Affichage de 9389 résultats

Letter from "Murray" [Ambassador C. M. Maclehose] to Dennis J. Duncanson to welcome Duncanson to Saigon for his forthcoming lecture, while also requesting a list of people Duncanson would like to meet for the duration of his stay.

Letter from Marie W. Millar to Dennis J. Duncanson to arrange Duncanson's stay at the British Ambassador's residence in Saigon.

Letter from Adam Roberts to Dennis J. Duncanson with an attached clipping from New Society. Roberts writes that as Duncanson did not see his letter in New Society complaining about the cuts they made in his review of Duncanson's book, Roberts has enclosed a copy of the letter.

Letter from Dennis J. Duncanson to British Ambassador C. M. MacLehose (Saigon) to confirm his arrival in Saigon, along with an enclosed list of names which Duncanson hopes to meet during his stay there.

Letter from Lucian W. Pye to Dennis J. Duncanson congratulating Duncanson on his newly-published book. Also attached is a copy of Pye's review of Duncanson's book for the Boston Globe.

Letter from Dennis J. Duncanson to Lucian W. Pye thanking him for his review of Duncanson's book, as well as to express anticipation for Pye's forthcoming publication of Guerrilla Communism in Vietnam. Duncanson expresses his sentiments regarding a dwindling interest in Vietnam in the United States. However, Duncanson believes that a dip in interest can only be temporary as diplomatic and military tussles still lie ahead and cannot be ignored.

Duncanson closes his letter to let Pye know that he will be at the London School of Economics until 30 September 1969 with the hope of completing his publication of China and the Independence of Vietnam and if Pye would be interested in seeing him.

A letter from John T. McAlister Jr. to Dennis J. Duncanson with an enclosed copy of his review in The New York Times Book Review of Duncanson's book 'Government and Revolution in Vietnam'. McAlister apologies to Duncanson for not writing sooner and explains that his involvement in Senator Robert Kennedy's campaign did not provide any free time to correspond.

McAlister writes that he has enclosed several items for Duncanson's attention: the first item is a piece that he wrote on mountain minorities which Duncanson had enquired about, the second is a copy of McAlister's testimony before Senator Fulbright's Foreign Relations Committee of the U.S. Senate and the third is McAlister's book review of Duncanson's 'Government and Revolution in Vietnam'. McAlister writes that although their opinions of Vietnam differ, it is of a scholarly nature and that Duncanson may, in turn, have the chance to review his own forthcoming book.

Letter from Dennis J. Duncanson to Fon W. Boardman, Jr. regarding a review in the New York Times Book Review by John T. McAlister Jr., which Duncanson found to be biased against him. Duncanson writes to say the he believes McAlister's review is biased and that he wrote the review to advertise his own ideas, with the intention to provide background support to the campaign of Senator Robert Kennedy's candidacy for President. As a result, Duncanson states that his book is, ultimately, not reviewed. Duncanson expresses regret for requesting a copy to be sent to McAlister to review and writes of McAlister's reputation as regarded on other American campuses as someone who is ambitious and pushful beyond one's talents.

Letter from Dennis J. Duncanson to John T. McAlister Jr. in response to the latter's correspondence on 14 July 1968. Duncanson thanks McAlister for providing the enclosed items and provides his feedback to each of them. Duncanson critiques McAlister's piece, 'Mountain Minorities', for not quoting sources and states that he did not have time to read McAlister's enclosed testimony of the Fulbright Committee but, nevertheless, writes that he is glad that McAlister's efforts brought him fame.

Letter from Elizabeth Von der Muhll to The Editor at The New York Times Book Reviews in defence of Duncanson and providing a rebuke to John T. McAlister's review of Duncanson's book. Von der Muhll provides further context to Duncanson's book to counter the negative views of McAlister's review.