Talk:Sino-German cooperation (1911-1941)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sino-German cooperation (1911-1941) article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (`~~~~`). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This History article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

[edit] Intro paragraph

Suggest the following, take, dump, incorporate as seen fit:

Close Sino-German cooperation, dating back to the 20s, was instrumental in modernising the industry and the armed forces of the Republic of China, especially in the period immediately preceding the Second Sino-Japanese War. Although the period of intense cooperation, from the Nazi takeover of Germany in 1933 to the start of the war with Japan, was relatively short and concrete measures at industrial reform and modernisation started in earnest only in 1936, it had a profound effect on the modernization efforts of China, as well as her capability to resist the Japanese in the war.

Sorry, as long as I can make it. Might be a tad repetitive, dunno. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 22:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

that's better! I'll add this to the article. BlueShirts 23:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expand/merge

An article on the broader topic of Sino-German relations (and not just cooperation) is surely needed, but I'm not sure how this article can fit (kept as a daughter article of that one or moved to "Sino-German relations" and expanded). If we do nothing, then I'm afraid that the Sino-German relations article that is ultimately created will become overly redundant with this one. One option moving this article Sino-German relations and expanding it (the Early Sino-German relations would suggest that this is a good idea). Another option is to make this article's title more specific (Sino-German cooperation in [early] Republican China?) so it can be a daughter article for an article on Sino-German relations (the size of the current article would suggest that this is a better idea). --Jiang 02:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about renaming the article too. When I googled "sino-german cooperation," almost all the results are about the PRC and Germany. Maybe Sino-German relations in Republican China is a better title? BlueShirts 02:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Or specify a date, say 1911-1938. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think specifying a date is probably the way forward. •

U|T|E 01:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Shall we instead make it (1911-1949), in order to have a clear cut-off (KMT flight to Taiwan), rather than 1938, since at that time there are still loose ends (for example the talks going on until 1941)... -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah we should. That'll clear out a big chunk of the criticisms presented in FAC. The first section of the article is on pre-republican china, but I think it's okay to include that as background, no? BlueShirts 18:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry guys - just joint in recently and not sure what been done so far:

I suggest it would be helpful to create an article which is giving opportunity for additions post 1949! And since one cant really talk of a continous Sino-German cooperation (comparable to the Franco-German cooperation) I believe relations make more sense!

If this article should become a daughter article of the relations article that s fine too.

What is the situation

This article is already too long. We (I?) might create a Sino-German relations article but this article would stay as its own page since it's too substantial to be merged under another article. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pics

I have a bunch of related photos lying unused at the commons, got them here, inserted 6 of them into this page. For complete list (that I uploaded to the commons,) see commons:Category:Second Sino-Japanese War. I've still got a bunch of photos unuploaded sitting in my harddisk. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 05:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The last photo is rather misleading, particularly in the legacy section. We can use any photo from battle of shanghai 1937 that shows the stalhelm. BlueShirts 22:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm, well, I wanted to use specifically that photo to show much long lasting effects the cooperation had on China. Feel free to change to a better one. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I think I have a pic of stalhelm troops riding an american jeep. Anyway, the reason I feel the photo is misleading is that it looks more like that vietcong execution photo, and that's definitely not a lasting effect on China :) BlueShirts 01:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, it does look like the VC execution photo. Hmm. Never looked at it that way. Upload that pic and we can put it there. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that picture really, I mean after all that "person" had murdered million of my fellow Chinese. Just looking at this picture ease my anger from the pictures taken from fall of Nanking. Anyways why not upload that picture in the "Aftermath" section in the article Second Sino-Japanese War? hanchi 24 January 13.25

Yeah we should. However, a lot of Japanese troops were sent back to Japan too. I don't think most of the Japanese POW spent much prison time in China. The Far East Tribunal was a joke compared to the nuremberg trials. BlueShirts 20:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Do you want to change the reference section to something like this? Makes it easier to read and find out which part is from which. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

yeah I wanna do that, but that means I'll have to go back to the book and find the page numbers, which is a lot of work as I didn't bookmark it at first :( BlueShirts 07:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, take your time. No hurry or anything. Tell me if you need help. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 07:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

okay I added some page references. BlueShirts 00:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German translation

