1. It is not altogether certain that Sneevliet is the auctor intellectualis of the tactic of collaboration between the ST and ISDV. I shall not discuss this problem here, since it will be dealt with in a forthcoming publication by F. Tichelman, “ The origins of Indonesian Communism,” based on documents from the Sneevliet archives concerning Sneevliet's Indonesian activities. These archives are in the possession of the International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam.

2. “Bericht des Genossen H. Maring fiir die Executive,” Moscow, 11 July 1922. H. Maring is a pseudonym for Sneevliet. The original document is in the Van Ravesteyn archives, at the International Institute of Social History (a copy is in the Sneevliet archives).

3. Sneevliet claims, for example, that following his first stay in China, he arrived in Moscow “ … about September 1922 … .” (The China Quarterly, No. 45 (January-March 1971), p. 107). However, there are documents in the Sneevliet archives to prove that Sneevliet was in Moscow in July 1922. In the same interview Sneevliet tells Isaacs that he reported on his work in China “ … to the Comintern, especially to Radek, who was supposed to be the expert on Chinese affairs.” A little further on, however, he states: “ I made no formal report to the Executive of the Comintern but left shortly thereafter with Joffe… .” (Ibid., p. 107.) This presents a few problems in connexion with the document “ Bericht des Genossen H. Maring fUr die Executive,” Sneevliet's report to the ECCI. Sneevliet's remarks to Isaacs suggest that he only had some “ private talks “ with Radek and that he did not attend the ECCI meeting at which his report was discussed. If this was true the big question is: what happened to Sneevliet's report and what value should be attached to it with respect to its influence on the Comintern policy? If it was not discussed, it is significant only for giving us Sneevliet's view at that time. This implies that the substantial influence attributed to this report becomes likewise debatable. It is remarkable that Dov Bing, who obviously believes the interview with Isaacs to be of outstanding importance, does not mention this point.

It would seem safe to assume, however, that Sneevliet did report in person to the ECCI. In Inprekorr of 25 July 1922 (German edition, No. 145, pp. 929-30) an account is given of the ECCI session of 17 July 1922, which mentions that M. (Maring), following a stay in China, reported on the Chinese situation. We do not, however, know whether this report by Sneevliet was discussed during the ECCI session.

4. “Notes on a Conversation with H. Sneevliet. The Chinese Question, 1920-3,” C.Q., No. 45 (January-March 1971), p. 104.

5. Bing, CQ, No. 48, p. 648.

6. Ibid. p. 689 and 690. Bing calls the Plenum held in August the Second Plenum.

7. Bing, ibid. p. 694.

8. See also note 3.

9. Bing, CQ, No. 48, p. 687.

10. “ Bericht des Genossen H. Maring …,” p. 13. The errors which Sneevliet made in German and English spelling have not been corrected here as in some cases - see for instance the text belonging to footnote 30 - the interpretation is open to discussion.

11. Ibid.

12. Bing, CQ, No. 48, p. 684.

13. “ Conversation with Sneevliet,” CQ, No. 45, p. 106.

14. Bing, CQ, No. 48, p. 106.

15. “ Bericht des Genossen H. Maring … , “ p. 4.

16. In a letter dated Canton, 20 June 1923, addressed to Zinov'ev, Bucharin and Radek, and written in connexion with the Third CCP Congress, Sneevliet still appears dissatisfied about the establishment of the party. Among other things he writes: “ Noch immer drtickt auf die Partei die Tatsache da/3 sie viel zu frueh (in 1920) geboren wurde oder besser gesagt fabriziert ist” (“The party is still suffering from the fact that it was born, or rather fabricated, much too early (in 1920 …). Sneevliet archives, No. 3066/1-5. An interesting detail is the date mentioned: as early as 1923 Sneevliet was inaccurate about dates; if 1920 were correct, this would imply that the foundation would have taken place prior to his arrival in China.

17. “ Bericht des Genossen H. Maring …,” p. 13.

18. Bing, CQ, No. 48, p. 683.

19. “Bericht des Genossen H. Maring …,” p. 13.

