai. On the basis of this analysis I suggest that Chang Kuo-t'ao's assertion that the Second Hangchow Plenum took place on 8 August 1922 is wrong.

64. Tu-hsiu, Ch'en, Kao-ch'üan-tang t'ung-chih shu, p. 2Google Scholar. Kuo-t'ao, Chang, “Wo ti hui-i,” Ming-pao yüeh-k'an, Vol. I, No. 8, p. 84.Google Scholar

65. “Notes on a Conversation with H. Sneevliet,” The China Quarterly, No. 45. “Aantekeningen van Maring: Tsjen Toe Sioe, De oorzaken van de nederlaag van de Chineesche revolutie” (“Notes by Maring: Ch'en Tu-hsiu, the causes of the defeat of the Chinese revolution”) De Nieuwe Weg (The New Road) (Amsterdam, 1930)Google Scholar. This article contains a Dutch translation of Ch'en Tu-hsiu's “Kao ch'üan-tang t'ung-chih shu” together with a commentary by Sneevliet. Kuo-t'ao, Chang, “Wo ti hui-i” Ming-pao yüeh-k'an, Vol. I, No. 8, pp. 83–89. See above note 41.Google Scholar

66. Sneevliet, H., “Met en bij Soen Yat Sen …,” Klassenstrijd, 03 1926Google Scholar. “Notes on a conversation with H. Sneevliet,” The China Quarterly, No. 45. Sneevliet, H., “Persoonlijke indrukken van Soen Yat Sen,” De Arbeid, 28 03 1925, p. 2Google Scholar. Hua, Hu, Chung-kuo hsin min-chu-chu-i ko-ming shih (Canton, 1951), p. 62Google Scholar. Kuo-fu nien-p'u ch'u-kao, Vol. II (Taipei, 1958), pp. 557–558.Google Scholar

67. Sneevliet, H., “Met en bij Soen Yat Sen …,” Klassenstrijd, 03 1926.Google Scholar

68. Sneevliet, H., “De Chineesche Generaal en de Chineesche Revolutie: Tsjen Tsjoen Ming en Tsjang Kai Sjek,” Klassenstrijd, 1927, p. 143Google Scholar. “Notes on a conversation with H. Sneevliet,” The China Quarterly, No. 45.

69. Tsung-li ch'üan-shu (Complete Writings of President Sun), Vol. 10, Part II (Taipei, 1953), pp. 924–925Google Scholar. T'an-ho kung-ch'an-tang liang-ta yao-an (Two Important Cases of Impeachment of the Communist Party) (Nanking, 1927)Google Scholar. See Sun's marginal comments on p. 5 written in December 1923. Letter to Kai-shek, Chiang, 21 11 1922Google Scholar, in Yat-sen, Sun, Sun Chung-shan hsien-sheng shou-cha mo-chi (Original Copies of Sun Yat-sen's Handwritten Letters) (n.p., n.d.), p. 3.Google Scholar

70. Ke-ming wen-hsien, Vol. VIII, pp. 1039–1043Google Scholar. Many historians have credited Sun Yat-sen as being the initiator of what I have called “Sneevlietian strategy.” The source material which gave rise to this interpretation is Tu-hsiu, Ch'en's Kao ch'üan-tang t'ung-chih shu of 10 12 1929Google Scholar. According to Ch'en, Dalin, a delegate of the Communist Youth International, had proposed a two-party alliance to Sun Yat-sen some time in July 1922. Sun would certainly have refused such an alliance and would have told Dalin that he would only allow the CCP members to enter the KMT on condition that they were to submit to the KMT and recognize no party outside of it. It is not possible that such a meeting took place in July since at that time Sun Yat-sen was being held captive on a gunboat I have, moreover, found a most interesting account in Russian of Dalin's meetings with Sun Yat-sen. The writer is Sergei Dalin himself. Dalin reports that his first meeting with Sun took place on 29 April 1922, and that his last took place on 12 or 14 June 1922. While I shall not elaborate here on these most interesting talks, I should like to mention Sun's request for Soviet Russian aid in the establishment of a new railway network. Dalin, it should be added, points out that in his opinion the CCP's only chance for mass action would be within the KMT. He does not mention any proposal for a two-party alliance to Sun Yat-sen. To conclude, it may be observed that Sneevliet's first meeting with Sun Yat-sen, his talks with the Central Committee of the KMT in Shanghai and the First Hangchow Plenum had all taken place before Dalin arrived on the scene. Sergei Dalin came to China as a delegate of the Communist Youth International and together with Chang T'ai-lei and Ch'ü Ch'iu-pai he organized the First National Congress of the Socialist Youth Corps in May 1922. It is, then, for these reasons that I reject the generally accepted thesis of Sun Yat-sen being the instigator of what I have called “Sneevlietian strategy.” Sun Yat Sen, 1866–1966 (Sbornik statei, Moscow, 1966), pp. 255–285Google Scholar. Maring, M., “Bericht des Genossen H. Maring …,” p. 12Google Scholar. Dalin, S. A., “Velikii povorot, Sun Yat Sen v 1922 g,” in Sun Yat Sen 1866–1966. K stoletiu…, pp. 255–85Google Scholar. Dalin, Sergei, V riadakh kitaiskoi revoliutsii, (Moscow 1926)Google Scholar, Dalin, Sergei, “Sun Yat Sen, k godovshchine smerti,” Izvestiia, 1926, No. 59Google Scholar. Maring, M., “Bericht des Genossen H. Maring …,” p. 12.Google Scholar

