That is the most stupidist thing i have ever heard. The Armenian Genocide was very real and that is why today, you hardly hear of it. All that the world has to hide is not spoken about, but if the Holocaust of Jews was real, then how could this not be real. Your a crazy person if you could ever think anything different!!

The reason they try to convince you, is because of their nationalism, this is not a negative trait, it's just the way they were raised and they are proud of working together with other Armenians to convince the world of their genocide. This is how the Armenian Revolutionary Federation saves its face, otherwise they would have to finally admit after 94 years, that they indeed lost World War I to the Central Power, Ottoman forces. They would have to admit that the Allies really did betray them and left them without reinforcements and all their efforts to sabotage the Ottoman war effort would be gone. The Russian and British promise of a Greater Armenia was broken, they were left with a tiny country and they had no economy and many refugees that were starving in their land-locked nation.

Due to human nature, they had to find someone to blame. They tried to blame the Russians and the rest of the Allies, but it didn't help, no one listened, no one cared. However, when the ARF decided to blame the Ottoman Turks, enemies of the Turks, joined in the blame game, because they all had grudges against the Turks. The British had lost 2 significant battles to the Turks, and they lost the Turkish Independence war, giving the new nation Turkey its own land. The Greeks had lost all of Western Anatolia to the Turks during this war. The French lost all of South-Eastern Anatolia to the Turks. The Russians were creating the Soviet Empire and they were no longer interested in Anatolia, but they too felt betrayed by the Turks who accepted their gifts of weapons but did not convert to communism. Although the Allies had won World War I, in the Turkish independence war, they had lost, and they did not like the Turks.

The Armenian Genocide concept, started after this Turkish independence war. It didn't gain traction until the 1950s and 1960s through widespread propaganda by Armenian communities around the world. This is why the founder of Turkey, Ataturk, has never made any comments about the Armenian Genocide or the accusation of any genocide, because such accusations did not exist when he was alive.

Two Armenians in different times tried to convince me of the genocide. One of them, talked about how his grandmother's husband and children were killed. However, said that she was forced to walk all the way to Syria. As a skeptic, I asked why anyone would kill a family, and then let one of them escape scratch free to Syria, which he could not answer (the reason being, the story was fabricated). When I asked him why then there is no evidence that Talat Pasha, one of the leaders of the Ottoman Empire, had no telegrams ordering genocide, he replied "Why would Talat Pasha leave evidence of his own crimes?"

Another Armenian, tried to convince me by telling me how Talat Pasha wrote a "Black Book" (funny), detailing how he committed the genocide and references "Ottoman documents, not allowed to be seen in the Ottoman Archives today." That was funny because the previous Armenian was telling me Talat Pasha left no evidence of his crime and now he's written a whole black book detailing his crimes, very interesting, very improbable.

When I asked where I can have a copy of this black book, he could not produce it, said that it was sold in various places in different countries. Later, I found out, that he apparently, learned about this black book from some Armenian forum. Again, rumors.

This was similar to the one time where I read a Reader's Digest article hilariously entitled "Why I hate the Turks" -- The Armenian that wrote it, discussed how this very old Armenian described a story of how, he and his family and all of his fellow villagers were trapped in a church, and the "evil Turks" used wood to cover up the windows, and then poured kerosene everywhere and lit the church on fire. He told about how he cried with his family and told them they'd be together again in heaven. Then the story cut off--- huh?? -- How did he escape then? Apparently, that miraculous detail was classified. My suspicion is that he was an ARF member who was the one burning Muslim families in a Mosque, and just twisted the story and made himself the victim, I have no proof, but then again, he doesn't have any proof of his story either.

The writer wrote another story about when this old Armenian man, was only 13, "Turkish and Kurdish marauders" came and attacked his village on horseback. I said "Interesting, never knew Turks and Kurds ever worked together" (because they never did, it was more likely they were all Kurdish, but alas, they always want to put the blame on Turks rather than the real killers). The attackers apparently, killed many villagers, and stabbed the boy with a bayonet and then "stole his clothes" (a grown man stole a child's clothes, very interesting). Wait wait, I missed something, a 13 year old boy was stabbed with a bayonet back in 1915, and somehow survived such a wound in a time where there weren't even any hospitals in most villages? Lies.

