The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey

Akçam argued that the central thesis of the book was an unproven theory while Lewy himself argued that the idea of genocide being planned was a theory; Akçam also stated that there were other documents that proved the genocide was planned.[14] Akçam also stated that the author misinterpreted some documents, that his lack of skills in Turkish hampered his research,[15] and that Lewy was not informed of current research. In addition Akçam disliked the author's dichotomy of "Armenian" and "Turkish" "sides" to the Armenian genocide denial dispute,[16] as it conflates Armenians of differing allegiances together and because "it should be an unacceptable attitude for a social scientist to classify the differences of interpretation of these events according to ethnic origin."[17]

Historian Richard Hovannisian discusses the book in an academic article on Armenian genocide denial, stating, "Like others in the modern period actively contesting the use of the term genocide for the Armenian case, Lewy picks and chooses bits of information and quotations to build his case."[5] Joseph A. Kéchichian also criticized the book for denying the genocide and resorting to "pronounced selectivity of data, deflection, distortion, and occasional falsification" to support this thesis.[9] Historian Hilmar Kaiser states that Lewy's "explanations for the causes of Armenian deaths remain unconvincing" and that, on points that did not fit his thesis, "Lewy chose to ignore the archival and published records". Kaiser states that "Lewy does not clearly distinguish between academic studies, pamphlets, various types of memoirs" and "major parts of the book do not meet academic standards".[18]

In the book, Lewy states that "the Armenians can hardly claim that they suffered for no reason at all... large numbers of them had fought the Turks openly or played the role of a fifth column; not surprisingly, with their backs against the wall, the Ottomans reacted resolutely, if not viciously". A. Dirk Moses responds to this "telling slip", stating that Lewy falls into the trap of attributing collective guilt from Armenian combatants to the defenceless women and children from other parts of the country who were deported. Moses notes that law of war makes a strict distinction between civilians and combatants and that "The collective guilt accusation is unacceptable in scholarship, let alone in normal discourse and is, I think, one of the key ingredients in genocidal thinking."[19] Quoting the same passage, Thomas de Waal writes that "Lewy repeats the Young Turks’ trick of justifying collective punishment of a whole nation".[20]

According to Marc A. Mamigonian, the book is one of "the key texts of modern denial". Mamigonian faults Lewy for making excuses for the Ottoman government's actions.[4] Norman Naimark does not consider the book to be denialist, but is nevertheless critical of Lewy's main argument: "if Lewy wishes to maintain his claims to historical objectivity by using accepted judicial definitions of genocide, then the difficulty of finding direct evidence for the Young Turks’ premeditated planning of mass murder should not prevent him from concluding that genocide took place. At its core, then, Lewy’s argument is illogical".[21]

McCarthy wrote that it as "an outstanding work of historiography".[7] Michael M. Gunter, after having written a positive statement that was used on the cover of The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, wrote a review of the book for the International Journal of Middle East Studies (IJMES) without the editors' knowledge that he had made the positive statement. History News Network stated that the review "reportedly arrived in their office sans cover."[22] Two academics, Joseph A. Kéchichian,[23] and Keith David Watenpaugh,[24] criticized the presence of the review in the IJMES. Gunter issued a response to his critics.[22]