Wehrwirtschaft has been rendered as 'war economy' in the article. In fact, 'war economy' would be Kriegswirtschaft and a better translation for Wehrwirtschaft might well be 'military economy', especially considering Germany was not at war when this policy was implemented. Thoughts

Also, I have pinyin-ized a couple of parts of the article, removing the overly long (Traditional Chinese: xxx; Hanyu Pinyin: xxxxx) formulation after the first instance of this for concision and readability. • U|T|E 02:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make the translation; the book did. I think war economy sounds okay since Germany was essentially preparing for war. BlueShirts 02:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Isnt it arms economy?

[edit] Great Article

I think this is a great article, on a topic I knew basically nothing about. Just some questions about the expanded topic. No need to modify the article to address any or all of these topics. These are just questions. Wendell 00:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What was the primary transportation method in the 1930s of all these raw materials between China and Germany? Railroads or sea transport? I assume sea transport, clearly sea transport was encouraged in the 1880s and 1890s. Overland is closer, but did necessary rail links exist? I know The the Russian Trans-Siberian Railroad was being built from the 1890s to the 1910s. The article does not discuss transportation issues beyound 1890s that I can see.
- The article talks alot about railroad expansion in China being assisted by Germany. The article says, a series of Sino-German agreements in 1934-1936 greatly accelerated railway construction in China ... because Germany needed efficient transportation to export raw materials, and because the railway lines served the Chinese government's need to build an industrial center south of the Yangtze. I guess the rail lines were from China's resource rich interior & mountain areas to the coastal ports.
Is the close cooperation also also a product of shared authoritarian governments (Bismarck /Wilhelm) or anti-communist (NAZI & KMT) ideologies? I gather from the detailed history, no.

I think it's railroads inland then sea route from Canton. Yes the close cooperation was also a product of shared ideology, particularly on China's admiration of Germany. In the article it says that KMT liked Germany because Germany had no political motives in China and did not support any factions, unlike the Soviet Union. Also, in the legacy section I alluded that some in the KMT's higher circle wanted to fashion fascism as a way to strengthen China. I think this is a bit beyond the scope of this article, which is more about military/industrial coopearation. In addition, the KMT never did get close to implementing fascism on the scale you see in europe. Thanks for the input! BlueShirts 05:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I really have to admit that this is one of best articles I have ever read on Wikipedia. My compliments to everyone that co-operated in creating it. Sijo Ripa 00:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article hard to find in Wikipedia

Hey, i wonder what happened to this article? It was really difficult to find it, also when the link somehow doesnt go directly to this Sino-German article in German Foreign relation page. Also when doing a "search" in Wikipedia, this Sino-German article doesnt turn up. Whats happening with this great page?

we had some page moving due to name change. BlueShirts 16:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks hanchi 18:57 23 January

[edit] Alexander Von Falkenhausen strategy

This is just a personal observation, I hope if any of you will agree or disagree with me.

Von Falkenhausen strategy of "abandon region slowly to drain Japanese military resource" to Chiang proved effective but I wonder if this strategy made Chiang unpopular among the Chinese population during and after the Sino-Japanese war for taking an easier stance against the Japanese by giving up numerous city and towns. Meanwhile Mao Zedong Communist force managed to gain more popularity with their proclaim anti-japanese propaganda due to them fighting regurlarly publicity even though most of their battles are in small numbers and without much strategic value (except the battle of Tai'cher Zhang).