This is the problem. We need to apply our logic when listening to these eye-witness stories. Even an American Consul in 1915, once said that "These Orientals, they can't help but exaggerate every story" about the Kurds and Armenians.

These stories to Armenians, are a mission, a nationalistic goal, to convince everyone of a genocide, because they cannot admit the losses they suffered in World War I, were the fault of the ARF, a terrorist organization that sided with the Allies and killed, Armenians, Kurds, and Turks, alike who opposed them.

Hi there,

you write: "I'm sure many of you, no matter where you are from, have encountered Armenians who try to convince you of the genocide."

I'm a son of Turkish immigrants in Germany, born and raised there. I can assure you, I had no encounters with Armenians, except some Armenians living in Turkey (and they did not try to convince me of such things).

But: everyone else is trying to convince you that the Turks commited genocide, including well-meaning Germans. The Germans had their own dark years from 1933 to 1945. Their present practice of "having to deal" with those years is very unique and difficult to understand from a foreign perspective, and it is psychologically and sociologically more consequently enforced upon German society than, say, the Original Sin concept in catholic church. Mass Media, Politics etc, have to watch trice their steps in order not get in serious trouble of being "anti-semitic". This unseen pressure and some double-thinking elements produce/feed groups of people who either deny the holocaust or groups of people who proclaim that the Turks are "the next" (sometimes the same people switch between these two positions, depending on their emotional state and whom they talk to, or what the specific subject was).

But I don't want to write about neo-nazis for now (there are even "neue neo-nazis"). I just want to shed light on the reason why most of the politically active Germans are unable to look at the Armenian Debate from a different light. They almost blindly and automatically conclude, that this must have to do with denial. And any word leaving your mouth in defense of Turkish history is interpreted so far away from what you are trying to say, that any rational discussion is like dreaming of Utopia. For example, if you should use the word "Relocation"... you will be stopped in middle of your sentence, since every German knows what "relocation" meant to the Jews in Nazi Germany. And then the rest of the time will wasted to emotional bla bla or how cruel I am, since I speak about "relocation" as if it had been something like going to a picnic with friends (huh?).

By the way, that certain past of Germany which is from another perspective also the past of France, explains very well, why "denying Armenian Genocide" will get you in prison in one European country (not in Germany, yet). It is always looked through the filters of the holocaust. "Meinungsfreiheit" (freedom of opinion/speech) is not going to be allowed to be abused along these lines.

Thank you mate.The "number" also dramatically increased up to 1.5 million.

i was born in 1988 in Azerbaijan. when i grow up i didnt see any armenins. besides half armenian people (mother armeni, father other nation). i can say only 1 thing. my grandparents are refugees. they lived at the Goyche Lake (sevan). but in 1988 armeninans banished azeris from their own houses. but it wasnt enough for them. they began war to us on 18.02.1992 they attack to Khojavend (Xocavend) and attack finished on 25.10.1993 occupation Zengilan region. 1 billion people are refugee, more than 1 00 thousand people have been killed and lost. kids, women, old people.........

now tell me who made GENOCIDE ?

Just because one genocide is real doesn't automatically make every other genocide real.

If we let Armenians call the war (where Armenians sided with the Russians) and rebellion (where Armenians attacked the empire they live in) in 1915 a genocide, then we might as well call every war a genocide because civilians die in many wars from various disease, bandits, collateral damage, starvation, exhaustion, etc.

What made you write about this subject? Who gives you the right to write about the Armenian Genocide?
Yourself, being an American, who also sees as you mentioned "everything as being black and white", you'd never understand what the Armenian people suffered for six centuries under the turks (mongols from the far east who conquered the Armenian, who lived in Armenia for 3000 years). You only show part of the story in your blog. You don't mention the fact that the Armenians were heavily taxed by the turks and Kurds on their own lands. You don't mention that turks used to come in and take whatever they wanted from they wanted from the villagers, be it livestock, harvest, women etc... You didn't mention the rape and killings and pogroms even before 1915. You didn't mention the fact that the turks disarmed the whole Armenian population in preparation of the Genocide. Please do some more research and search your soul. You have been a comfortable American all of your life. You probably watch CNN and are easily influenced by what you see and hear and you believe that what is certainly biased, is true.
Wouldn't you resist this evil repression and maybe side with a greater power such as the Russians in order to take back your homeland? President Wilson promised an Armenian homeland but this was disregarded by the powerful nations of that time. Wouldn't you be sick after six centuries? Thus, do you think that it was a difficult decision by the bloodthirsty turks to decide and exterminate these "troublesome" Armenians once and for all?
Ask yourself these question first before you see things as white or black.

