Talk:Warlord Era

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Remove statement

An enduring legacy of this era was the injection of provincialism into national politics as characterized by Chiang's Whampoa clique, Mao Zedong's Hunan clique, and Jiang Zemin's Shanghai clique.

There isn't any historical connection between any of the warlord groups and any of the modern groups after that.

Roadrunner 21:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


What was the first use of the term "warlord era", and how did it come about? Was it coined by Chiang, or by historians? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 03:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Foreign reaction[edit]

I don't know if it is stated in this article, but how exactly did the foreign powers react to this chaotic disruption of their trade interests, did these warlords cooperate with the foreigners? and how did the europeans and japanese react to changes in power among the warlords within their spheres of influence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The European powers together with the United States continued to have diplomatic relations with the government in Beijing, which had little power. The Japanese supported groups of warlords, hoping to push China into their sphere of influence. Most notably, the Japanese supported Marshal Zhang, the "Old Marshal" of Manchuria in his bids to conquer China until they assassinated him in 1928. There probably should be something in this article about the Japanese and the warlords. Really, the popular belief that Japanese policy towards China changed from a "normal" policy before 1931 and imperialistic starting in September 1931 with the seizure of Manchuria is dead wrong. Japan's policy was always to place China within its sphere of influence. In the 1920s, the Japanese supported Marshal Zhang and starting in 1931 started to seize parts of China for themselves.--A.S. Brown (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Mistake in Second Paragraph[edit]

"and after during the Chinese Civil War." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Warlordism As A Social System[edit]

While definitely colorful, this entire section reads more like a gossip rag than anything else, and goes into a good deal more detail than seems appropriate or necessary. Even if everything currently written is deemed important enough to keep, it might be a good idea to at least break it down into subsections instead of the existing massive monstrosity. (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I have started this task, but there is much left to do! Since the section has mostly politics and descriptions of warlord personalities, and little about social system, I changed the title of the section to "Warlords, their armies, and their political system." ch (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)