Thanks if anybody can agree or disagree with me hanchi 19.51 23 Januari

Yes, the strategy was to make the Japanese pay for every advance, but the picture can be distorted to accuse the KMT of not fighting. The strategy was to resist as much as possible, buying time for industries and the government to move inland for a protracted war. Chinese Nationalist troops did fight valiant and bloody battles, but almost always they were forced to retreat, until in the later stages of war. The PRC propaganda machine has always accused the nationalist troops of abandoning territories. However, this was done after some climactic battles that greatly reduced Nationalist strength. That's why you have examples such as the Battle of Shanghai (1937), which lasted three months and wasted a big portion of Chiang's best troops. I think it'd be wrong to say that the Nationalists were taking an easier stance, with millions of dead soldiers. And Taierzhuang was a Nationalist battle fought by Li Tsung-jen. You might be thinking about Battle of Pixinguan, which happened around the date. BlueShirts 20:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up. And yes! sorry! Wrong battle!! About Taizerzhuang.hanchi

Don't forget the 1938 Yellow River flood... That certainly did nothing either to stop the Japanese or to improve the Nationalists' image. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Chiang meant it when he said total sacrifice. You can't get more "scorched earth" than that. BlueShirts 20:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Dude...somebody put an obscene image from the main page link... Anonymous 2:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler's view towards China

Thanks for creating this article, which is one of the topics of China that I'm most interested about. I have a question which I'm burning to ask for a long time. Can anyone please answer it, thanks.

I'm a regular visitor of the Baidu forum, and there's an article about Hitler and China. It said that Hitler is actually very friendly towards China, because he thinks that some, or all Chinese people, is the descendant of Aryan race. ( Some or all? I don't really remember.) The article also mentions that when Chiang Wei-kuo, Chiang Kai-shek's second son, went to an official visit to Nazi Germany, and give away an ancient China vase to Hitler as a present, Hitler greeted him very nicely, and expressed a grateful thanks for the present, because he was always interested in Chinese culture. Is this true? ----Mdwav 19:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC+8)

Probably not. Since the Japanese are considered Untermenschen in Mein Kampf, and since they had the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, it shows that Hitler wasn't averse to allying with "untermenschen" to achieve their goals. Aryan Chinese would really be pushing it, I don't think it's remotely possible, but a link to the Baidu forum would be appreciated! As for Hitler and Chinese culture - not sure, but he was vegetarian... LOL. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 15:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In Mein Kampf Hitler lumped the Chinese in the same category as black people, and derided the Japanese for being successful only because of imitating the west. This of course was not good with Sino-German cooperation and the german foreign office didnt like it either and promised that in the next edition of Mein Kampf such passages would be expurgated. BlueShirts 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that is a thing we can insert into the article? Sometimes we (at least I do) get too carried away by the cool helmets and Mausers... This would be relevant and present a balanced view. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 03:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

OK quotes from Mein Kampf:

"In addition, we must regard as giant states, first of all the American Union, then Russia and China" (Vol II, Chapter XIV).
"But it is almost inconceivable how such a mistake could be made as to think that a Negro or a Chinaman will become a German because he has learned the German language and is willing to speak German for the future, and even to cast his vote for a German political party" (Vol II, Chapter II).
"it was the school that still taught the individual German not to seek the salvation of the nation in lying phrases about an international brotherhood between Negroes, Germans, Chinese, French, etc., but in the force and solidarity of our own nation" (Vol I, Chapter X).

He makes few references to China specifically but Japan was mentioned lots of times, and is usually used to generalise Asians. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 03:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! That explains it. ----Mdwav 17:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC+8)

Well because of Hitlers own stupidity to rely on the Japanese, thats why they screwed up at the end. (Japan provide less raw materials during their Nazi-Japan alliance than with China), he just got himself to blame (however but its good that they cut out their alliance with China then, or else the War would have ended differently). hanchi 10:56 10 February 2006

im just curious as to where this "Aryan Chinese" idea came from? do chinese people have blonde hair and blue eyes? mongoloid is porbably as far away from the nordic race as you can get. im not being offensive, just curious.

The notion of aryan chinese never existed. Did you even bother to read the comments made by a few of us above? BlueShirts 20:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

i never said it existed, but im still curious as the where that person whos bought it up got it from. its a silly thing to say if you think about it. its like saying siberians are realted to kenyans.

[edit] Beer is relevant...

The German concession in Shandong had a lasting cultural effect in that Germans built a number of breweries for beer which remain into the present day. From this period, came Tsingtao Beer.