Hello,

First of all thanks for your efforts to tell the truth.
I am studying history myself in the University of Vienna and I'm searching for documents about this issue. Where can I find these documents?
It's very hard to find reputable archival documents and avoid fake ones.
Can you post it here? Thanks dude!

Jonathan Wilson, thank you. It feels relieving to see that people with knowledge, reason and objectivity still exist.

However, nationalist stupidity among Turkish people is as popular as it is among the Armenian. It is sometimes very hard to fight against this without frustration, I know because I am a Turk. You are showing great patience here. Thanks again.

@"Hulk Hogan", There are thousands of reputable documents and archives that clearly prove there was no genocidal intention. I've only shown you the tip of the iceberg. There are many books that counter the genocide argument. There are indeed more books that confirm the Armenian genocide, but most of them are written by Armenians or descendants of Armenians, and the rest write them because Armenians will buy anything Armenian Genocide related--they become rich very fast. The Armenian population in Western nations is extremely high and many of them are quite interested in the history because of the amount of stories they are told by their parents.

Morganthau's letters or Toynbee's letters, are not evidence. These are mere opinions of people with questionable motivations. Both of them wanted war with the Central Powers, to consult them on genocide would be like a doctor asking advice from an executioner.

There are plenty of eye-witness accounts that show Armenian massacres without provocation. eye-witness of massacres can never prove a genocide, neither an Armenian Genocide nor a Turkish Genocide.

The Armenian resistance started in the 1880s, well before any killings of any Armenians. It started because enemies of the Ottoman Empire wanted to encourage rebellion and instilled nationalistic ideas in Armenians to take back their homeland. Before that, Armenians and Turks lived peacefully together for centuries.

Most historians don't accept the genocide, just because you make this claim doesn't make it true. The only true historians I know that accept the Armenian Genocide, are Armenian themselves. If there are a lot of Armenian historians, that doesn't prove anything, because there are tons of Turkish historians who would disagree. It's safe to assume, that both Turkish and Armenian historians are biased.

However, if we look at non-Turkish and non-Armenian historians, most agree there was no genocide.

The Turkish government has never imprisoned anyone for talking about the genocide. There have been nationalists who tried to use Article 301 to bring charges against certain individuals, but they have always failed.

And I find your hulk hogan impression quite funny too, brother.

Anonymous said "The Armenian Genocide was very real and that is why today you hardly hear of it." I am sorry, but it is just the opposite. We hear a lot about it! but if you analyze the evidences, it does not seem to be a real genocide. And then, to compare with the Holocauste is an insult to the intelligence of people. Jews where killed, but they did not attacked Germany with an organized army, they did not kill even one christian, there was not a war between jews and germans. You are insulting the memory of the jews who died in the Holocaust, and also the memory of the armenian and turks who died in the war.

Im glad I found this site, its good to see people interested in a debate about a period and region of the world that frankly few people are knowledgable about.
From what I can tell, the Armenian genocide debate is fueled by anti-turkish sentiment which has existed for centuries (particualrly in Europe) and by a latent desire for western peoples to feel superior over the eastern-leaning Turks. But thats just my hypothesis.
The facts are that the sources that are most cited to support the genocide version of events are ones written without consultation from the Ottoman archives. Indeed, there are no primary documents from the Turks that call for extermination of the Armenians. Also, most accounts of events fail to mention the context in which things were unfolding. The Ottoman Empire was collapsing in on all sides and many muslims had been killed by Armenian resistance units.
In short I think it is shameful for people to atrempt to leverage tragic historical events into politcal power and influence, which is what propenents of the "genocide" are doing.
In general, the Ottoman Empire had displayed centuries of progressive tolerance when it came to ethnic and religious minorities, in stark contrast to nations in Europe and the United States (did not the settling of the west and manifest destiny include genocide of native americans?) There is a saying in Turkey something to the effect of "every visitor is a gift from god." I would say most countires need to come to peace with their own past before passing judgements on how the Turks treated people that lived in their empire.

