"Chinese" (and other adjectival forms ending in -ese: Vietnamese, Nepalese, Balinese, Japanese, Burmese, etc.) would seem to be the exception to the rule in that they can be used with or without the definite article.
Why? Well, I'd never thought about it before, but I suppose it has to do with two things:
a) The words can't be made plural (no such thing as "Chineses"); whereas when we say "Brazilians" or "Germans" we've magically transformed the adjective into a noun simply by adding an 's.' For this reason your example
I find it strange that for other nationalities the word 'people' is generally left out. Example: Americans like to drink tea.
is muddled. Of course we can't say "Americans people," because "Americans" is already a noun. We could, however, at least in theory, say "American people"...but we don't because we have the handy, unambiguous 's' form already.
b) Where one can't make a noun describing a nationality by adding an 's' to the adjective (e.g. "French" doesn't become "Frenches"; "Danish" doesn't become "Danishes"...unless you're talking about a pastry) English has developed irregular forms to describe those nationalities: Frenchmen, Danes, Spaniards, Finns, etc. English used to have such a form for the Chinese, "Chinaman," but somewhere along the line it was decided that the term is offensive.