Armenians are known as the loyal subjects of Sultan in Ottoman Empire. Because they were the most able and hardworking non-muslim ethnicities. But with the raise of Nationalism and the independence of Greeks(which i believe to be a great think) tensions rose too much.
Even though the monarchy was turkish (which after taking balkanian girls to harem should be questioned) the Turks were not allowed to have a ruling capacity. The elite Jannisaries were also created to balance the Turkish beys (feudal lords) so that no other Turkish or Muslim force could grab power away from the monarchy. It was a balancing act in favor or the monarchs and that created it. Turks were allowed in military and had a militaristic power but it was constraint by Devshirme Bekhtashi Jannisaries, Devshsirme Bureaucracy and such. But the independence of Greece quake that foundation. the turkish military afraid of other nationalist rebellions tried to pre-emptively control the situation. The harrasment of Turkish officials, heated the already forming nationalistic ideas in Armenian society. Armen Gero and Bedros Parian planned an attack to Ottoman Bank in İstanbul to take the attention of western media for the support of Europe. that resulted in lynching in the Armenian neighbourhoods in İstanbul.
Thing escalated quickly and in 1915 3 Turkish pashas contributed to tension by forcibly moving Armenians from their villages. The force and the journey itself killed many Armenians. Kurdish tribes also attacked them because they believed they would see some backing from the government(maybe they even saw some support like they believed but there is no evidence) .
The thing is, there was already a trial made by England in 1919 called the trials of Istanbul. only Talat, Enver and some other minor supporters were sentenced, and they were sentenced to death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_trials_of_1919–1920 ,the numbers and other things were already discussed there and this was seen as a move of a couple of individuals rather than a whole government supported systematic genocide. Neither Bernard Lewis, Guenter Lewy, Justin McCarthy, Hurewitz ot opther historians would accept that a genocide happened (Lewis has the best sources on it.) But not having a systemic and planned genocide and having massacres are two entirely different things. Massacres happened. Gibbons was in Turkey when he was wroting his history book on Romans. I believe he saw the Adana massacre. I support an international court to inspect the situation (if there is a genocide it is the proper protocol) but no one will because it is just a political speaking point for many other politicians. Otherwise if they would have taken it seriously, they would go to the international court.