@A Kevorkian,
I appreciate the maturity and objective way you try to approach this topic, it looks like you are well educated.

As is mentioned in several articles, hundreds of books, there is plenty of evidence showing that the Ottoman Empire spent a lot of money trying to protect Armenian citizens during the relocations (including providing guarded escorts, tools and housing, safeguarding of property, allowing Armenians to return to their old homes after the war), this contradicts the idea that the Ottoman Empire was trying to kill off the Armenians. It shows the intention of the Ottoman Empire was simply the end of the rebellion, and this is understandable of any country in a war while having to deal with rebellion from within.

Does this make logical sense to you? A nation that is in a 3-front war, would not be attempting genocide while losing a war. Nazi Germany started genocidal plans while they were winning their wars on all fronts and it looked like nobody could stop them. On the other hand, the Ottoman Empire was inches away from collapse---why plan a genocide now?

Killings of Armenians happened, by whom? Kurdish tribes looking for tribute or revenge. Muslims seeking revenge or have hatred. However, did Muslims and Kurds also die? Yes, in fact, they too were murdered, it was a chaotic war between all groups. It doesn't constitute genocide. If civilian deaths and death tolls constituted genocide, then every single war in the world would be considered genocide. That isn't the intention of the word genocide. There is also no instances where Ottoman troops are ordered to kill off Armenians--if there were, that would be considered a genocidal war crime (but no such evidence exists).

1.5 million is for sure an exaggeration, they use to say 1 million, until they increased the number some years ago (an appeal to emotion). 600,000 Armenian deaths, is what most mainstream historians say. 300,000-450,000 is what Turkish historians say ( Dr. Yusuf Halacoglu (a Turkish historian), calculates the death toll based on Ottoman population statistics at 428,000 (he agrees there could be more as nothing is 100% accurate, but he says this is the evidence he has found).

Armenians did rebel, there is no debate about this. The debate here is, how significant was the rebellion. I believe it was significant enough to prompt the Ottoman government to relocate many villages from Eastern Anatolia. However, that doesn't mean that rebellion provokes genocide. In fact, the Ottoman Empire especially the CUP government was a liberal party, they stuck to European standards (European standards being, relocation as a solution to all rebellion; instead of the usual killing off the rebels).

There is still no evidence of mass killings of civilians. There is simply evidence of mass deaths of civilians (on all ethnic groups, because everyone was living under the same harsh conditions).

You should be aware that there are plenty of horrific but false stories regarding civilian deaths. It's part of Armenian mythology. If they heard a horror story, they exaggerated it. If they didn't, sometimes they simply used their imagination to make up the worst possible horrific story. Sometimes they even claim they are the victims, when they were the perpetrators. The lesson you have to take is that Turkish villagers who are interviewed who lived in those times, on video, also have similarly horrific stories. No one can verify who was more horrific, we must simply assume, both Armenians and Turks were cruel when they wanted to be.

@Kevorkian,
relocations were costly indeed, the Ottoman empire was going bankrupt keeping up with rations for Armenians as well as its armies. Trying to give tools and temporary housing for Armenians that arrived in Syria was also a huge problem. This is also why a lot of Armenians died, because sometimes there just wasn't enough money for all the Armenians that arrived. (This is also why Armenians are upset and hate the Ottoman government, because they forced a relocation, without having the resources to complete it successfully and safely. As Dr. Bernard Lewis says "[they conducted a relocation, but it was crude because they didn't have the resources to sustain it]".

Armenian scholars equate this to genocide, while other historians contest that it was simply a semi-failed relocation and that the intention of extermination was simply not there.

The Ottoman army did provide escorts, but so few guards were spared due to the war effort. This is why many Armenians died to roaming bandits that robbed whole convoys of Armenians. This is also why many died to Kurdish tribes that easily dealt with the few guards given (sometimes the guards even fled the scene, leaving Armenians to fend for themselves against Kurds).