71. “Notes on a Conversation with H. Sneevliet …,” The China Quarterly, No. 45.

72. Ibid.Sneevliet, H., “Eulogy: Adolf Abrahamowitsj Joffe,” De Arbeid (Labour) (Amsterdam), 26 11 1927, p. 1.Google Scholar

73. Sneevliet, H., “Het Chineesch-Russisch Conflict over den Oost-Chineeschen spoorweg,” (“The Sino-Russian Conflict about the Chinese Eastern Railway”), De Nieuwe Weg, 1929, p. 234.Google Scholar

74. Maring, H., On the Subject of the Chinese Question…, p. 5Google Scholar. Kuo-t'ao, Chang, “Wo ti hui-i,” Ming-pao yüeh-k'an, Vol. I, No. 8, p. 88Google Scholar. Chang notes: “Malin was an important matchmaker. He not only promoted the Chinese Communist Party to join the Kuomintang, but also acted as intermediary between Sun Yat-sen and Joffe. Sun Yat-sen's meeting with Joffe was also promoted by Ma-lin.”

75. Sn(eevliet), H., “Het netelige vraagstuk van den Chineeschen Oosterspoor-weg” (“The Thorny Problem of the Chinese Eastern Railway”), De Baanbreker (The Pioneer) (Amsterdam) No. 13, 20 07 1929, p. 1Google Scholar. Sneevliet, H., “Het Chineesch-Russisch Conflict over den Oost-Chineeschen spoorweg,” De Nieuwe Weg, 1929, p. 234Google Scholar. Voor Vrijheid en Socialisme …, p. 61Google Scholar. Although no minutes of his talks with the Soviet leadership are available, it is known that Sneevliet had discussions with Trotsky, Stalin, Bukharin and others on the question of the Chinese Eastern Railway. It had been in consultation with Joffe that Sneevliet had decided to discuss this question in Moscow. It is said that Sneevliet disagreed with Stalin about the ownership of the railway. Sneevliet felt that it should be handed over to the Chinese, while Stalin insisted that Soviet Russia should keep her interests in it.

76. Sneevliet's appointment as third member of the Far Eastern Bureau of the Comintern in Vladivostok. This document was written in German and signed by W. Kolarov for the secretariat of the ECCI, No. 282, Moscow, 12 January 1923. The text of this document is an extract of the protocol of the session of the ECCI presidium on 10 January 1923. Sneevliet as well as Voitinsky were asked to take part in the next conference of the CCP. A translation of this document can be found in: Bing, Dov, “Revolution in China: Sneevlietian strategy,” p. 212Google Scholar. See also Voor Vrijheid en Socialisme…, p. 60.Google Scholar

77. Kara-Murza, T. and Mif, P., Strategaii i taktika…, p. 112.Google Scholar

78. See above, note 76.

79. lao-jen, Ch'i-wu, “Hui-i Li Ta-chao t'ung-chih,” (“Recollections of Comrade Li Ta-chao”) Chung-kuo kung-jen (Chinese Worker) (Peking), 12 05 1957, pp. 22–23Google Scholar. Pao Hui-sheng identifies the Comintern delegate as Borodin. He must have meant Ma-lin, for Borodin came to China in September 1923. Sn(eevliet), H., “Een Chineesch Voorbeeld” (“A Chinese Example”) (7 02 1923)Google Scholar, De Arbeid, 7 02 1925.Google Scholar

