The narration he choses is actually harmful towards genocide recognition and watch as well imho.
Might get lynched but I believe the actions of officers and locals did constitute a genocide by its definition in the broadest sense so as someone that believes the retribution, collective population transfers etc. are fitting the genocide definition and as someone that has personal family stories of relatives "hiding and moving Armenian neighbours to other countries" I could only watch the beginning of the video and already noticed these mistakes:
The YoungTurk movement was supported massively by the minorities especially Armenians as they signified a resistance and defence against the Sultan and religion/sharia dominated politics of the recent decades at the time. Even the new Young Turk administration that was created after attempted coup had minority and Armenian representatives and speakers. His usage of "Turkish" instead of "Ottoman" when talking about the goals of the Young Turk movement is practically a lie at that point as the "Ottoman" identity that the Young Turks wanted to create against the Religious or ethnic one that the ex-Sultan supported is vastly different from the purely ethnic one he seems to imply.
He draws a direct progression line between the pre and post coup Young Turk and Union of progress administrations while the three pashas as they were known pretty much usurped power thanks to the chaos that occured.
He mischaracterized two important things first is that the Armenian population sat idly by and was targeted randomly by the "Turks" for the reason of simple suspicion that they might aid Russia (and the implied Jewish connection with 'they were rich'). At this point in time Armenian gangs and revolutionary units were already engaged in attacks and assaults for the stated goal of an independant Armenia, the Russian connection that the author characterise as paranoid was in reference to Russian aid to these Armenian units and groups. The second facet is the mischaracterization of a forced conscription; he firstly implies that this was a special case targeting Armenians and one town in particular which is false; the country was at total war with bottom of the barrel conscription and massive losses already occurring so an army commander requesting all men to be taken under arms is not an extraordinary command and secondly the "fighting against just Russia alone as well" in the caucasus already had seen Armenian local detachments separating from the Ottoman force and joining Russian ranks en masse so it is less of a paranoid murder fantasy-excuse and more of an actual situation occurring.
Accidently clicking the seek bar also made me hear his bit about the Nagorno-Karabakh region which he only characterized as a disputed region under "Azerbaijani blockade" with an impending risk of war; I guess the UN recognised invasion and occupation of the area by Armenia ran counter to the narrative.
Those are the mistakes I noticed now from my perspective it doesn't change anything in the resulting event; due to Armenian attacks, defections etc. the pashas decided to relocate the entire population near the frontlines to inhospitable areas of the Empire with minimal resources and protection, protection that was necessary by the way due to (mostly Kurdish as they lived in the area) locals having suffered Armenian groups' attacks for some time in the region and wanting to exact revenge on the civilians being transported. There are also records of certain field commanders and officers ordering wholesale slaughter of civilians and such due to similar sentiments. The Armenians being considered the "loyal minority" before that time added to this revenge mentality.
From my perspective and the international/western opinion the case already fits as I said so I have no idea why the need to switch from historically supported "collective punishment due to actions of a few and lack of adequate protections fitting the definition of genocide" to "random acts of random killing born out of unfounded paranoia exactly like the Holocaust" that actually harms the genocide prevention ideal and minimises actions of Armenian groups, some of whom are considered heroes by them and the west btw.
The only thing I can think of is that he simply did not bother to research or that he wanted the simple "oh it was just the Holocaust 0.1" to make it easier for the target audience to understand.
He is actually doing a disservice to multiple groups here but is doing far more harm towards the potential of a recurrence as he's mischaracterizing the act of genocide in this instance.
He is providing the "illogical monsters" narration with the implied racial/cultural superiority which is ironic (accusing only the nation of Turkey of being capable of doing such a thing again due to denial). The Armenian Genocide was the illegitimate military leaders (that had usurped and twisted a progressive multicultural movement against the Sultan's grip of power) getting the empire into senseless and bloody conflicts, panicking during it as a large population of citizens aligned with a foreign power and through incompetence and lack of resources; turning a population transfer into a wholesale slaughter and assault on certain peoples. Which is far more realistic and unfortunate of an occurrence than the cartoon villany type of "random paranoia lead to random attacks" narrative.
To say nothing of the Turks that died during the Armenian guerilla actions in the East; he is also indirectly minimising or actually outright removing the actions of those Armenian Dashnaks as they acted as scout and forward forces for the Russian advance. Which both Russia and Armenians today consider to be heroics and nation-building events. Certain factions of the Armenians were already in the process of fighting the Ottoman empire with direct aid from Russia at the time, the wiki page for Siege of Van which follows similar simplistic narratives as the video itself includes this section:
During December 1914, Nicholas II of Russia visited the Caucasus Front. In the presence of the head of the Armenian Church and alongside Alexander Khatisyan president of the Armenian National Bureau in Tiflis, Nicholas II stated: "Armenians from all countries are hurrying to enter the ranks of the glorious Russian Army, and with their blood, to serve the victory of the Russian Army... Let the Russian flag wave freely over the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, let all the peoples (Christians) remaining under the Turkish yoke receive freedom through your will. Let the Armenian people of Turkey, who have suffered for the faith of Christ, receive resurrection for a new and free life..."
Which is not simple bravado but an actual statement of fact as well as early as 1914.
To be clear again none of that justifies population transfer, targeted attacks and collective punishment but omitting the factors of the conflict in favour of a simple "good vs evil" narrative only serves to create the sense that such collective punishments and genocides are rare or impossible in a modern setting (hence the threat of repetition) a nation can especially if lead by incompetent panicked few people; turn on its own people (or segments of it) especially during times of extreme war, strife and chaos that is a very real threat and one that all of us need to always be at watch for.
Lastly I have no idea why he felt the need to tie this issue with NATO of all things. The narrative of "Turkey is only valuable because of few benefits and nothing else otherwise we would nuke it" exists very generally nowadays, but his initial remarks about the abusive, addicted etc. trouble friend seemed crass and ignorant especially coming from an American. Talking about entire countries and people as things and benefits to be used and discarded while trying to bring attention to an injustice is pretty ironic and I would even say he is bordering on racism a couple of times even in the short time frame I could stomach his narration.
Every Armenian I have met wanted recognition to make peace with their painful past and end what they perceive to be an on-going insult and constant reminder of familial painful memories. Maybe they have been extra nice but I have never seen someone be as vindictive as this as long as you were not being an asshole by mocking the deaths etc.
"There is always that one friend that doesn't belong" should not be your start to a video on genocide recognition. That is just racial, ethnic and national profiling in an effort to feel superior. Unless you believe sons carry the guilt of their grandfathers; the recognition is not a means to isolate and remove Turkey from the international community but a way to integrate it further locally and globally which is the actual purpose of the vast majority of the genocide recognition advocates. So this is perhaps the most extremist well-received and circulated video I have seen on this topic.