To Seneca,

Here are the sources which I think useful:

Electronic sources:

Edward J Erickson. The Armenians and Ottoman Military Policy,1915. War in History 2008;15(2):141-167.
http://wih.sagepub.com/current.dtl

GORDUKLERIM YASADIKLARIM - I witnessed and lived through
Written by a Russian Lt Colonel- PDF format in Turkish-English-French and original Russian

“The Armenians in the Late Ottoman Period” Published by the Turkish Grand National Assembly 2001, Ankara http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/yayinlar/yayin1/armenian.htm

Ismet Binark “Archive Documents About the Atrocities and Genocide Inflicted Upon Turks by Armenians” Published by the Turkish Grand National Assembly, 2002, Ankara http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/yayinlar/yayin3/atrocity.htm

http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/yayinlar/yayin1/6-Halacoglu(109-142).pdf
The reasons of deportation discussed by Yusuf Halacoglu

Issues Missed in the 1915 Armenian Debate
http://www.tsk.mil.tr/eng/ermeni_sorunu_salonu/sarem_book.doc

The Armenian Question- Basic Knowledge & Documentation
Review of ARMENIAN STUDIES

A Quarterly Journal Of History, Politics and International Relations
Armenian Issue by Forsnet (http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/intro/index.html)

ATAA Reference Center

VIDEOS:Sari Gelin Documentary:
The truth about Armenian Genocide-episode1,2,3,4,5,6,7

English Books:
Sukru Server AYA. "The Genocide of Truth". 2008.

Guenter Lewy The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide.University of Utah Press

Justin Mc Carthy, Esat Arslan, Cemalettin Taskıran, Ömer Turan. The Armenian Rebellion in Van. University of Utah Press

Kamuran Gurun. "The Armenian File" (1983)

Professor Justin McCarthy and Heath Lowry have quite a bit of papers like "Who fired the First Shot" and "The US Congress and Adolf Hitler on the Armenians".

Prof. Turkkaya Ataöv "What Happened to the Ottoman Armenians", "The British Blue Books: Vehicles of War Propaganda (1914-1918)", "An Armenian Source: Hovhannes Katchaznouni", "Hitler and the Armenian Question".

There are many other books written in Turkish. Some books of Prof. Yusuf Halacoglu and Hikmet Ozdemir are translated into English and are on sale on Amazon.com.
Thank you

akasya......

Many thanks for going to so much trouble.

You have created a most valuable resource.

sonofiere.....

Your use of the Inquisition is quite incorrect. The Inquisition burnt books and people not in agreement with Roman Catholic dogma.

Holocaust denial, for example, denies the truth of an historical event which is the most researched and documented event ever.
Motive, therfore, is relevant. Why deny an event which according to all the evidence occurred?

"Motive, therfore, is relevant. Why deny an event which according to all the evidence occurred?"

In response to Seneca's question, the Holocaust is proven. The Armenian matter is an assertion made through politics and prejudice, not through the facts.

There is no "evidence." The British tried very hard to find the judicial evidence at the end of the war, in their Nuremberg, the Malta Tribunal. Everything claimed in Armenian propaganda was considered, and rejected, "evidence" such as British war propaganda (e.g., the Blue Book), U.S. State archival documents (Morgenthau, consuls, missionaries), newspaper coverage, 1919-20 puppet Ottoman government's kangaroo courts-martial; the British even had total access to the Ottoman archives, appointing an Armenian in charge for over two years, and the real evidence demonstrated that the Ottomans tried to protect the Armenians. (Some such documents were taken away and may be found today in the British archives.) "Personal opinions" is what one British official said of the "evidence," which is another word for "hearsay," and then there were the many forgeries, as that of Aram Andonian's Naim Bey memoirs. Every single one of the accused parties, totaling 144 at the height of the process, was released, none charged with any crime.

Motive is indeed relevant. The reason why the "evidence" falls short is that there was no motive to exterminate Armenians as the Nazis tried to exterminate the Jews. The Armenians served as a powerful and wealthy segment of Ottoman society, and there was no network of hatred against them. After the 1877-78 Russo-Turkish War, fanatical Armenian leaders kicked into high gear, aided by their missionary allies, and Ottoman-Armenians as a whole either learned to regard Turks as racially inferior or were coerced (via terrorism) to turn against their country. They joined the allies, and were subsequently relocated by the Ottoman government. Most Armenians who died lost their lives through famine and disease, as most of the nearly three million other Ottomans who died, even the soldiers. Armenians who were massacred were killed by locals, acting on their own accord; there is simply no evidence tying in the central government.

