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


I'm not even sure that "Revenge" is a legitimate article. However, such unsubstantiated/unsourced personal opinions as "Revanchist sentiments provoked two 19th-century wars ... " and such is unaccetable. - Ted Wilkes 15:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The text reads: Revanchist sentiments provoked two 19th-century wars between Prussia and Denmark over Schleswig and Holstein (the First war of Schleswig 1848-1851 and the Second war of Schleswig in 1864). What other motives for these two wars have ever been offered? I've noticed that many more fastidious editors avoid applying those stickers. --Wetman 22:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Unwarranted caveat about neutrality[edit]

"Revanchism" is a widely used term that has counterparts in French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Swedish, Chinese, Japanese, and Hebrew. (The above link to also displays the same article on revanchism as appears here in Wikipedia.)

Revanchism is also a common enough term to be defined in Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 10th Edition:

"REVENGE; especially : a usually political policy designed to recover lost territory or status."

Given the existence of this term and its undoubted basis in historical fact, Mr. Wilkes's point that he is "not even sure" that "revenge," presumably "revanchism," is a legitimate article is not well taken. For example, if the web article Germany 1919-1990 is in any way accurate, it would be surprising if at least some Germans in 1921 did not have a desire for revenge and, especially, for recovery of the territories lost to Germany that the article lists. No doubt, it was a lot more than some Germans.

To say that one is "not even sure" is not helpful. If Mr. Wilkes is not sure that revanchism is an appropriate subject of an article, he should withhold comment until he is sure and then say plainly why a certain phenomenon in human history does not belong in an encyclopaedia of human history.

This link to the First war of Schleswig shows that the author of the article correctly described that war as having revanchist objectives. Thus, even if the author did not adequately source his or her assertion in the view of Mr. Wilkes and it is the author's personal opinion, it nonetheless appears that the author's views on at least one of the 19th century wars are correct.

Mr. Wilkes's syntax is deficient and undermines the effectiveness of his objection to the article.

Wetman's question about what other motives might have been involved in the First and Second Wars of Schleswig is perhaps relevant. However, he or she should come right out and make an argument that other motives drove the conflicts, rather than just ask a an open-ended question whether there might have been other motives.

Wetman should also not hide behind "I have noticed" if he or she wants to make a point about the author's alleged lack of fastidiousness. That particular point was not successfully made, moreover, and no example was cited of any of the more fastidious editors known to Mr. or Ms. Wetman. Wetman should make a straightforward argument that "revanchist sentiments" is a term that is intellectually unsound.

The warning label about the neutrality of the article is not warranted by the objections raised by either Mr. Wilkes or Wetman.

Richard Ong 16:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Revanchism's influence on Russia's entry to WWI?![edit]

The article appears to have Russia and France's entries into WWI reversed. 'This is one of the major reasons France went to great pains to woo Russia over to its side, first by means of the Franco-Russian Alliance of 1894, and then by a series of accords, including the Triple Entente, which eventually led Russia to enter World War I on the side of the Allies.' Russia entered the war (not yet 'The Great War') in defense of Serbia, not as a result of it's treaty obligations towards France. France might have entered the war as a result of the Triple Entente treaties, but in the event it was invaded by Germany before that decision was made. I'm going to go ahead and reword this section, if no one objects. MilesVorkosigan 19:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent deletions[edit]

Recent deletions of sections of text wereapparently based on personal or local national prejudice. I have restored them. --Wetman 23:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Such views often ignored history and ethnic realities....often is a weasel word and "Posen" is a select example.--Hohns3 00:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Rv dl. Posen is an example, if you want to add a counter-example, do so instead of deleting this passage. You pretend that "often" is a "weasel word", but you use it in the next sentence. Lapaz 18:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If we're talking of a desire to undo territorial changes, it has nothing to do with whether it is legitimate to do so, or not. It is unconnected in the same way as stating that the desire may happen at 10 o'clock in the morning or in the eveining. It is not dependent on that. The only thing that the author wanted was emphasise that his Poznan was Polish (with the help of a cherry-picked percentage) and all the others had no right, for which Wikipedia is not the right place. No original research is a policy,as well as the neutral point of view. "Critics claim"? That's not avoiding weasel words. Sciurinæ 18:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

These demands were also made regardless of short historic relationship of certain regions to Germany or any German majority in the demanded region. For example the area of Polish Corridor became part of Prussia only in 1772 and in 1931 only 9,6 % of the population was German[1].