So, yes, in fact Armenians did suffer greatly (I am not blind to this). However, the problem is, instead of blaming the Armenian rebels for causing the rebellion, that prompted the relocation response, or the Kurdish tribes or bandits that did the killings, the Armenians blame the Ottoman government, since it was their territory, even though they had no control of this lawless land.

-----------------------
The link you showed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_notables_deported_from_Constantino...
Shows clearly that a large majority were ARF (dashnak) and Hunchak rebellions. This article proves that there was a massive Armenian rebellion. Were there those that were also teachers as well as rebels? Of course. Were there those that were merchants as well as rebels? Of course. In any rebellion, there are day jobs and there are night jobs. To make matters worse, identifying someone as a member of a rebel group is as hard as identifying members of a terrorist cell.

So you see, your link shows that so many WERE in fact, identified later as Dashnak and Hunchak, as the Ottoman authorities suspected. Were there innocent among them? Perhaps, but they were all given trials. And the article mentions those trials too. ---- Read the notes on the right, some of them were only executed a year after they were caught, if it was genocide, why not execute them on the spot? Why have a trial? Why deport if you can just kill them behind an alley?

These are questions you should ask yourself.

Quite a lot of them actually SURVIVED: "Permitted to return to the capital soon after 11 May 1915." -- Why or how would he return to the capital of the Ottoman Empire? The Ottoman government authorized this? What??? Doesn't that mean the Ottoman government was not trying to kill him off for being Armenian ?

THAT statement alone disproves the whole notion that the Ottoman government conspired genocide. A government conspiring genocide wouldn't treat the victims in such a way. You never read in a history book "The Nazi government allowed that Jewish scientist to return to Berlin and continue his work." This wouldn't happen!

----------------------------
600,000 deaths is very realistic. This was after all a World War. Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_casualties_of_World_War_I
Ottoman soldiers:
Killed in action 243,598
Missing in action 61,487
Perished from diseases and epidemics 466,759 <--- unbelievable number.
Seriously wounded (permanent loss) 303,150

5,000,000 <---- dead from all civilian and military of the Ottoman Empire.
More people died to disease and famine than the actual war itself. We must not forget, they didn't have much medicine back then. If your wound was infected or you were cut, there isn't bandages or hospitals around.

To top it off, a lot of Armenians migrated. And sometimes people confuse deaths with migration. What many historians find is hundreds of thousands of Armenians simply emigrated to other nations.

-------------------------------
And again--- the Ottoman Empire didn't relocate what they thought was ARF/Hunchak, that would be an impossible task, you can't know how many ARF/Hunchak are in the Armenian populace. This is why, as was the standard at the time, they relocated large chunks of Armenian populations where Armenian rebel incidents were most frequent. They didn't relocate the ones in Western Turkey, only those that were suspected were relocated in many areas. However, in the worst areas, all of them were relocated, because they can't tell who's ARF and who's not.

That's where we will disagree Kevorkian, the collective intent does not equate genocide, because you can't know how many of the collective were intent and how many were not. Only a government or organization that specifically encourages genocide can be charged with genocide as a crime. Only armies whose soldiers actively engaged in massacres, can be brought up on war crime charges.

Otherwise, you'd be blaming a whole people for the actions of a few. If you do that, you are opening pandora's box. That means, because there was a large amount of Armenians who wanted to exterminate Turks, then you are saying we should blame Armenians for a Turkish genocide--- is that what you want? There were many that wanted to do just that when they wiped off village by village.

Thank you Jonathan. After seeing those ridiculous billboards in LA, your words as an American citizen have made me happy. It's good to know that there are some American people who make researches and try to figure out what is real, instead of just watching Armenians' funny documentaries and believing them without asking a single question.

I blame anyone who has been involved in massacre, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality.

As a historian I read about various wars and the destruction to life and property in all of them, this is why I write about the Armenian rebellion, because while the Armenian story in tragic in 1915, it's no different than hundreds of other wars in human history, and yet it is being politicized and publicized in a manner that is unfair to the Turks.

@A Kevorkian, thank you for continuing the discussion in a civilized manner.