I think this is absolutely relevant. Tsingtao is one of the largest consumer products companies in China and one of the few Chinese brands that is recognized globally. It's *very* relevant to at least mention the German connection.

Roadrunner 17:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is about militarization and modernization of China by cooperation with Germany. Writing about Tsingtao Beer reads like a joke in context in this article. It may be true, but better leave this aside now. 171.65.67.64 18:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting anecdote. I've linked to this page on the Tsingtao page; mind you, beer does have an economic impact...somewhat. Just don't make it undue weight or anything. Perhaps append a bit at the end. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Tsintao Beer section sounds anecdotal. Again, this article is about militarization and industrialization (related to war and heavy industry) of China. How is beer lasting "culturally." Any extraordinary claim needs to have citation, since I dont' see how modern China is influenced culturally with German beer. The sentence "German investment...Shandong" reads a bit amateurish, and the last sentence reads like an introduction to Tsintao Beer, which is not mentioned anymore in the article and should not be. I am not saying the beer connection is untrue or anything, but this paragraph really brings down the quality of that part of article, plus it reads out of place.

171.65.66.250 01:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] footnote

The first footnote doesn't seem to work. Gflores ^Talk 19:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah we've had some problems with formatting the footenote. Some works and some don't. I'll go recheck BlueShirts 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a question

Hey. I know that Sino- refers to Chinese, and has for quite awhile, but why? Where did this come from? Canaen 20:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

See here BlueShirts 20:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits disappeared

A few of my edits disappeared. Just curious if they were due to the vandalism revert or if there was any issue with them. The edits were:

1) add a paragraph describing that some German influence was indirect through Japan 2) add a paragraph describing Chinese role against Germany in WWI. This is crucial for context for why treaty of versalles was received badly 3) add contents describing ramifications of early battles on the later progress of Sino-Japanese War 4) Pinyinize everything. (Wikipedia standard for place names of areas currently under PRC administration is to use pinyin)

Sorry, it probably got lost in the vandalism reverting. Try again, please, and mark it in the summary (so that people would not revert without taking a look at your edits first.) Thanks. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German technology falling into CCP hands

Hmm, this mainly seems to cover the ROC side. I remember reading an account of how the CCP gained control of a strategic bridge (it was one of those, wooden, delicate, ropey-type bridges a la Indiana Jones cliche) and they send some forward scouts who attacked the KMT defenders (who had dug themselves in) with Mauser-grenade launchers (or some sort of grenade launcher fitted on the end of a mauser, it was so long ago I forgot what it was called; it could be the Mauser equivalent of the M203), and then they caused the first line of defense to flee, which then they could reinforce, etc. and in a series of tactical maneouvres, crossed the bridge. So this implied that somehow German technology fell into CCP hands. Which actually supports our statement because it was merely "the ability of the KMT to resist the Japanese", but rather "the ability of China" (that is, both parties) to resist the Japanese. I just can't remember what the exact nature of it was. Enlighten me. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Through most of the Second Sino-Japanese War, the CCP units were nominally part of the Chinese Army. Also when KMT soldiers defected to the CCP it was typically as part of an entire unit rather than as individuals, so it's not surprising that German technology found its way to the CCP.

209.163.206.211 21:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

KMT was China. They followed Leninist model of Party=Army=State. BlueShirts 22:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] protection

Why so many vandals? Should we protect this for a while? BlueShirts 23:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism still not fixed...

Can someone fix the vandalism already?

Yeah enough of this cocking around...

A rather lame policy: "Articles linked from the main page should NOT be protected (full or semi) except to clean up vandalism. Protection should be kept to 10-15 minutes in these cases." (Wikipedia:Protected page) More vandalism then real edits... sad. :( -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The page does not appear to match its source: I just tried to sort this out but am not able to edit, as the page is locked. Can someone sort this out? Very odd...--James Kemp 23:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Vandalism still has been not fixed, and due to the lock, we can't fix it!