20. Bing, CQ, No. 48, p. 693.

21. From a letter from Sneevliet to Van Ravesteyn, dated Shanghai, 26 February 1923: “ Men had nu in Mekka [Moskou] een bureau voorbereid in Wladivostok waarin ik met Katayama en een jongen Rus Voitinsky zou zitten doch deze uitvinding bevalt me maar half en het lijkt me niet om daar in Wladivostok te gaan zitten en dan beweging te importeren in Korea, Japan en China. Korea heeft nog zin, Japan een beetje en China helemaal niet. Het is een repetitie van het Irkoetsk bureau en het succes kan niet zeer groot zijn. In ieder geval zit ik nog voorlopig hier.” (” Preparations had been made in Mecca [Moscow] for a Bureau to be set up in Vladivostok, the members being myself, Katayama and a young Russian, Voitinsky, but I do not quite fancy this invention or the idea of settling in Vladivostok, and from there to import the movement into Korea, Japan and China does not attract me. For Korea this might have some sense, for Japan a little, for China none at all. It is a repetition of the Irkutsk Bureau and its success can hardly be a big one. In any case I am still here for the time being.“) This letter is in the Van Ravesteyn archives at the International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam.

22. Bing was unable to consult these archives; they are closed because the material is being prepared for publication.

23. Bing, CQ, No. 48, p. 694.

24. The following - and other - documents are to be found in the archives: (a) a list of dates (between 7 May and 5 June 1923) of telegrams and letters exchanged in connexion with Sneevliet's pending appointment with the Rosta press service in Canton; (b) a settlement of telegram expenses made by Sneevliet in Canton between 15 and 30 May 1923; and (c) a number of letters by Sneevliet, dated Canton, 30 May 1923.

25. In a letter to Radek and Savarov, dated Canton, 30 May 1923, Sneevliet writes, among other things: “Ich habe Sie beide nicht gesprochen wenn ich in Dezember/Januar in Moskau war und habe von Ihnen keine Nachricht bekommen auf Briefe die ich geschickt habe.” (” I did not speak to either of you when I was in Moscow in December /January and I have not had any replies to letters that I have sent.“) Sneevliet archives, doc. No. 3056/1. The dates of the letters and documents make it highly unlikely that Sneevliet travelled to Moscow and back at this time. The longest gaps in the archives do not exceed a period of three weeks although Sneevliet might well have been away during one of these intervals, he could hardly have accomplished such a long journey, which took six weeks at that time. His trip from Moscow to Peking, in the summer of 1922, for instance, took him almost three weeks and his journey back and forth from Peking to Moscow in December/January 1923 six weeks.

26. Presumably not all letters that Sneevliet wrote about this Congress have been preserved. But it is clear that the question of the strategy to be followed was a highly important issue. In the letter to Zinov'ev, Bucharin and Radek, dated Canton, 20 June 1923, mentioned above (n. 16), Sneevliet refers to his visit to Moscow in January 1923 and the decision reached by the ECCI on that occasion and then continues: “ Mit dieser Entscheidung kam ich zurueck in China. Und jetzt sollte die dritte Konferenz der Partei dieser letzte Resolution besprechen und ihre Arbeit konform diese Resolution einrichten.” (“With this decision I went back to China. And now the Third Party Conference was to discuss this last resolution and organise their work accordingly.“) Sneevliet archives, doc. No. 3066/1-5.

27. Sneevliet archives, doc. No. 3066/1-5. Sneevliet himself did not speak about the agrarian problem. In a letter to “IKKI, Profintern, Wladiwostokbureau,” dated Canton, 25 June 1923, he writes: “ … ich habe einen Ueberblick gegeben ueber die Geschichte der ersten, zweiten und dritten Internationale.” (” I have given a survey of the history of the First, Second and Third Internationals.“) Sneevliet archives, doc. no. 3068/1.

28. The text of this resolution runs as follows: “ Since the Imperialists have forced the import of foreign goods in China the manual industry in the villages loses the possibility of its existence. While, after 1911 the civil war among the militarists has not been stopped for one moment, bandits are spread all over the country, corrupt officials are levying extraordinary taxations and the gentries in the villages are doing what they like, the life of the peasants is becoming more difficult. Owing to the oppression of a spirit of revolt is developing among the peasants. Uprisings against paying taxes and rent prove the existence of the spirit. Therefore, the Third Conference of the CPC decides that it is necessary to organise the small peasants, tenants, and wage-earners for the fight against the imperialists who dominate China and to overthrow the militarists and corrupt officials, opposing the native gentries in order to protect the interests of the agrarian population and to strengthen the revolutionary nationalist movement.” Sneevliet archives, doc. no. 3078/1.

29. Bing, CQ, No. 48, p. 695, note 87.

30. Sneevliet archives, doc. no. 3179/1-36. These notes were in English as reproduced here. “ By concentration“: due to amalgamation so that smaller parcels of land came under the control of one proprietor. “ Hand work“: Handicrafts. “ Email “ : enamel.