80. Maring, G., “Krovarnye episod v istorii Kitaiskogo rabochego dvizhenie” (“A Bloody Episode in the History of the Chinese Labour Movement”), Kommunisticheskii Internatsional (Communist International), No. 26–27 (1923), pp. 7455–7466Google Scholar. The editors note that they disagree with Sneevliet's assessment on the Chinese situation. Chung-hsia, Teng, Chung-kuo chih-kung yun-tung chien-shih (A Brief History of the Chinese Labour Movement) (Peking, 1949), pp. 25–27Google Scholar. lao-jen, Ch'i-wu, “Erh-ch'i pa-kung hui-i” (“Recollections of the February Seventh Strike”), Hsin-kuan-ch'a (The New Observer) (Peking), 1 02 1957, p. 36Google Scholar; 16 February 1957, p. 37; March 1957, p. 37.

81. Maring, G., “Revolidtsionnoe dvizhenie v iuzhom Kitae,” Kommunisticheskii Internatsional, No. 22 (1922), pp. 5803–5816Google Scholar. “The situation in China and Japan,” International Press Correspondence, 28 08 1922, p. 542Google Scholar. Maring, G., Bericht des Genossen H. Maring…, pp. 10–12.Google Scholar

82. Maring, G., “Krovamye episod v istorii Kitaiskogo rabochego dvizhenie,” Kommunisticheskii Internatsional, No. 26–27 (1923), p. 7462Google Scholar. Sn(eevliet), H., “Een Chineesch voorbeeld” (7 02 1923)Google Scholar, De Arbeid, 7 02 1925Google Scholar. Sn(eevliet), H., “Het netelige vraagstuk van den Chineeschen Oosterspoorweg,” De Baanbreker, 20 07 1929, p. 1Google Scholar. (Sneevliet, H.), “Roy en Tsjen Toe Sioe in gevaar,” (“Roy and Ch'en Tu-hsiu in dangrar”) De Arbeid, 17 10 1931, p. 3Google Scholar. On bis way back from Moscow Sneevliet had a conference with General Chang Tso-lin in Mukden. Main item on the agenda: the Chinese Eastern Railway. He returned to Peking on or about 3 February 1923.

83. Kuo-t'ao, Chang, “Wo ti hui-i,” Ming-pao yüeh-k'an, Vol. I, No. 9, p. 90Google Scholar. In Moscow Chang reported to Safarov, Voitinsky and Losovsky. Voitinsky was a member of the Comintern Irkutsk Bureau which had continued to support the Far Eastern Republic's preference for General Wu P'ei-fu.

84. Kuo-t'ao, Chang, “Wo ti hui-i” Ming-poo yüeh-k'an, Vol. I, No. 9, p. 90Google Scholar. “Notes on a Conversation with H. Sneevliet,” The China Quarterly, No. 45. Sneevliet mentions that after the February Seventh incident orders were issued in Peking for the arrest of Maring and Ch'en Tu-hsiu.

85. Mif, Pavel, Chung-kuo kung-ch'an-tang ying-yung fen-tou ti shih-wu nien (15 Years of the Heroic Struggle of the CCP) (Moscow, 1936), p. 25Google Scholar. See his remarks on The Third Congress. Kuo-t'ao, Chang, “Wo ti hui-i,” Ming-pao yüeh-k'an, Vol. I, No. 9, p. 90.Google Scholar

86. Kara-Murza, T. and Mif, P., Strategiia i taktika…, pp. 114–116Google Scholar. Kuo-t'ao, Chang, “Wo ti hui-i,” Ming-pao yüeh-k'an, Vol. I, No. 9, p. 92.Google Scholar

87. Kara-Murza, T. and Mif, P., Strategiia i taktika…, pp. 114–116Google Scholar. Schaap, Dick, “Henk Sneevliet, een leven voor de rode revolutie” (“Henk Sneevliet, a Life for the Red Revolution”), Het Vrije Volk, 18 04 1970Google Scholar. Although Sneevliet had discussed some aspects of the peasant problem in his first report of July 1922, the Comintern directive of January 1923, which was based on this report, made no mention of the subject. It would appear that the “February Seventh” incident was, in fact, responsible for the increasing importance he ascribed to the Chinese peasant. On the other hand Sneevliet visited and corresponded with Mao Tse-tung in 1923 and therefore the young Mao quite possibly bears part of the responsibility.