The article is currently semiprotected meaning it can only be edited by registered users. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The blocking policy is really lame. The lamest in fact. Most of the vandalism now comes from one-shot "contributors." BlueShirts 00:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BlueShirts

The Blue Shirts was not fascist and was not founded by Chiang. Its official name was Three People's Principles Implementation Society (Sanminzhuyi Lixingshe), and the term "Blue Shirts" has only appeared once in an internal party document calling for KMT reform. However, the name Blue Shirts has been used extensively by faulty Shanghai Municipal Police intelligence and the Japanese, who tended to portray the Lixingshe as a terrorist fascist group responsible for most anti-Japanese activity in the 1930s. The term Blue Shirts also has nothing to do with Black Shirts or Brown Shirts. Blue Shirts in Chinese is lan (blue) yi (clothes) she (society), and Chinese translations of German Brown Shirts is he (brown) shan (shirt) dang (party), Italian Black Shirts is hei (black) shan (shirt) dang (party) and Irish Blue Shirts is lan (blue) shan (shirt) dang (party). Yi(clothes)/Shan(shirt) and She(society)/Dang(party) are different, and it's wrong to think that the Lixingshe was modelled after European fascists just because their english translation is the same, albeit inaccurate. One book I read points out that if the Lixingshe has anything to do with fascists, then it must have been more influenced by the Japanese Black Dragon Society, which the founders of the Lixingshe had knowledge of when they studied in Japan. I plan to rewrite the whole Blue Shirts article if I get a chance. BlueShirts 19:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I presume that Blue Shirts came to be the name as a pejorative just as "Nazi" came about for National Socialist German Worker's Party. To me it was obvious that it was never used by the Blueshirt institution to refer to itself. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

NSDAP called itself the Nazis but Lixingshe never referred itself as Blue Shirts. Lixingshe members didn't bother to correct the misnomer since the group was a secret faction within the Kuomintang. BlueShirts 00:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coolies

The sentences about coolies are unsourced and were not part of the article that was submitted as FA. First of all, these sentences imply that Chinese were actively involved in war effort in Western front, which was not true. Second, the sentence "Chinese troops were not used against Germany" does not make any sense at all in historical context and also in context of the article. Third, any claim needs to have source, and this claim certainly does not. That's why it's deleted. Temporary account 04:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meiji and Chinese Law section

Delete unsourced section and repetitive sections. Reason: paragraph about Chinese modernizers in early Sino-German relations is unnecessary and out of place in history. The reasons are already stated in the 1920s Sino-German relation section. That's keep it that way because the official Sino-German relation started with KMT rise to power in the 20s. Second, the claim that Franco-Prussian War inspired these Chinese modernizers is unsourced, and this is already alluded by 1920 section of the article. There was no strong evidence and no source that the KMT sought German help because of German-assistance in the Meiji Restoration. There were other more important foreign figures other than Germans in modernizing Japn.

The paragraph about German influence on Chinese laws is uncited and seems made-up. There is no evidence that the laws, or the so-called "new legal code" were "completely" derived from German source.

I'll readd and cite the section on Chinese law later. The Civil Code of the Republic of China is basically a modification of the BGB.

Roadrunner 17:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

At the end, please do not add anything unsourced or unverified to the already FA quality article. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Temporary account 04:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Were these additions made after or during the mainpage appearance? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 05:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Added on Feb 8th, thus not part of FA that was submitted. Temporary account 05:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Readded law section with citation. I can get more citations if you give me a few days. The Taiwanese civil code is basically the German Civil Code to the point that Taiwanese law books will include citations to the BGB. PRC law is this weird hash of traditional Chinese law, German civil law, Russian socialist law, and American common law, but a the German influence in Chinese law is not widely known and is very important. Which is why I added that section

Roadrunner 18:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Changed PRC -> mainland China. Hong Kong is in the PRC, but its legal system is based on British Common Law.

