In a workshop conducted by Professor Peter Geiss and Victor Söll of the University of Bonn Department of History Education jointly with the Friedrich Foundation, eleventh-grade students from a Nuremberg secondary school are going back in time as part of a simulation game based on historical sources where they play the role of strategic advisors to President Truman. The venue is Haus Annaberg, located outside Bonn, which for a short time will be transformed into the US State Department of 1946/47 where the students are to attend a simulated meeting with the President. What strategic position might the participating students adopt? What should they recommend Truman do? It’s all about ways to establish a democratic Europe in the threatening shadow of Soviet totalitarianism.
“Studying strategic questions has had very little place in secondary school History classes in Germany, despite their considerable relevance to our contemporary society,” Professor Geiss says. Now that has changed thanks to a new approach which he has developed and calls “foreign policy-aware history teaching.” An initial workshop has been held with a group of secondary school students to test out the concept, in collaboration with Victor Söll and a team. The material they have developed is intended to help teachers incorporate smaller modules on strategic thinking into history class or doing an independent learning project without major preparation being required. “Proposals should thus be highly specific and implementable,” Geiss notes.
In the simulation game, students have to cooperatively address and make cool-headed decisions on key strategic considerations, such as deterrence, military coercion versus diplomacy and risks of nuclear escalation. “The simulation is not about gaining insights from the past as guidance on contemporary issues,” Geiss points out, “Rather, the foreign policy debates of the late 1940s and 1950s represent stand-alone 'exercise material’ for reflecting on strategic policymaking and how to deal with dilemma situations—instead of trying to directly apply historical insights, which as a rule cannot be reliably done. In a democratic society, ethics considerations are always important according to Geiss, who believes that in a society committed to peace, freedom and human rights, strategic thinking means more than a cold calculation and weighing of personal advantages and disadvantages. Ethical issues also have to be considered in learning about strategic policymaking in relation to specific potential courses of action, means of achieving ends and attendant risks—as such exploration is crucial in order to arrive at responsible policy of lasting impact.
The strategic insights acquired in this process can be of tremendous value in today’s world. “In a democracy, strategic thinking cannot be the sole preserve of expert committees,” Geiss underscores, “Instead, it should be broadly shared throughout the entire voting population.” The simulation participants could possibly themselves at some point become an inner-circle member of a national security policy-making body.
“I really liked the workshop, which was super-informative because I didn’t know much about the Cold War,” said one student workshop participant. “It was really fun.“
The simulation game materials developed and tested in the workshop are available on the Friedrich Foundation website: https://erhard-friedrich-stiftung.de/generation_zukunft_strategisches_denken/1
Questions for Professor Geiss:
Why choose the year 1947?
In 1946 and early 1947, all possibilities were open in a certain sense, and it was unclear what role the US wished to play in Europe. A new isolationism policy, like that taken by America after the First World War, was unlikely, yet the nature and extent of American involvement remained open questions. These questions resolved in 1947 with the adoption of the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan as the pillars of a new era of United States influence in Europe. This same transatlantic security framework survived the end of the Cold War and remains in place to this day—despite present uncertainty as to the future of the framework. Indeed, this uncertainty makes it all the more relevant to revisit these early days, adopting the outsider’s perspective of the Americans on our continent, for a change.
What did the students think about the simulation game?
The secondary school students worked hard during the preparatory phase of studying sources and during a simulated meeting at the US State Department. It was surprising how they stayed so focused the entire time and how they were able to outline their strategic positioning in their own words with such nuance and discernment.
What was one of the learning tasks involved?
Three groups were formed tasked with representing particular strategic approaches for addressing with the Soviet threat in Europe. The first of these is the containment policy of diplomat George F. Kennan, which had economic, political and military elements. The second is the position of Kennan-critic Walter Lippmann, whose primary goal was to strengthen Europe economically, thereby empowering the continent’s self-defensive capability, thereby avoiding the long-term stationing of US troops. The policy propagated by Commerce Secretary Henry A. Wallace was the third path, who was mainly interested in reconciliation and strengthening economic ties with the Soviet Union while warning of the risks of nuclear escalation as a result of further confrontation. Consulting selected historical sources, the students worked on these positions to become able to present their argumentation in the simulated policy meeting.
What happened next?
This was the springboard for a simulated State Department meeting in which the three groups argued what course of action to recommend to US President Harry S. Truman, engaging in a controversial foreign policy discussion. A broad range of options were on the table, as sources have revealed, but with a meeting at the White House imminent, which created pressure to reach consensus, as the President wanted to receive a clear plan of action, of course, rather than to hear an academic debate.
What was the biggest challenge for the students?
In line with expectations, the students said afterward they thought there was a bit too much source material, which in part was quite complicated—even though in the end they were able to surmount these challenges. This feedback flowed into preparation of the material for online publication together with the Friedrich Foundation.
Did the teenagers have some kind of preparation before doing the workshop, or did they just jump right in?
The early days of the Cold War is a mainstay topic for history class in Germany, in part because it is critical for understanding how Germany came to be divided. Which is why the topic is already addressed starting in the lower secondary school grades. The workshop was designed with an upfront introduction to the content for students, and the material was structured to ensure that most of the necessary contextual information was given to them already.
Were the students able to quickly grasp the nature of foreign policy and the different ways in which it can be approached?
I believe they apprehended it right off. We are familiar with things akin to strategic policymaking, in fact, in our day-to-day lives —like when people talk about “learning strategies” at school. It is thus not all that hard to conceptually explain strategic policymaking to students in the context of international relations.
What comes next?
Next we will be systematically reviewing the documented workshop processes and discussions to identify opportunities for further developing the concept of foreign policy awareness in history class, potentially expanding the offering. We look forward greatly to getting the findings back from these reviews.