AP World History Unit 7 Drill 23

Question 1. Which of the following best describes the historian's central argument?

• A) The Armenian Genocide was caused primarily by ancient religious conflicts between Muslim and Christian communities in Anatolia that had simmered for centuries before erupting in 1915
• B) The Armenian Genocide was produced by specific conditions of total war and nationalist ideology, and the same structural conditions that enabled it recurred in later 20th-century genocides, making it a warning rather than an isolated event ✓
• C) The Ottoman government's deportation of Armenians was a legitimate wartime security measure comparable to other nations' treatment of enemy alien populations during a period of total war
• D) The Armenian Genocide was unique in human history and cannot be compared to any other event because of the specific cultural and religious dimensions of Ottoman-Armenian relations

Explanation: B is correct. The historian explicitly argues two things: first, that the genocide emerged from specific wartime and ideological conditions, not ancient hatreds; second, that those same conditions, "a state at war, a minority framed as an internal enemy, emergency powers removing normal legal constraints", recurred throughout the 20th century, making the Armenian Genocide "a harbinger," not an anomaly. The argument is both explanatory and comparative. A is wrong, the historian explicitly refutes this: "the Armenian Genocide did not emerge from ancient ethnic hatreds." C is wrong, the historian describes "a systematic campaign of murder" and "forced marches through the Syrian desert," framing it as genocide, not a legitimate security measure. D is wrong, the historian makes the opposite argument: the genocide is explicitly comparable to later atrocities precisely because the structural conditions recurred.

Question 2. The historian's claim that the Armenian Genocide "did not emerge from ancient ethnic hatreds" would be most directly supported by evidence that

• A) Armenian and Ottoman Turkish communities had lived in violent conflict with each other continuously since the medieval period, generating centuries of accumulated grievance
• B) the Ottoman government issued formal orders for deportation using the same language as its military mobilization decrees, indicating that the genocide was planned as a wartime measure rather than a spontaneous outbreak of ethnic violence
• C) international observers including American diplomats sent detailed reports to Washington describing the deportations and killings as they occurred in 1915 and 1916
• D) Armenian and Turkish communities had coexisted relatively peacefully for centuries before the specific wartime pressures of 1914–1915 triggered the government's decision to deport and massacre the Armenian population ✓

Explanation: D is correct. The historian's specific claim is that the genocide did not emerge from ancient hatreds. The most direct evidence for this claim would be historical documentation showing that Armenian and Turkish communities had in fact coexisted peacefully for long periods, demonstrating that the violence was not the inevitable product of deep-rooted enmity but was triggered by the specific circumstances of 1914–1915. If communities lived alongside each other without systematic violence for centuries, then the genocide requires explanation in terms of the specific conditions of 1915, not primordial hatred. A is wrong, evidence of continuous medieval conflict would actually support the "ancient hatreds" narrative the historian is refuting. B is wrong, government planning documents speak to the organized nature of the genocide but not directly to whether it emerged from ancient hatreds versus wartime conditions. C is wrong; American diplomatic reports document what happened but don't directly address whether ancient hatreds caused it.

Question 3. The historian's identification of "emergency powers removing normal legal constraints" as a condition enabling genocide is best understood in the context of which broader development?

• A) The Ottoman Empire's adoption of a new constitution in 1908 that expanded civil liberties for all Ottoman subjects, protections that were later suspended once the war began in 1914
• B) The influence of German military advisors in the Ottoman Empire, who introduced authoritarian governance techniques that the Ottoman government applied to its minority populations
• C) Total war's expansion of state power, which gave governments unprecedented control over populations, economies, and territory, and enabled atrocities that peacetime legal and political constraints would have prevented ✓
• D) International humanitarian law established by the Geneva Conventions, which explicitly permitted the deportation of civilian populations deemed to pose a military threat during wartime

