Talk:China–Germany relations (1912–1949)

Other German advisors (which Chiang personally disliked alot)
As I was in Hong Kong, I read a longer detail about the Sino-German cooperation, in which Germany send at least more than 8 advisors (including Max Bauer, Hans Von Seeckt and Alex Von Falkenhausen) during the 1929-1937. However they only served Chiang for a short time until he personally fired them for being incompetent, Chiang even personally disliked them alot, as it was told in his biography, however Max Bauer, Von Seeckt and Von Falkenhausens was the only ones he personally liked. I wonder if its worth to mention these "unfavourable" advisors in this article? Hanchi (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There was a German advisor on the "other side", too: Otto Braun (Li De), also not so popular with his Chinese boss. I think Mao even complained at one point that Jiang's Germans were more succesful than his one. Yaan (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a "Hitler salute"
They need to change the photo captions that say that various Taiwanese politicos are giving the "Hitler salute"---that is absurd. That raising of the hand is not supposed to be in respect to Hitler...it is the standard way that Taiwanese official take an oath. My name is Brian Kennedy and I have lived in Taiwan for 15 years and written about Taiwanese law, history and martial arts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.125.20.120 (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What the hell happened with all this blue?
如题. See topic. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 04:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Don't play with HTML, children! --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 04:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Move?
As I stated four years ago, the dates in parenthesis are arbitrary. Let's move this to "Sino-German cooperation" or change what's in the parenthesis.--Jiang (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Der Helmkrieg
Further to this AN discussion, I have proposed this compromise solution to the edit war about whether the helmets should be mentioned in the caption. My proposed caption mentions the helmet, but in what I hope is a more informative way than simply saying "Note the helmet", which is a bit perplexing. (Of course soldiers have helmets, why should one note them?)  Sandstein   12:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Germany and republican china
http://books.google.com/books?id=lzisAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 07:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Chinese in Wehrmacht, prior to 1939h
The picture named " Chinese in Wehrmacht, prior to 1939", sources should be reviewed, THOSE ARE NOT CHINESES, the picture is wrongly identify and cataloged as Chinese. Please someone who give a look on this or delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.56.150.94 (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sino-German cooperation 1926–1941. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.ullsteinbild.de/preview.php?page_num=1&caller=&page=3
 * Added tag to http://www.ullsteinbild.de/preview.php?page_num=1&caller=&page=4
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060524184827/http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal2/china1.pdf to http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal2/china1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Major Edit and Move to "China-Nazi Germany relations"
I've just completed a major WP:FIXIT edit to remove long-unsourced material, correct some of the blatant WP:NPOV issues, and add sources where it was easy to do so. This article was/is mostly focused on the investments Nazi Germany made into Nationalist China's military and economy, so I think it's best to narrow its focus to that (hence the name change). Also, the old name "Sino-German cooperation" comes to close to a non-neutral point of view (i.e., by focusing attention only on the positives of the relationship and not on conflicts or negatives). The new title is more in keeping with other similar pages (e.g., Germany–Soviet Union relations, 1918–1941) SilverStar54 (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The major revision to this page has drastically changed the content of the original article, which was on Sino-German relations prior to 1949. There was not a concern made about NPOV prior to your edits. If you want to develop the details of relations between China and Nazi Germany, then another article should be created, not effectively deleting the original article. The alliance (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to making the subject of this article China–Germany relations from 1912-1949, but I don't think the content I removed should be restored without resolving the following issues:
 * WP:NPOV: Claims like "" are unacceptable in an encyclopedia article. I'm not the first editor to notice these issues, it was raised by the FAR that delisted this article all the way back in 2010.
 * MOS:CHINA violations such as the using Wade-Giles rather than pinyin, including Chinese characters when a main article on the topic exists, etc.
 * Bad sourcing or no souring at all. The background section, for example, has several whole paragraphs that have been marked unsourced for years. One source is just "China's nation building effort, AN Young", without a full citation or page number. I flagged this as "better source needed" but you removed the flag.
 * Some of the content you've restored is probably salvageable. But please revert your wholesale restoration and only add sections that have been fixed. SilverStar54 (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I wonder how much of the citation has to be from English sources. I looked at the Chinese version of this page, which contains more citations to previous content that may be of use. I also wonder what a more focused editing of the original aritcle would look like rather than eliminating whole paragraphs of content, which might be better edited to be more NPOV as you mentioned. In general, I guess the question would be what might be the best way to keep the overall structure of the article (covering the whole time period plus relevant background prior to 1912) while also indicating that certain sections need further development? I think that the version you created would be a useful standalone article, because it fleshes out the 1930s, and at the same time, it seems important that the entirety of this period of Sino-German relations also has its own article (the latter of which I understand you also agree with). The alliance (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and revert your recent additions. It's fine to re-add sections of the old article, but only after fixing their issues, not before you fix them.
 * I think keeping all the information in one article is the best solution. The only reason I removed material not related to the Nazi period is because the other information wasn't sourced. If you're planning to do research/find sources on earlier periods, than it makes sense to expand the focus of the article. Perhaps it makes most sense to section out the article by the regimes in power in each country (Beiyang Government/German Empire, Beiyang Government/Weimar, Nationalists/Weimar, Nationalists/Nazis, etc.). SilverStar54 (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As an example of why citing your sources is important, I realized while trying to verify that Sino-German relations began in 1912 that they did not, in fact, formally begin until late 1913. The title of the article should probably be changed to reflect that. SilverStar54 (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is a reasonable solution.
 * Regarding the dates (1912-1949), it's mainly to indicate the article covers the Republican era of China. While the German Empire and ROC didn't establish formal relations until 1913, I think it's okay to keep the start date for the article as 1912. The alliance (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)