genocide lite!

How did the Armenian genocide pop up into a thread about Leclerc?

Oh! I see! Jihadi-propagandized/ AKP-brainwashed Kane is implying an "Algerian genocide" by the French in 1956-1962 that would make what his people did to the Armenians in 1917 look acceptable, or at least no worse than what European powers do.
Since this is akin to comparing apples, and, say, toothbrushes, this is not going to work, except for making Kane look sillier than even we know he is.
There is no way for Turkey to make any gains on the PR front in Europe, ever. The few survivors of 1917 went to France, and their now-affluent and influential descendants have not forgotten, nor have they forgiven.

The way the French army fought in Algeria was certainly  a lot more heavy-handed than the recent US action in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there were many recorded atrocities by hastily conscripted and poorly disciplined French troops, and an even more worrysome trail of torture in this war, but there was never any intent to destroy or displace any population, and the body count of six years of guerilla warfare never reached the million-plus achieved by the Turks all over Asia Minor and Syria in just a few months of 1917.

To go back to the subject, I suppose that Leclerc, experienced as he was in the ways of North Africa and its cultures, would have handled the Algerian question differently, and probably less bloodily as well.
Also, he probably would never have gifted, in exchange for absolutely nothing, the non-Arab Saharian part of the French colonial territory of Algeria to the Nasserist and pan-Arabist FLN, and the Amazigh peoples of the Sahara would likely have been allowed to keep their freedom, the oil and gas of Hassi-Ms'ood, as well as the radioactive mess left by the French nuclear testing, to themselves.