88. Kuomintang, (ed.), Kuo-fu ch'üan-chi (Complete Writings of Sun Yat-sen) (Taipei, 1957), Vol. II, pp. 235–238.Google Scholar

89. “Notes on a Conversation with H. Sneevliet,” The China Quarterly, No. 45. Sneevliet, H., “Met en bij Soen Yat Sen …,” Klassenstrijd, 03 1926Google Scholar. Sneevliet, H., “Persoonlijke indrukken van Soen Yat Sen,” De Arbeid, 28 03 1925, p. 2Google Scholar. Writing in 1926, Sneevliet observed that the First National Congress of the KMT had been planned long before it took place in January 1924.

90. Ssu-ch'eng, Mao (ed.), Min-kuo shih-wu nien i-ch'ien chih Chiang Chieh-shih hsien-sheng (Mr Chiang Kai-shek before 1926), Vol. VIb (Shanghai, 1936), p. 201Google Scholar a. Kai-shek, Chiang, Soviet Russia in China (London, 1957), pp. 18–19.Google Scholar

91. Ibid.

92. Tu-hsiu, Ch'en, Kao ch'üan t'ung t'ung-chih shu, p. 4.Google Scholar

93. Sneevliet, H., “Met en bij Soen Yat Sen …,” Klasenstrijd, 03 1926Google Scholar. Sneevliet, H., “Persoonlijke indrukken van Soen Yat Sen,” De Arbeid, 28 03 1925, p. 2.Google Scholar

94. Kuo-t'ao, Chang, “Wo ti hui-i,” Ming-pao yüeh-k'an, Vol. I, No. 9, p. 92Google Scholar. Chang confirms that the Third National Congress was convened at the initiative of Sneevliet.

95. “Chung-kuo kung-ch'an-tang ti-san-tz'u ch'üan-kuo tai-piao ta-hui hsüan-yen” (“Manifesto of the Third National Congress of the CCP”) Hsiang-tao chou-pao, No. 30, 20 06 1923, p. 228Google Scholar. Kuo-t'ao, Chang, “Wo ti hui-i,” Ming-pao yüeh-k'an, Vol. I, No. 10, pp. 78–79Google Scholar. I have strong reservations about Chang's assertion that in Ma-lin's opinion the peasantry was not important. Chang made the observation that Ma-lin did not mention them at all at the Third Congress. I have good reason to believe that Chang was mistaken, for such an assertion would be completely contradictory to the 13-point directive of May 1923, which was based on Sneevliet's recommendations. If it is true that Sneevliet did not speak out on the peasant problem, this in itself does not necessarily mean that he did not attach any importance to the subject. The truth may lie between these seemingly contradictory observations. Sneevliet possibly did not discuss the peasantry himself, but may have delegated this subject to a comrade. According to Chang the delegate who discussed the peasantry at the Congress was Mao Tse-tung. In essence Chang's observations on Mao's handling of the peasant problem closely resemble the main points raised on this issue in the 13-point directive of May 1923. This lends extra credibility to the previous observation that Mao had been partly responsible for the formulation of the agrarian programme in Sneevliet's report to the ECCI of May 1923. See also above, note 87.

96. “Aantekeningen van Maring: Tsjen Toe Sioe, De oorzaken van de nederlaag der Chineesche Revolutie,” De Nieuwe Weg, p. 82Google Scholar. Sneevliet, H., “De Chineesche Generaal en de Chineesche Revolutie: Tsjen Tsjoen Ming en Tsjang Kai Sjek,” Klassenstrijd, 1927, p. 143.Google Scholar

97. “Chung-kuo kung-ch'an-tang ti-san-tz'u ch'üan-kuo tai-piao ta-hui hsüan-yen,” Hsiang-tao chou-pao, No. 30 (20 06 1923), p. 228.Google Scholar

98. Chang Kuo-t'ao in an interview with Professor C. Martin Wilbur, Hong Kong, 1954. In Documents on Communism, Nationalism and Soviet Advisers in China, 1918–1927, edited, with introductory essays by Wilbur, C. Martin and How, Julie Lien-ying (New York, 1956), p. 87.Google Scholar

99. Snow, Edgar, Red Star over China (New York, 1944), pp. 154–156.Google Scholar