Angry panda how many genocides there were before "modern" era? Just to let you know NONE! There is no difference in MODERN -PREMODERN genocide.
Some examples of premodern genocides (non exclusive list):
- first genocide ever against the Neanderthals which may be the reason of their extinction.
- Anasazi genocide during the 9th century.
- Albigensian crusade, where the Occitan nobility was totally replaced by the northern French nobility, and the people were massmurdered because of their beliefs.
- Massacre of the Chinese by the Mongols (up to 40 million people killed)
- Extermination of the natives of Easter Island by the Peruvian esclavagists.
- Indian genocide during the European colonization of America (if diceases were first spread unentionally, there were also intentional use of disease as a biological weapon against indigenous populations)
- The Black War, in the Tasmanian island, where local aboriginals were totally wiped out.
- Circassian cleansing by Russia during the 19th century.
If armenians claim their homeland no international law can support it or what-ever compensation. It was settled long ago!
The international law can change, it is never too late, and considering some people who are still alive nowadays experienced that genocide and can still tell to their family and children what they endured, I would not say it was "settled long ago".
After all if you have 100 years brainwashed your own people would you imagine telling, them oh.. sorry yeah we do killed 1.5m armenian
Most of the Armenian descendants just want public apologies from Turkey, nothing more nothing less, such as what Germany did for the Holocaust victims, Australia for the Aboriginal massacre, America for the Native indian massacre, etc, etc.
Considering the monstrous threat genocide poses to the values that our democracies hold most dear, a threat that continues into the 21st century, there is a clear responsibility to step up to the historical moment, call this crime by its rightful name, and declare it intolerable.
Therefore hardly any Europe country wants to mess up relations with Turkey, especially in 20th century for its strategic location and NATO bases in 50s for Korean War.
Too many! Its just stupid political rhetoric, used over time by populist politicians. And fools who consider it as real claims.
You contradict yourself here, it is political rhetoric to make some absurd promises to not recognize a real genocide in order not to upset the Turkish side, burying our head in the sand: "laissez-faire, I don't care", just because of geopolitics, we are talking about real people here, millions of people who suffered atrocities and abominations.
And it is not even a wise decision to let a nondemocratic, authoritarian Turkey creates more of a security problem than it solves when it makes the consistent denial of historical injustices an integral part of its security policy. It is exactly this attitude that delays not only democratization in the region, but also destabilizes relationships in the volatile Middle East. The main problems in the region relate to insecurity felt by ethnic groups towards each other as a result of historical injustices (such as what Kurds, Alevis, Armenians, and other Christians perceive Turkey through the prism of history). Persistent denial of the past is not an effective security policy.