Yes, as with all major rebellions, the Armenian rebellion was large, but you're right, it's not the whole population. But most Armenian teenagers and men of fighting-age were usually pressured by their peers or the rebels themselves to fight in the war effort. Many of them believed in what they were fighting for. Some Armenians did not believe in the fight against the Ottomans, but did so, in order to fit in with this new Armenian society. The rebels weren't exactly a volunteer organization, many Armenians were pressured to join, it was duty for country, much like a gang in a bad neighborhood.

Sure, a large portion of Armenian population was relocated, and in a sense, punished for supporting rebellion in the East. But we must not forget that, genocide is the intent to kill for the purpose of extermination. Yet many Armenians in Western Turkey were exempt. Armenians helping the Ottoman government were exempt. Armenians who were Protestant or Catholic were exempt because European diplomats wrote letters to Interior Minister, Talat Pasha, and he agreed that it wouldn't diminish the relocations ultimate goal of ending the rebellion.

This relocation of Armenians, was nothing out of the ordinary for any European nation at the time dealing with rebellion and war. This relocation, is the reason why the genocide thesis is argued in the first place. If there was no relocation, the Armenians would have no case for genocide. Regardless, this was a standard of Europe. And as some Armenian scholars agreed, the German commanders that were aiding the Ottoman efforts most likely had the same solution for the Ottoman leaders and it's possible that they suggested the idea of relocating in the first place.

Yes, you're right, Talat Pasha etc, are all short-sighted, they overestimated their resources to relocate Armenians. They thought they could handle it without problems. Instead many fell victim to raids by bandits, Kurdish tribes, disease, and starvation. However, even the Ottoman army was starving and dying. However, they did spend resources to protect Armenians which means it simply was NOT genocide.

Armenians emigrated because of many reasons. If the Turks could emigrate somewhere, they would have, but many of them knew no other language other than Turkish. Turks immigrated from the Balkans, the Middle East, the Caucus, all toward central Turkey because of the onslaught of enemy war fronts.

Armenians emigrated because they could afford to. Many of them took what they had and decided "well if I am being forced to move Syria, why shouldn't I just hop on this ship and go to America, Russia, or France?" Doesn't this make more sense?

Many Armenians knew Russian, so they naturally fled to Russia where there were many Armenian communities already. Many had European education and knew English or French because of missionaries and diplomats in the area who interacted with the Armenian community. Of course they left to a better place, a land of opportunity-----there is nothing for them in Syria.

The Ottoman Empire was quite happy to see them emigrate. That means less daily salaries and less rations they have to pay for, for those that were relocated.

Allied ships landed in Cilicia, mostly French ships, and when the French were leaving the commanders allowed Armenians to board the ships and come to France.

If Armenians had all died, there wouldn't be such a large Armenian diaspora unless they reproduced faster than any other ethnicity! Many survived and have lived for generations in rich developed nations. Those Armenians were the luckiest of all.

Lastly, there is one other reason why they emigrated. What do you think the Dashnaks and Hunchaks did when relocation orders were dispersed among Armenian populations? They spread their own orders and propaganda, telling all the Armenians to leave, run, and escape, because they did not trust the Ottoman government. They told people to not go to the camps the Ottomans provided. They told people to not go to Syria, because they would be killed in some imaginary desert. Of course, Armenians listened, and they fled to Russia or to Allied ships.

Do you really think Hunchak and Dushnak members would sheepishly go along with Ottoman plans of relocations? Of course not, they stayed and fought. They ran away or hid in the countryside. And they began to create propaganda, that the Ottomans were killing Armenians for no reason---why??? ---- because they hoped diplomats and missionaries who heard these horror stories would send Allied armies (and yes, they did send Allied armies to help Armenians).

