ISSN:
0305-7410
Quelle:
Cambridge Journals Digital Archives
Thema:
Allgemeine und vergleichende Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. Indogermanistik. Außereuropäische Sprachen und Literaturen
,
Geschichte
,
Politikwissenschaft
,
Sociologie
,
Wirtschaftswissenschaften
Notizen:
It has long been known that, after superintending the secret foundation of the Indochina Communist Party (ICP) in Hong Kong on behalf of the Comintern, between February and October 1930, Ho-chi-Minh stayed on in disguise and was eventually detected and detained by the colonial authorities. What happened to him whilst in custody, and how long he so remained, has often been related but, unfortunately, this has never been done accurately and has sometimes been done fancifully. Indeed, in part because of Ho's own lifelong efforts to mislead the rest of the world about his identity, movements and purposes, error has persisted over the Hong Kong episode, including the version of the late Bernard Fall. To cite but one of many examples, when Ho died in 1969, The Times published an obituary in which the story of his detention in Hong Kong, and of the subsequent appeal on his behalf to the Privy Council on a suit for writ of habeas corpus, was highlighted and accompanied by the gloss that he had been defended by no less a luminary than Sir Stafford Cripps. At once, the late Mr D. N. Pritt, the communist Q.C., (senior attorney) wrote to correct this error, explaining that he himself had been retained as counsel for Ho, while Cripps had acted on behalf of the Hong Kong Government, in his capacity of United Kingdom Solicitor-General. But Pritt fell into error himself here: not only would it have been inappropriate for the Solicitor-General to plead on behalf of the Hong Kong Government, but at the time in question (June 1932) Cripps had been out of office for 10 months. As we shall see below, Cripps's true standing in the matter was as defence counsel retained by the Hong Kong Government's London solicitors, Messrs Burchells. In his version of the story, Pritt's memory had betrayed him into misdating the whole episode from 1931–32 to 1930–31; and, indeed, even J. H. Brimmel, usually such a careful author, had made the same mistake 10 years before.
Materialart:
Digitale Medien
URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S030574100001095X
Permalink
