No, Armenians did die in large numbers, but unfortunately this does not prove genocide, there are many other reasons why these death tolls are high. But this does not excuse the terrible deeds committed by Ottoman citizens (Christian or Islamic) who attacked innocent civilians and/or massacred them for whatever purpose.
Large numbers of Armenians did die and suffer at the hands of locals. Sometimes they were provoked, and sometimes unprovoked. Sometimes they were justified somewhat, and other times they were unjustified. This is a complex history of isolated massacres due to increase tensions of nationalism in both Turks, Kurds, and Armenians, as well as the tensions created by Balkan massacres of Muslims and Armenian massacres by locals. It is important to note that such tensions in Eastern Anatolia increased the death tolls of many Turks, Kurds, Armenians, and other Ottoman citizens.
The key concept in proving genocide, is the definition of genocide being the proof of intent.
Armenian historians have provided only two examples of archives directly ordering the genocide. Unfortunately, these were later proven to be forgeries.
So Armenian historians such as Vahakn Dadrian, then decided to conclude that such documents exist and they are authenticated simply because many Armenians died, and so "there must have been genocidal intent."
This is dangerous speculation, because there is no authentic proof or evidence that shows that the Ottoman government was planning on exterminating Armenians in part or as a whole. There is substantial archival documents and telegrams showing that the Young Turk Ottoman government was trying to prevent the massacres and killings.
if we start from this page then "The key here is the definition of genocide being the proof of intent". to prove genocide, if you accept this page, i need only prove intent- everything else is conceded. as to the alleged revolt, i can deal with it separately, Dadrian does it very well. it did not happen. but it is in fact a red herring if i can prove intent
to prove intent, i could cite the Austrian, Russian, British, American etc archives. but, to be exceptionally thorough, i would refer you to the documents used at the trials (which are claimed, without reason, to be forgeries), and, perhaps most damningly, the official German documents, unintended for public use. there is no way these documents would be prejudiced, unless it were in favour of the Ottomans. the British might have been as they were enemies. the Germans were Ottoman allies. and these documents clearly detail the German consuls' growing unease as they realized what was happening. Colonel Stange is perhaps most damning, as he had links to the SO, when he says eradicating the Armenians was part of "a long-held plan" ("Einen lang gehegten Plan"). or- another source who would have plenty of information and no reason to conclude genocide if it weren't true- General Vehip of the third army, who said "The murder and annihilation of the Armenians and the plunder and expropriation of their possessions were the result of the decisions made by the CUP"
some places where these quotes can be found
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=B5gFxsbWeeXTYC&pg=PT305&lpg=PT305&dq=...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/04/the_jihad_genocide_of_the_arme.html
http://ermeni.org/english/vdadrian_harvard.htmll
The mistake you are making here is assuming that quotes by foreigners about the events that were going on, somehow become evidence in proving genocide? Are you assuming the reader is that gullible?
Colonel Stange's quote is covered in the book Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, and is noted as a misinterpretation and selective quoting by the unethical Vahakn Dadrian, an Armenian professor who likes mistranslating and misrepresenting his sources. "as he had links to the SO", this is simply a rumor and unproven. You seem to be a fan of Vahakn Dadrian's work, perhaps because he is the only one that writes books trying to prove the Armenian Genocide while other Armenian authors simply "accept" it. I still applaud you for at least trying to research it, but I recommend using unbiased sources from now on.
"General Vehip who said 'The murder and annihilation of the Armenians and the plunder and expropriation of their possessions were the result of the decisions made by the CUP'" mistranslation probably, with an unverifiable source. Why on earth would a general admit to his own crime if he didn't need to? Considering the quote you mention is from the Turkish trials of 1919-1920, which are basically mock-trials to appease the British who had just conquered Istanbul and demanded justice against the Ottoman leadership, there are even instances of fabricated quotes to appease the British. Random death sentences carried out in absentia. Regardless, there hasn't been proof that the Ottomans did plan an extermination campaign, simply because there was no motivation to do so, as it would have been expensive and time consuming.
An order to send Armenians to Syria's Aleppo province, so they would not be involved in ethnic conflicts in the East where Rebels can also hide among civilian population and also aid the Russian invasion while sabotaging Turkish supplies and telegraph lines. Including creating rebellions and riots for the purpose of wearing down the Ottoman Empire against the Russian invasion. To say that this order to relocate Armenians was a plan of genocide, is also a mistake, because there are much easier and better ways to exterminate an ethnicity, and they didn't need to feed the Armenian convoys if they were sending them to their death.