A post by Mr Right, from above: "Another example of people taking on things that they don't have to. I mean,how many people bother 'denying' events like the Holocaust and what happened to Armenians? The answer is, only a very few nutty intellectuals trying to attract attention to themselves. Most people don't know and don't care.

Mr. Right is right when he says most don't care. The only reason why "deniers" bother to get involved is for reasons of defense, and in defense of the truth because, unfortunately, genocide-involved people can be very passionate, very dogmatic, and often fanatical. If Mr. Right were accused of a crime where there is no evidence, he would be "denying" the charges as well. Mr. Right is very wrong when he labels professors as Norman Stone as "nutty." That is a highly un-intellectual comment, and if Mr. Right is so sure of the genocide evidence, he is welcome to point to it. What we may more correctly call those few intellectuals as Stone is "brave," since what will be have to gain by "attracting attention to himself"? Those who are for genocide make money in the highly profitable genocide business; those who point out the falsehoods only invite trouble and ostracism, and defamation such as charges of being "nutty." The only reason why a professor of integrity would dare to go against the tide, as far as the Armenian claims, is to tell and defend the truth.

Regarding Mr. Doolan's fine article:

"The great majority of informed commentators, including Harvard’s Samantha Fox, regard the terrible actions of the Ottoman authorities to have been genocide."

Anyone with minimal objectivity and the desire to peruse below the surface can quickly see what a sham the Armenian genocide claim is. If "Harvard’s Samantha Fox" has concluded genocide, she has only consulted the ubiquitous propaganda, and that hardly makes her a "competent" commentator, let alone an "informed" one.

"intent to destroy" is indeed important.

From 1902 to 1923 we see a strong intention to destroy the Ottoman Empire and wipe out its Muslim Turks from all lands captured by the invading forces.

For instance; prior to 1912, 80% of Bulgarian land was registered to Muslims, but no Muslims remain there now. Turkish names were wiped out from the historic grave stones and at one time it was deemed illegal to use Turkish names, let alone speak Turkish. Similar events took place in all Balkan Countries.

In contrast for over 600 years, Armenians freely practiced their religion and spoke their language under the Turkish Ottoman rule. How could the same government all of a sudden, decide to carry out Armenian genocide at a time when majority of its high ranking government posts were held by Armenians? e.g. The Ministry of Foreign Afafirs, the Finance Department, and all trade was in the hands of Armenians during 1915.

Obviously the Ottoman Government had no intention to perform Armenian genocide; when armed Armenians pillaged Muslim villages in cooperation with invading Russian forces, Turkish government reacted with a tactical decision to relocate them from the zone they posed a danger to the Ottoman Army's maneuvers.

The Armenians' hatred of Turks is evident from folk songs of the times. Whereas no hatred of Armenians has been traced to Turkish people. "People's hatred" and "intent to destroy" are very important.

Let us reevaluate Armenia’s persistence on the word ‘genocide’ from a different perspective:

Armenia’s attitude towards Turkey’s land integrity: Article 11 of the Armenian Declaration of Independence of August 23, 1990; refers to Eastern Anatolia of Turkey as Western Armenia and as such beholds that this area is part of Armenia. Since the Armenian constitution recognizes as a basis “the fundamental principles of the Armenian statehood and national aspirations engraved in the Declaration of Independence of Armenia”, it likewise accepts the characterization of Eastern Anatolia as Western Armenia and this, albeit indirectly, translates into the advancement of territorial claims. The Armenian politicians and school books call Eastern Anatolia of Turkey, ‘invaded mother land of Armenia’ and in Armenia the school children are being grown up being conditioned to be patriots to rescue their invaded land. Even the marches they sing are about this condition. The Armenians who write in such blogs that the Eastern Anatolia cities do not belong to Turkey, as if the present Eastern boundaries of Turkey was not determined by treaties of Gumru (1920), Moscow (1921) and the whole boundaries by Lausanne (1923) Treaties; after the Turkish Freedom War.