Hi, it's a turkish student in France.

there is no question to debate, according to Turkish history, there is nothing of genocide, certe of death, massacre, but not genocidal. According to the Armenian genocide there. In this situation, the party claimed the Turkish establishment of a commission to the Armenian party, their own offers, but this is denied. The Turkish part of the explanation request, because under it there is no evidence and logically she asks. In this case, if the purpose of and to recognize Armenian genocide to the Turks, they complain that Turkey does not recognize the genocide, refusing to explain why, show them? Why try to make false evidence during the years? We must accept the fact that debattre want nothing at all. Just as Jem ette comment on a site armaments, where I expose my argument, it is clear. Why does he explain that I am wrong? I've asked them and they answered me that any argument denial was refused because it is against the law or will in the future

Yusuf Halacolu: "Why not we do not undertake joint research to establish the truth by adopting a rigorous scientific methodology accepted by all? Why are they against?".

ps; sorry for the faults, i'm bad in english it's a traduction ;)

@ Jonathan,
The Turks at the time did make many Armenians suffer as explained.

But I can now see that there is not sufficient evidence for the intent of genocide against the Armenians, and so I no longer support the notion of an Armenian Genocide.
Thank you Jonathan for helping me realise just what evidence there is both for and against the idea of the Armenian gencoide out there.

I will, however, say that I can never be completely against the idea of the Armenian Genocide, as I see what further evidence is uncovered and look at more of the archives for myself. This may well be because I'm an Armenian and have been taught to believe in the genocide, and despite all the reading I've done on the subject to rationally and objectively think about it there is still a part of me that wants to believe in the genocide.

Just a side point @ Ozank K, we all like a reasoned discussion, but there is no need to call the Armenian billboards 'ridiculous' nor label Armenian documentaries as 'funny'. Though they may well be biased (and most likely are) they are still based on fact. Armenians of this generation have most likely been taught to believe in the genocide, so their billboards depict what they truly believe in rather than propoganda. Armenians histories come to their biased conclusions precisely because this belief, passed on from generation to generation of Armenians, makes them look at evidence in a biased fashion. Even Armenians like me, who are able to agree that there is insufficient evidence of the genocide will look at evidence with a slight bias at the very least because of this belief.

And besides, have not people and governments from all countires engaged in propoganda, or persuaded others to believe in what at best was a half-truth (which is sort of what the Armenian genocide is) and at worst a pack of lies?

@Kevorkian, I understand you cannot be against what you were raised with. It's the most difficult thing anyone can do. However, opposing viewpoints is never a bad thing. You have kept an open mind, and you're more educated than most people on this subject (most commentators do not go into such detail).

Indeed, we cannot throw the idea of genocide away, if one day, evidence was somehow uncovered, then we would change your viewpoint. I have been back and forth a lot with this genocide issue. However, of all the genocides I studied, this is the one that lacked most evidence, but I didn't dismiss the idea, because it's a lot older than most other reported genocides. There have been many genocides or events which could be called genocide in the past.

One must understand completely, what genocide means, what damage such an accusation can cause if unfounded, and what damage can be caused by not acknowledging evidence of or against genocide. There have been many destructive wars in the past, including some with many civilian casualties, it's important to make the distinction between genocide, civil war, ethnic wars, religious wars, and national wars.

Motivations are important, actions are important, and so is archival evidence.

There is no need to get angry or frustrated in these kinds of discussions. It's best to keep an open mind to any possibility. If you're a person who's never felt his own ideology, completely change, you have not had experience.

And as you mention in your last paragraph, every country is guilty of something. Every country has had its share of propaganda or lies. We can only hope that nations use their powers for a positive goal.

As a historian, I must keep an open mind. I must attend lectures or seminars by Armenian historians like Richard Hovannisian or Taner Akcam, even if my current stance is a bit against what they believe. I must view Armenian documentaries as well as Turkish documentaries, no matter what type of information is presented.

I'm glad I was able to help you come to this realization, most people never change their stances on such hot-topic subjects. I've changed my stance many times as well. Even Dr. Bernard Lewis once believed in the Armenian Genocide, but later on, was put on trial for denying it. It's part of being a historian or a student.

@Arevik Stepanyan
This particular article was intended to discuss a few particular personal anecdotal encounters with average Armenians and the brief history of why this subject is so important to Armenians. It's not meant as a counter to what Armenian scholars say and it's not even meant as a comprehensive historical essay.

Thus, it's not meant as a straw man argument, where I take two unsophisticated Armenians and destroy their arguments for the purpose of disproving genocide. It's meant to address concerns and arguments that many regular Armenians continue to have. The argument I make here, is a perspective, that of my own experience in debating non-scholar Armenians.

