Jump to content

Talk:Chiang Wei-kuo/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Sargent

To the anonymous editor who reverted my correction to Sergeant. Since this is English WP, I'm curious what a sargent is. Is it a Chinese version of the German rank (Feldwebel) perhaps? Dr. Dan (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Two stories

In 1962 (or so), Wego was said to have taken a group of tanks (company? division?) from their base into Taipei city, apparently because of some dispute with his father. He was convinced to return to base without any violence.

In the 1980s, I heard him tell a story about his experience in Germany. He said that one day, on a training exercise, he was told to raise his right arm and then bring it down. As he did so, the invasion of Czechoslovakia -- and the Second World War -- began. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


I really want too see some evidence that Chiang Wei-Kuo was a Master Mason considering him being a German Nazi officer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.51.2 (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Better balance, and footnotes, please.

Why would WK Chiang’s “allegiance” be listed – first ! – to Nazi Germany? That’s like saying any solider attend the US’ School of the Americas would first be loyal to the US. Nonsense. He was in Germany for military training, which in his case involved being assigned to a specific unit that saw combat. As it stands, there is no evidence whatsoever he was a member of the Nazi Party or had any loyalty to the regime.

Further, for a man who spend 3 years in military training – not “years of service” – in Germany [not “(Nazi)”], and nearly 60 years in service in the ROC, there is no reason why he should be pictured in a German uniform.

This article is very unbalanced, and unless there is some serious work, I will rewrite it to something that more reflects who Chiang Wei-kuo really was. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

He took part in the Anschluss (sort of a "bloodless invasion") into Austria in a Panzer division during 1938. He's actually served duty in the Wehrmacht. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
And, because Australian troops fought in Korea therefore an Australian officer should be listed as loyal to Korea? Nonsense. I'm changing it. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
But you're comparing apples and oranges here. The Australians fought in Korea under the Australian Armed Forces. Chiang Wei-kuo was formally a subordinate of the Wehrmacht, and took part in the Austria operations not as a Colonel of the National Revolutionary Army, but as an Officer of the Wehrmacht. He did not participate as an NRA soldier in Austria as the NRA was not a belligerent within that operation. The Australians in Korea took orders from Australian generals, and not from the Republic of Korea army, whilst Chiang Wei-kuo took orders directly from the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, as a Wehrmacht soldier. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

On this issue alone, I think that "Nazi Germany" notation should be moved down should be moved down below "Republic of China," but I see nothing wrong with having the German uniform; it was part of history and did not unfairly call him out as participating in Nazi atrocities. --Nlu (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that seems like a fine idea to me. His main services were with the ROC anyway. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Ehh... regarding "Years of service" and the like, do you think it would be better to have them appear chronologically, or ROC first? His Wehrmacht service occurred before the majority of his service in the ROC armed forces; I see that a lot of other war-related biographical pages list these things chronologically. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Either one is fine, but it should be made clear that it is chronological that he served in Germany first before ROC rather than that his primary allegiance is with Germany than ROC. Otherwise, it would appear like he was a Nazi exile in ROC. --Nlu (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