Explanation: C is correct. Total war, the mobilization of entire societies for industrialized warfare, dramatically expanded state power in all belligerent nations. Censorship, conscription, economic controls, and suspension of normal civil protections were common. In the Ottoman case, wartime emergency powers allowed the government to order mass deportations without the legal and political checks that might have constrained such actions in peacetime. The AP World History CED identifies the expansion of state power through total war as a defining feature of WWI-era global conflict. A is wrong, while the 1908 constitution is historically relevant context, the historian's point is about wartime emergency powers specifically, not the suspension of a particular constitution. B is wrong; German influence in the Ottoman military is a separate factor; the historian's argument is structural (conditions that enable genocide), not about the specific mechanism of German advice. D is wrong, the Geneva Conventions did not permit mass deportation and massacre of civilian populations; this is historically false.

Question 4. The historian argues that the conditions enabling the Armenian Genocide "recurred with devastating regularity in the twentieth century." Which of the following best illustrates this claim?

• A) The Holocaust, in which Nazi Germany used wartime emergency powers and nationalist ideology framing Jews as an internal enemy to systematically murder approximately six million Jewish people and millions of others ✓
• B) The dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, which caused mass civilian casualties as a direct military tactic to end the Pacific War
• C) The Russian Revolution of 1917, in which Bolshevik forces seized power and executed the Romanov royal family as class enemies of the new Soviet state during the revolutionary upheaval
• D) The Spanish Civil War, in which nationalist and republican forces committed atrocities against civilian populations in contested territories throughout the conflict

Explanation: A is correct. The Holocaust matches all three structural conditions the historian identifies: a state at war (Nazi Germany was fighting WWII), a minority framed as an internal enemy (Jews were depicted in Nazi ideology as a racial threat to Germany), and emergency powers removing normal legal constraints (the Nazi state operated outside normal constitutional limits). The Holocaust is the most direct and well-documented example of the pattern the historian argues recurred, and historians of genocide have explicitly connected it to the Armenian Genocide as a precedent. B is wrong, the atomic bombings were a direct military tactic targeting cities in wartime, not a systematic campaign against a domestic minority population framed as an internal enemy; the structural pattern is different. C is wrong, the execution of the Romanovs was a specific political act, not a systematic campaign against a population group framed as an existential internal threat; it does not fit the genocide pattern. D is wrong, while the Spanish Civil War involved civilian atrocities, it was a civil war between political factions, not a state systematically targeting a minority group as an internal enemy.

Question 5. Which of the following best describes the long-term international response to the pattern of 20th-century genocide the historian identifies?

• A) The international community developed no formal legal or institutional response to genocide, as the major powers consistently refused to recognize atrocities committed by their own allies during wartime
• B) The Nuremberg Trials established the principle that individuals could be held criminally responsible for crimes against humanity, and the UN Genocide Convention (1948) created a legal framework defining and prohibiting genocide, though enforcement remained inconsistent ✓
• C) All major powers ratified the UN Genocide Convention and consistently intervened militarily to prevent genocides wherever they occurred, effectively ending mass atrocity after 1948
• D) The League of Nations established an International Criminal Court in 1920 that successfully prosecuted Ottoman officials for the Armenian Genocide, establishing a precedent for accountability that deterred future atrocities

Explanation: B is correct. The international legal response to 20th-century genocide followed a pattern of building frameworks after catastrophes. The Nuremberg Trials (1945–46) established that state officials could be tried as individuals for crimes against humanity, a revolutionary principle. The UN Genocide Convention (1948), drafted partly in response to the Holocaust, defined genocide as an international crime and obligated signatories to prevent and punish it. However, the historian's pattern of recurring atrocity continued despite these frameworks, as demonstrated by Cambodia (1975–79), Bosnia (1992–95), and Rwanda (1994), making the qualification "enforcement remained inconsistent" essential to accuracy. A is wrong, formal legal frameworks were developed; the Nuremberg Trials and Genocide Convention are well-established historical facts. C is wrong, enforcement was not consistent; major powers repeatedly failed to intervene in documented genocides after 1948. D is wrong, the League of Nations established no International Criminal Court and no Ottoman officials were successfully prosecuted for the Armenian Genocide; this is historically false.