Roadrunner 18:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice Job! Temporary account 19:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

yes, source is always good. BlueShirts 20:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy for Communist (Current Mainland Government)

Not really a good for the main article, I think this is more suited in discuss area. It seems like Mainland China nowadays look towards Germany for both technology and trade alliance. Also Germany was one of the few European nation that put money on Communist China, when China opened it doors towards the West. Seems like history repeats itself. By the way, China football team follow the German playstyle (while Japan follow South American style). I remember i read an article from either Newsweek or Der Spiegel that if China was looking for inspiration on government policy, it was European they look at (especially Scandinavian and German), while China deliberatetly snub the U.S style of government.

hanchi 10 February 2006 11:10

Yeah but China doesn't have the benefits associated with liberal socialism. BlueShirts 19:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

True, but who knows? If China managed to put in Capitalism nowadays, who knows? I call it a "foreshadowing". I dont think Communism will survive this coming century. But I doubt it will be Democrazy either. hanchi 12:24 12 February 2006

Yeah probably legalism or confucianism - not good. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

China and Germany have somewhat similar modern histories and share a lot in common (like being continental powers who modernized relatively late within their respective regions). A good relationship between the two countries makes a lot of sense. 128.135.194.7 00:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1911?

What does the year 1911 in the title have to do with anything? I really don't see the significance of the date in the article. We can start in the 1750s, the 1920s, or 1933, but where did the year 1911 come from? If it is really arbitrary and an attempt to limit the scope, then the text defies this in the section about early Sino-German cooperation.

Why dont we call this "Cooperation between China and Nazi Germany" and move everything before that to an article on Sino-German relations. --Jiang 09:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say just keep it as it isn't a big issue at all. When Sino-German relations becomes full fledged then maybe we'll move the early section to there and rename this article. BlueShirts 03:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a big issue because the title is very prominent and sets the scope of the article. I could randomly decide to move this to Sino-German cooperation (1912-1941), Sino-German cooperation (1915-1941), Sino-German cooperation (1920-1941), Sino-German cooperation (1927-1941)...and it would still make the same amount of sense.

Would you object to doing as proposed by moving this to "Cooperation between China and Nazi Germany" and moving everything out of scope to "Sino-German relations"? Of course, the "Sino-German relations" won't be "full-fledged" to begin with, but we have to start somewhere... --Jiang 07:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As the Germans were involved even before the Nazi takeover, cutting it off suddenly at 1933 would be kind of abrupt and in my opinion unnecessary. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 21:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Using years in titles has its merit. An alternative would be "(1910s to 1940s)" (this reminds me of the discussion at talk:prostitution in mainland China), but we've gotta ask if we've to avoid using years in such deliberate manner. — Insta ntnood 22:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

"Cooperation" (not simple "relations") did not become significant until the Nazis took over. Events before may have laid the groundwork, but the "cooperation" was insignificant. There can still be a background section.--Jiang 00:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the year 1911 is used to signify the cooperation between Germany and Republican China. The Nazi cooperation was with Wang Jinwei(sp?), not Republican China. I don't really think von Falkenhausen really represented Nazi Germany. He was like Rabe, a Nazi but quite distant from the real Nazis back in Europe. Also the Nazi cooperation with Wang was nominal at best, with no significant exchange of material or technology as seen before the breakup of Sino-German cooperation in late 30s. 171.65.66.180 22:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Rabe et al were there because of Siemens, which was as far as I know not part of the state-controlled German industrial-military complex. So Rabe would be representing an independent, private company, but von Falkenhausen et al were military advisors sent to China by the Nazi government... Big difference here. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Rabe was a nazi and siemens like all other companies did have extensive contracts with the nazi government. 171 is saying that the people responsible for sino-german cooperation weren't fanatical nazis, unless you count in Kreibel, but his stint was relatively short. Personally I'd hate it to see the article renamed something like cooperation between the ROC and Nazi Germany. Germany wasn't nazi in the 1920s when the advisers came pouring in, and like 171 said Nazi Germany and Wang Jinwei weren't "cooperating" on any level comparable level to before. If the article ain't broke, don't fix. It's a perfect FA and one of the best articles on wiki imo. Why nitpick over the name, not to mention after the FAC for crying out loud. BlueShirts 00:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