This is no different from the last instance and filled with misleading and invalid information. Prussia never obtained the Polish Corridor as an entity. "9.6% of the population was German after it was ceded to Poland?" That means nothing to me. If I'm German, its doubtful that I'm sticking around the Corridor after its seized. How many Germans could even speak Polish?--Hohns3 00:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Your personal views are irrelevent to the issue. Giving an example of historic and ethnic situation in regards to territories Germans wanted to reconquer is nothing wrong. --Molobo 11:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point of my comment and you are taking the example you cite out of context. It shows the declining percentage of the German population in Western Poland in order to bring to our attention the "orphaning" effects of the Treaty of Versailles due to ethnic expulsion. Citing a 1931 figure for a largely cleansed town in Poland in order to show that city x was Polish all along is not only manipulative, but misleading. --Hohns3 15:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure I can give numbers from 1921. --Molobo 16:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Revanchism in Asian History[edit]

It seems the history of china has been about revanchism. Each successive government laid claims to land traditionally inhabited by the chinese people, or people who had ties with chinese culture.

You mean successive Chinese governments expanding at the expense of local minorities? Or outside powers expanding at China's expense? (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps irredentism is a better term.
Bathrobe 01:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Would China's attitude toward Taiwan be better described as irredentist or revanchist? Some background: China's formal claim is based on historical criteria (that Taiwan has been part of China in the past) as well as "diplomatic" ones (that the ROC government has always admitted itself to be Chinese, various other countries accept the "One China Policy," etc.). The shared Chinese ethnicity of Taiwan's people is a major factor, though there is the counterexample of Singapore. Much of the PRC's stance viz. Taiwan could be traced to WW2-era anti-Japanese sentiment (since Taiwan was a Japanese colony between 1895 and 1945), or to anti-KMT (Guomindang) sentiment later. So, which is it?
In the case of Tibet, there was obviously no ethnic connection (though Sun Yat-sen sought to create one), and the cultures were quite different as well. China's claims were again based on historical and diplomatic considerations--that Tibet had formed part of various Chinese dynasties, etc. China was also concerned to prevent Tibet from falling into the Russian or British spheres of interest. Dawud (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Toward Taiwan it's definitely irredentism but toward Japan it's mostly revanchism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The article is incomplete[edit]

There is nothing here about Arab revanchism after 1948, or the Soviets use of the word as a propaganda tool against West Germany. (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Clean up needed[edit]

The article needs to be wikidized. I would do it myself if I knew how. Unfortunately, I need to leave it to someone else until I learn how to do it on my own. Capital Markets (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Reference in Popular Culture[edit]

The Revanchist ideology seems to be a direct, almost painfully obvious influence for the Mandalorian War and Jedi Civil War plotline of the Star Wars expanded universe, as seen in Knights of the Old Republic, Knights of the Old Republic 2, and the graphic novels dealing with that section of the expanded universe. In the story, a group called the Mandalorians invades Republic space, and make rapid gains. The Jedi Council is reluctant to respond with war, but a Jedi caled Revan leads a movement called the 'Revanchists' to push back and reclaim the lost territory. Elements of revenge and idealism are replete in the story. -- (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

this is further supported by bioware in that Revan was not the true name of the character in the old republic franchise. rather it was a choosen name (liek how anikan went to being vader). the name Revan was a deliberate renaming of the title revanchist that the protaginst was known as during the mandolorian war back story. either way a good refrence to add for pop culture152.91.9.153 (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


This may sound stupid, but I've been wondering just how it's pronounced; is it revanchism or revankism? (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The Free Dictionary ([[2]]) allows both but prefers the hard ch sound with the a getting the long a sound199.181.201.5 (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


What the devil is "autochthonous"? Is this a misspelling? (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Sandy

This is a word. It is in both the Oxford Dictionary and Merriam Webster. It is not a misspelling. Nlaylah (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)