The textbook presents the mass killings and other atrocities that have occurred worldwide and have been defined as genocide by international tribunals, other international bodies, or the perpetrator state (or its legal successor). It specifically covers the Armenian Genocide; the genocide of the Herero and Nama peoples; the Holocaust; the Rwandan Tutsi Genocide; and the genocide of the Bosniak population in the Srebrenica region. In the introduction, it also addresses the genocide of the Artsakh Armenians and the mass crimes committed in Darfur. Of course, given the scope of this textbook, it is impossible to address in detail every aspect related to genocides. Nonetheless, the book provides a comprehensive understanding of the genocides under consideration. Accordingly, alongside its instructional and educational function, it can also contribute to the development of comparative genocide studies.

Modern world history demonstrates that the crime of genocide continues to grow as a threat against humanity. In genocide studies, one often encounters the view that denying a genocide is nothing other than its continuation. This view is true in the sense that the heirs of a genocidal regime and society, by consciously denying the genocide, actually act as supporters of genocide policy and as potential future perpetrators. Accordingly, combating denial by the genocidal state or its legal successor is of immeasurable importance. This is demanded not only by the priorities adopted in international law regarding genocide prevention and punishment but also as a fundamental prerequisite for ensuring the national security of the peoples who have suffered genocide. Denial ceases to operate or pose a threat for those peoples whose genocide has been recognized by the genocidal states or their legal successors. For example, that danger no longer exists for the Jews, the Herero and Nama peoples, the Tutsi of Rwanda, or the Bosniaks of Srebrenica. Yet the denialism of the Republic of Turkey, legal successor to the Ottoman State, the genocide of the Artsakh Armenians perpetrated by the Azerbaijani regime, and the decades-long, systematically organized anti-Armenian propaganda by Turkish and Azerbaijani official bodies all demonstrate that this threat continues to hang over the Armenian people.

The process of international recognition and condemnation of the Armenian Genocide, which was initially undertaken by the Armenian diaspora and later supported by the authorities of the Third Republic of Armenia, is one of the most important means of neutralizing this threat. There are currently many Turks in the Turkish diaspora and many Kurds in the Kurdish diaspora who only learned of the Armenian Genocide after leaving Turkey and have since been actively campaigning for Turkey’s recognition of the crime. Their example shows that raising awareness within the society of any genocidal state, or its legal successor, is a crucial precondition for neutralizing denialism and, ultimately, for securing that administration’s formal acknowledgment of genocide. Therefore, every possible means should be employed to provide broad segments of Turkish society with accurate information.

The Armenian Genocide, which is fully documented and beyond dispute (a consensus also shared by national genocide-studies circles), was carried out by three successive regimes of the Ottoman State between 1894 and 1923 and unfolded in four phases. The first phase comprised the periodic massacres organized and perpetrated by the Hamidian regime in 1894–1896, known in Armenian as the “Pokr Yeghern” (“Small Massacre”).

The second phase encompassed the mass killings of Armenians in Cilicia in April 1909, for which both the Hamidian and the Young Turk regimes bear responsibility. The third phase, which represents the apex of the genocide and is called the “Medz Yeghern” (“Great Massacre”) by Armenians, involved the mass deportation and slaughter of the Ottoman Armenian population by the Young Turk regime during the First World War, as well as the 1918 massacres carried out by Turkish military units—either directly or with their support—during their incursions. In the fourth phase, the Kemalist regime carried out the extermination and expulsions of the remaining Armenian survivors.

The interconnectedness of the genocidal actions across these four phases is indisputable, and the ideological and personnel continuity between the Young Turk and Kemalist regimes has also been conclusively established. Regarding the term “Holocaust,” it is now used internationally to denote the genocide of Jews and of the Roma carried out during the Second World War. Notably, this term, as a designation for the mass extermination of a group, first appeared in English-language literature in the early twentieth century, referring to the periodic massacres of Armenians in the 1890s and the mass slaughter of Cilician Armenians in 1909. At present, the view of the Holocaust’s “exceptionality” is widespread in international public discourse and is enshrined in official documents. Even in the resolution adopted by the German Bundestag on June 2, 2016, by which it recognized the genocide of Armenians and other Christians in the Ottoman Empire, it is stated, “We furthermore recognize the uniqueness of the Holocaust, for which Germany bears guilt and responsibility” {(202)}. That view, that the slaughter of Holocaust victims was “industrialized,” has no foundation. What’s more, it has profoundly negative consequences because it relativizes the crime of genocide, which is clearly defined under international law.

Every genocidal regime employs whatever scientific and technical means are at its disposal, and Germany’s Nazi regime naturally had more advanced tools than the Young Turks. That in no way makes the Holocaust “exceptional.” On the contrary, if we follow that logic of comparing genocides, one could argue, and document, that, for example, the Armenian Genocide was the “most genocidal” of genocides, since the physical and psychological tortures inflicted on its victims are incomparable to those suffered by Holocaust victims, and in that respect the Armenian Genocide can only be compared to the Rwandan Tutsi Genocide. Armenian and international genocide scholars should consider it their responsibility to expose the falsehood of any genocide’s claimed uniqueness, which not only has no real basis but also indirectly diminishes the memory of victims of other genocides.

The textbook draws on valuable and irrefutable primary sources and literature, some of which are being introduced into scholarly circulation for the first time. Their authenticity was established during the preparation of this book through the comparative analysis of accounts provided by various eyewitnesses and authors concerning specific events. For example, numerous details, some even of marginal significance, cited in the memoir of genocide survivor Aram Antonyan are corroborated by a variety of foreign authors. As for the many orders attributed in his work to Talaat Pasha and other executioners of the Armenian people, their authenticity is beyond doubt. A thorough examination of the matter has also led Turkish historian and genocide scholar Prof. Taner Akçam to confirm the genuineness of these documents.

Given contemporary trends in Turkish denialism, the narrative concerning the Armenian Genocide has, as a priority, employed foreign primary sources and the testimonies contained therein. The textbook also clarifies the achievements to date in international law regarding the prevention and punishment of genocides, as well as the unresolved issues whose resolution is of significant and urgent importance.