Official recognition works in many countries by lobbying. When an activist group or voting bloc lobbies a particular issue or for recognition of a particular issue or event, they gather the attention of parliamentarians or representatives in the government. If they gain enough traction, their size is significant, or their capital is significant, they can quickly gain a voice in the government through their representative. This is why Armenian Genocide is recognized in ~22 countries.

For US representatives, a small group of say 100 activists that can gather the attention of a US representatives, and through multiple scheduled meetings with the representative they can easily convince the representative to vote a certain way. Now imagine that on a larger scale with the power of Armenian organizations and the unity of the Armenian people, it's no surprise that so many nations and US states recognize the genocide.

The Armenian lobby is one of the most powerful in the US, consists of several groups and political action committees whose sole purpose is to raise money for genocide awareness and more financial aid for Armenia. (The financial aid for Armenia is also another reason for the recognition of genocide as it provides sympathy and reason for aid as Armenians can claim how hard they fought for the Americans during World War I)

The Turkish lobby exists as well, although it's relatively new, Turkish organizations are trying to make a difference too to present their own views. However, it is not as powerful as the Armenian lobby.

This is how democracy works. Multiple ethnic groups trying to impose their views and beliefs onto the majority through legislators.

You don't need evidence to convince senators or representatives, they only care about votes and getting re-elected, and they care about the well-being of the nation. Introducing Armenian Genocide recognition, to many of them, make no difference to US interests, therefore, any chance at convincing more Armenians to vote for them, is a wonderful opportunity.

The many "evidence" introduced by Armenians to legislators, usually include books by writers like Peter Balakian. Sometimes opinion is introduced, as some sort of hard evidence, like that of Henry Morganthau's opinions of the Ottomans and what they might be doing in the Ottoman Empire (based on usually inaccurate and prejudiced reports by missionaries and consuls [some of which opposed his own opinions]). These are not evidence, but is claimed as evidence.

So yes, you can convince governments around the world of something without evidence, if that something does not really make a difference in that government's affairs/decisions/actions/people/nation. And Armenian Genocide, accepted or rejected, makes no difference in the lives of the French people or French government, or the US people or US government. It only affects Turks and Armenians.

It's what politicians call "a non-issue issue" that is simply used to gather votes and capital.

"It is possible that there are many Armenians that are not well educated about this issue"
@ Hayk S. above, it's not only possible but the statement applies to many Armenians who've essentially heard only one side of the argument and, more often than not, only parts of it. As an Armenian, it is actually very hard to voice my doubts about the genocide in the Armenian community in the UK- where I live- just like my doubts about Christianity (off-topic I realise but just to give an idea about how the vast majority of Armenians are not allowed to formulate their own opinions about the genocide).

"And Armenian Genocide, accepted or rejected, makes no difference in the lives of the French people or French government, or the US people or US government. It only affects Turks and Armenians.

It's what politicians call "a non-issue issue" that is simply used to gather votes and capital."
@ Jonathan, I would like to point out a couple of things in relation to this particular point of yours. Often it is not "a non-issue issue" as accepting the Armenian Genocide would logically alienate Turks in the same country. It also has many other political consequences. The main reason the USA as an entirety, for example, doesn't accept the genocide is because it would alienate Turkey, who are their allies in the "war against terror" (which I'm also against, but again, off-topic).
You most likely know this already, but nevertheless I'd like to point it out for the benefit of others.

As this thread has clearly evolved from a "discuss[ion of] a few particular personal anecdotal encounters with average Armenians and the brief history of why this subject is so important to Armenians" I would also like to see, like Hayk S., a reasoned discussion between yourself and a proponent of the genocide who is (roughly speaking) equally knowledgeable on the matter though I'd obviously understand If you do not have the time, in that case I would really appreciate a link to a similar discussion.

Gentlemen, everyone here is missing the most important point, genocide is a judicial term , clearly defined by UN with its consequences. Only an authorized court can decide if it was genocide or not. This is how it worked for holocaust.
that is why Turkey officially objects the usage of genocide term, it is not an objection of what happened.
if there could be an accordance on the term, than it could be much more easier both parties sit and talk about it.