So, the argument is that his very brief training with the German army deserves to be mentioned in such a prominent way, with photos of him in a German uniform and “loyal” to Germany? Sorry, not good enough. As long as the training he did in Germany is not portrayed as anything more than training, regardless of rank or role, then I'm satisfied. I still think the photo is unrepresentative, however. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between allegiance from service, and absolute loyalty for your home country. When you sign up for service, you swear an oath of loyalty to the state; as far as I have read in history books, the Wehrmacht takes this one step further and has all soldiers swear an oath of loyalty to the Führer. This is nothing strange; it is only natural that whilst serving in an armed forces, you are expected to serve and have no ulterior motives, either personal or for a third party, for obvious reasons (9 out of 10 Roman emperors assassinated were done in by their own men). If I were to join the Australian Armed Forces, I would have made a pledge to Queen, Country and People, so that during my time in service, my allegiance would be with the Commonwealth of Australia (my birthhome), and not the People's Republic of China (my ancestral motherland); the same goes for if I were to join the People's Liberation Army, but instead the pledge would be towards the party. I would expect that Chiang Wei-kuo would have made this oath, otherwise he would have never been allowed into the Wehrmacht. Still, making a pledge of allegiance to the Reich doesn't mean that he is any less loyal to the Republic of China, and I'm sure that during his time in the Wehrmacht, the ROC was still his motherland.
Then, there's the idea that his service in the Wehrmacht was temporary - it did not last forever, and hence neither did his allegiance. His allegiance to the Reich would have only lasted the length of time he served in the Wehrmacht, which is all that is needed of him. After his service in the Wehrmacht ended, you could pretty much say that he no longer had anything to do with that pledge; that doesn't mean, however, that he never made it for those three years of service (which mind you, is not a short amount of time; it's longer than conscription in the Republic of Korea today).
And as for your other remark, you can't simply brush off military service as "just training" and make it negligible like that; military service in itself is simply military service regardless of intentions, and there obviously would have been political and diplomatic considerations as well. But hey, don't take his service in the Wehrmacht necessarily as a bad thing; it was during his time in the German army where he developed his tactical and strategic skills that proved successful during the closing days of the Second Sino-Japanese War and first few battles of the Chinese Civil War, albeit for a limited time. I for one think it was a great idea for him to serve in the Wehrmacht, given his successes in the Huaihai Campaign against the Chinese Communists.
I think you shouldn't be thinking of service with the Nazis as something bad (Reductio ad Hitlerum is itself a fallacy of irrelevance); just because the Nazis did x number of bad things, it doesn't mean that Chiang Wei-kuo's service should be a taboo or a shameful thing and must be hidden at all costs. Being of connection to Nazis doesn't make someone a villain (John Rabe, anyone?), and you shouldn't feel that way. Keep in mind that Chiang Kai-shek originally intended on gaining an upper hand against the CCP by co-operation with Nazi Germany, then the most powerful and advanced military in the world. Helping your father seek power to defeat communists doesn't make you an anti-semite mass murderer, gassing Jews makes you an anti-semite mass murderer, and Chiang Wei-kuo had nothing to do with that. You are merely assuming a Guilt by association by assuming that anything Nazi is evil; try not to think of things from that perspective. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Allegiances

So, the argument goes, because the Wehrmacht isn’t Nazi Germany, therefore there should be no objection to having “Nazi” appear five times in the Infobox, is that it? That would mean that we would have to change all those other bios to spell out exactly when someone’s loyalty was here, or there. Sam Houston, for example, was both a United States Senator and the President of the Republic of Texas, but no one seems to think it necessary to spell out his allegiance. The same for William B. Ide, a member of the Vermont State legislature and the first (and only) head of the California Bear Republic. Sanford P. Dole was a member of the legislature of the Hawaiian Kingdom,, the first president of the Republic of Hawaii and later the first US territorial governor. No less than three claims on his loyalty, yet not a mention of “allegiance.”

So, the argument can only be that Chiang Wei-kuo’s allegiance to the National Socialist Party was far more important than any other these other men’s multiple allegiances, and therefore must be highlighted with no fewer than five references in the InfoBox and a careful wording to ensure that we don’t confuse his being in Germany with military training in the Wehrmacht.

Nonsense. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that the article makes it quite clear that he was in Nazi Germany on an exchange between the ROC and Germany so that he could develop military experience. As for the examples of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, if you disagree you could always change those articles, although I'd presume that the original authors believed that since those political establishments were soon to become part of the United States, noting the specific details wasn't something they thought was necessary. On the other hand, neither Germany occupied China, nor China occupied Germany; I'm arguing that this is a different case to the examples you have given.
But even so, we have prominent individuals with multiple allegiances listed chronologically based on the rise and fall of governments ruling their homeland (i.e. succession of states):
You have only chosen a few duck eggs in a basket of chicken eggs. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you missed my point, so I'll try again: It can only be the case that Chiang Wei-kuo’s allegiance to the National Socialist Party was far more important than any other these other men’s multiple allegiances, and therefore must be highlighted with no fewer than five references in the InfoBox and a careful wording to ensure that we don’t confuse his being in Germany with military training in the Wehrmacht.