1911 was the date of the Xinhai Revolution, so that was the point - when the Republic of China was formed, and was more adept at resisting foreign domination (although it continued somewhat). For example, arguably (it depends) you can't really say "Germany cooperated with the Qing Dynasty", because the foreign powers were attempting to force economic treaties down its throat (ie. continuing the rather disgraceful effects of the Unequal Treaties), but after the Xinhai Revolution, although the foreign powers still got the treatment of favouritism, the ROC wasn't quite so submissive and the relationship was really more like an alliance. Of course, the foreign powers' perception of China didn't change overnight the moment the Xinhai Revolution occurred (I would imagine they would have tried to assert their authority), but China was more assertive of its independence. Note that although Shanghai, etc. still had the foreign quarters and were under heavy foreign dominance, you had the Kuomintang — the Chinese Nationalist Party — and that made all the difference; even to the extent of the rejection of the Twenty-One Demands after the 1911 (there were no unequal treaties signed after 1911). Thus that is why the start date should be at 1911. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The Republic of China was formed in 1912, not 1911. The year 1911 is not mentioned in the article other than in the title. In fact, the article suggests that the period before the 1920s was of no significance in terms of "cooperation":

In 1912 Germany offered a RM six million loan to the new Chinese Republican Government and returned to the Chinese railway building rights in Shandong. When World War I broke out in Europe, Germany offered to return Kiaochow Bay to China, in an attempt to keep the concession from falling into Japanese hands. However, the Japanese entered the war on the side of the Allies and proceeded to attack German concessions in China, and seized Tsingtao and Kiaochow Bay. During the war, Germany had no active role or initiative in conducting any meaningful actions in the Far East as it was preoccupied with the war in Europe.

On August 14, 1917, China declared war on Germany and recovered German concessions in Hankow and Tientsin, and was promised the return of other German spheres of influence following the defeat of Germany. However, instead of China, Japan acquired these concessions in the Treaty of Versailles. The feeling of betrayal by the Allied powers sparked the nationalistic May Fourth Movement. As a result, World War I dealt a severe blow to Sino-German relations, particularly in trade. For example, of the almost three hundred German firms in China in 1913, only two remained in 1919. [5]

The new Republican government was really no stronger than the Qing. In fact, the warlordism after Yuan Shikai made it extremely weak. The root cause of the May Fourth Movement was that the Beijing government was too submissive.... If you would like to set a date of when resistance against foreign domination became full blown and actually effective, make it 1928 when the KMT took over--Jiang 00:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation

Hi there! I'm just finished with my translation of this article into german language. But I found that pictures used in the english article have not been uploaded to commons yet. if nobody has a problem with this i'd ike to uplaod them by myself... GReeting --FidAl (German Wikipedia)

This image is fair use, so I don't think it can be uploaded to the Commons. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 21:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Hun" speech

The Chinese wiki dug up the original speech given by Kaiser Wilhelm II (AKA Willy), dated 27 July 1900:

Ihr sollt schweres Unrecht suenen. Ein Volk, das, wiedie Chinesen, eswagt, tausend jaehrige alte Voelkerrechte umzuwerfen und der Heiligkeit der Gesandten und der Heiligkeit des Gastrechts in abscheulicher Weise Hohn spricht,das ist ein Vorfall, wie er in der Weltgeschichte noch nicht vorgekommenist.

But it seems that this might not be an error free version, since some words look really weird and I don't understand half of it. :( -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 05:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Military attachment"

(in section "Early Sino-German relations") Is this good English? Should it be "military dispatch"? Wilsonbond 17:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Military attachment okay, as some sites do use the term, but I think "attache" is better here. BlueShirts 23:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German Empire

The article dealt with Sino-German cooperation between the period of 1911-1941, and the German Empire was replaced by the Weimar republic in 1918 which was then replaced by Nazi Germany, shouldn't it be changed to reflect this? Mr.Clown 11:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Миборо в ский 17:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/i/n/Talk%7ESino-German_cooperation_%281911-1941%29_f2db.html"