Understanding the Armenian genocide. | AskHistorians Archive Observer

At the very basic level the argument 'in favour' of an Armenian genocide is that a tremendous number of Armenians died during the execution of policies implemented by the Ottoman/CUP government. Just how many varies but from memory even the low estimates are in the hundreds of thousands in a population that wasn't huge to begin with.

The 'against' argument is firstly that the policies implemented were officially in response to the wartime situation - there was a lot of fear that Armenian irregular troops were going to cause the front against the Russians to collapse. This component is important in the 'moral' calculation of the debate, basically if you see what occured as something that occured in wartime when things were literally life and death, whatever happened seems more 'reasonable'. The second component is an argument that essentially those Armenians that did die were not intentional. So the stated policies were just for deportation. Those that died were predominantly killed in transit by irregulars/local militants or as a result of famine (and the resulting dieases). This part is important in terms of the 'legal' terms of genocide - if you believe the deaths were not intentional then it is hard to see how the deaths amount to a genocide.

The traditional argument's in favour of the genocide against the 'anti' position were basically that:

Official policy was just a mask for a secret policy of extermination distributed through back channels etc.
That those irregulars etc. were actually instigated by the authorities, or indeed were part of the Special Organisation, a group of irregular troops formed to conduct warfare in foreign lands, and to assist in 'security' of the interior.
That the famine experienced by Armenians was deliberately inflicted rather than a simple result of wartime shortages.

I'll state my conclusion, if for no other reason that transparency. Having recently read some of Taner Akcam's work, I'm of the opinion that there is probably enough documentary evident to show that there was a deliberate policy to break and drastically 'reduce' the Armenian population that went beyond the requirements of wartime. I would particularly point to massacres in 1916 against Armenians that had already been deported, which seem to have had nothing to do with military necessity and everything to do with there being too many deportees arriving. Akcam also shows how Ottoman policy seems to have deliberately limited aid to Armenians, how stated policies by the Ottomans that should have reduced their desperate state after deportation were not actually implemented and finally how radically these things contrast with the treatment of other Muslim populations during the same period (ie. they had few practical issues getting government aid/support, when there is no documentation to suggest the same for the Armenians).

But I think Akcam's best point is even if what happened to the Armenians doesn't meet the technical definition of genocide, it was clearly a great crime and this should be acknowledged. As opposed to it being waved off as just what happens during wars.

Editted to fix my dot points