Nonsense. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Who said anything about the National Socialist Party? Where, in the article, does it say that CWK had allegiance to the Nazi party? The "(Nazi)" in the infobox refers to the country that is Nazi Germany, that is, not to be confused with a handful of countries also named "Germany".
The article doesn't state that Chiang Wei-kuo was Nazi in the context that he was a member of the Nazi Party and supported its ideals; what the article clearly shows is that he served in the armed forces of Nazi Germany, and the state of Nazi Germany at the time was co-operating with the state of the Republic of China, and that in order for this to work out, Chiang Wei-kuo would have had to pledge allegiance to army, state and leader, even for a temporary timespan, which is why his allegiance is listed there. "Nazi" in this case ensures that there is no confusion between Nazi Germany and a dozen other historical (and modern) states named "Germany", such as the German Empire, German Democratic Republic and Federal Republic of Germany. "Nazi Germany" refers to the German state after the banning of rival German parties by the NSDAP, and before the end of World War II.
Come to notice of it, but the individuals you have listed are merely political figures, and none of them are figures in the military. I think you haven't really grasped the concept of "allegiance" in regards to military service yet - when you take part in service, you take orders from a higher command, and you are expected to give your full allegiance to that higher command when you begin service; this is not required for anything else, from becoming a piano teacher in Kuwait or a senator in Delaware. You are not expected to make an oath for other occupancies, however a pledge of allegiance is a prerequisite and a necessity in taking part in military service. This is the same reason why the articles at Vladimir Putin, Hu Jintao, Bill Gates, John McCain, 14th Dalai Lama and Maria Ozawa do not list "allegiance" within their infoboxes - simply because they are not military figures. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
"Nazi" as a descriptor is used beyond Nazi Germany, and it is used in a very derogatory way; therefore it should be avoided where possible. Also, it doesn't make sense because it is alongside "ROC" which is a noun and a country; "Nazi" is not a country, but unqualified it can refer to the political party. "Nazi Germany", maybe, if there is confusion (but I have seen "Germany" used unqualified in many cases). It is not usually ambiguous because no other country styled itself "Germany" during the relevant time period. Quigley (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I've changed the "Nazi" descriptor in the infobox to "Wehrmacht", in relation to service years and awards, in light that it should minimise any controversy in the article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Otto Schultze lists dates for his allegiances; I guess this is a plausible option as well. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War?

In the categories, it lists him under "People of the Spanish Civil War." There is nothing in the article about him going to Spain. What gives? Openskye (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Most probably an error. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Photos

Given that Chiang spent about 98% of his career in a Nationalist Chinese uniform, what is the justification for not one but two pictures of him in a German uniform? DOR (HK) (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


One of the photos that state him being in NRA uniform is in fact the uniform of a Gebrigsjager German mountain troop and has been corrected as such. Apart from the German breast eagle on the tunic, the Bergmutze cap, unique characteristic of the Gebirgsjager is worn. 213.123.135.235 (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Images

I just created Commons:Category:Chiang Wei-kuo; feel free to use any images you see fit. Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Tangentially related: here are some pictures of his widow and son.吴培维 (February 28, 2006). "丘如雪携子抵溪口探梅赏花寄情思". 奉化. Retrieved November 12, 2014. I'm not completely solid on the year of this reference, only that they gave the age of his widow (Chinese: 丘如雪) as 70, and other sources indicate she was born in 1935. Mliu92 (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chiang Wei-kuo. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chiang Wei-kuo. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chiang Wei-kuo. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Use of the English transliteration "Wego Chiang"

Examples:

CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC) 

Having once met the man, I can confirm that his preference was for “Wego,” as in “We go back to the Mainland.” DOR (HK) (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chiang_Wei-kuo/Archive_1&oldid=1171608572"