>>which source can be more unbiased from historians?
>>
>>And I'm thinking frenchs doesn't really care about genocidies. If they really care about genocidies they would look up about americans indian genocide and frenchs genocidie in Algeria. There are a lot of genocidies occured on the world, but frenchs and others only care about turks. Why? That's interesting...
>
>I guess that other countries are concerned about genocide in different places. What worries many people about Turkey is not so much the genocide, which is now, after all, several decades past, but the attitude of the Turkish government, which doesn't even want to allow people to talk openly about its history.
>
>Nor is this a problem only in Turkey. To give one example, China has been angered about some Japanese history book, which talked about the "Nanking incident" (it was actually not an incident, but a large-scale massacer). Most other Japanese history books don't even mention the "incident".
>
>Another example is revisionism of the German holocaust. In this case, the government is fortunately not involved, but there are certain minority groups that would like people to believe that all of these atrocities (or most of them) were simply made up.

What worries me is that, due to what the French have done, the position of those holocaust-revisionists becomes stronger. They can now give a clear example of a case where 'denial of a so-called genocide' can't simply be called an act of a subversive, dangerous fascist.