I'm studying for the CSET and in one the practice exams I was completing there was this question:
What was the most important turning point of WWII? (or something very much like this, I'm going from memory)
I narrowed it down to these two choices:
I, being a faithful reader of /r/askhistorians, answered B; obviously, once the Germans invaded Russia, it was all over.
Well, the people who wrote the exam wanted C.
Any insight, because presumably professional historians were involved, in the thinking behind this type of question?
This isn't, I hope, a current events question. It's more like: when you guys write or contribute to the writing of an objective exam, what are you doing/thinking/trying to get? How do you make these sorts of distinctions (most important vs. important but not most important, presumably)?
(Edited to add: this was a question from a practice test, not the CSET itself. I think on the actual test day I'll sign an agreement not to reveal actual test questions.)
I'm of the opinion that neither is correct, as Guadalcanal or the Solomons Islands campaign did more to end the Japanese war machine than either Normandy or Barbarossa. But that's not what you asked.
When it comes to military history, the Normandy invasion is flashy as hell and has a lot of press behind it. Further, it was against "the Bad Guy". Barbarossa on the other hand isn't nearly as well-known ("the invasion of Russia" appears to be more common among non-history books/people). And it was the Bad Guy attacking and one of the Good Guys... not the right image to be painting in most history classes I've seen or taken.
Normandy may very well be the "right" answer... certainly an argument can be made that way... but there's a lot more movies about Normandy than Barbarossa or Guadalcanal.
Heh. It's got better PR.