Military history in Germany must redefine its position in view of the foreign and security policy situation in the Berlin Republic. Germany’s changed role and the world-wide employment of its armed forces are bringing about a change in the tasks of military historiography at the interface between historians, policy-makers, the public and the armed forces. The Military History Research Institute (MGFA), a Federal Ministry of Defense research establishment that has been based in Potsdam since 1994, will in future focus its research on the most recent history of the armed forces. This will include the study of the domestic, alliance, social, economic and operational dimensions of operations abroad. The 20th anniversary of the establishment of the “Army of Unity” is an occasion for becoming aware of the path the Bundeswehr has travelled since 1990 and for raising the question of the identity of Germany's armed forces in the 21st century.

The 52nd International Military History Conference carves out a new field of research. In its project entitled “Transformation of the Bundeswehr into an Expeditionary Force” embarked upon in the summer of 2010, MGFA is studying the adaptation of the Bundeswehr to new tasks (“transformation”), the process of change and modernization and the social and political environment in which it is taking place. Contemporary military history refers to both the national context of the Federal Republic of Germany and the international context, the approach taken to studying it being interdisciplinary and allowing political and social science questions to be examined.

In addition to considering the development of the armed forces and operations abroad from the perspective of contemporary history, it examines the overriding question of how the subject of military history can contribute to the conveyance of orientational knowledge within modern armed forces (their function within the Bundeswehr system) and help them to define their position (military identity). This discussion harbors considerable potential for dispute. Last but not least, military history research raises the question of its value for the provision of advice on political issues. What contribution do military historians make in accordance with the frequently heralded, but rarely implemented “Comprehensive Approach”, for instance in connection with Germany’s commitment abroad and crisis management in alliances?

Against this background, the Potsdam conference will take a look at the development of Germany’s armed forces since 1989/90 from a historian’s perspective. The historical outline and focus are intended to ensure in-depth discussion and illustrate the dimension of perpetual profound change in the Bundeswehr. Examples reaching to the present day, like the Afghanistan operation, which has been going on for almost ten years now, will broaden this discussion. The conference will also provide a public forum that will bring together academics, military personnel, representatives of governmental and non-governmental organizations with practical experience and political decision-makers.

We hope that the input they provide will link historical expertise with the latest knowledge in the fields of security policy and the military. In addition to the German perspective, presentations are meant to take account of the European and transatlantic dimensions and allow references to be made to the pressing security challenges of the 21st century. The following topics and questions are planned to be discussed at the conference:

1) The research landscape, transmission and the source problem: what does the German and international research landscape look like; how do military history institutes research the “history of operations”? How do the Bundeswehr, NATO and the EU organize the storage and transmission of data on operations? How do the German Federal Archives and European or US archives deal with challenges associated with this? What technical developments have there been in data storage since 1989 and how have command and control, staff duty and communication procedures changed in view of the IT revolution?

2) The role of the armed forces in the political system of the Federal Republic of Germany after 1990: Is German foreign and security policy undergoing a process of militarization or is the Bundeswehr undergoing a process of politicization? How have NATO and EU security structures changed since 1990 and what has constituted German foreign and security policy since the reunification? How have the European and transatlantic partners perceived Germany as a medium-sized power? What milestones determine the way in which parliament handles peacekeeping and peace enforcement? To what degree does the Bundeswehr think politically and how are the structural requirements for this changing? Are there any think tanks in Germany and have they proven their worth from a historical perspective?

3) The transformation in the Bundeswehr’s decision-making processes, structures, the leadership culture and self-perception: How are the top-level structure and organizational structures of the Bundeswehr changing? How are armaments, equipment and the development and procurement of new defense articles changing? How does the German political and military apparatus make fundamental decisions and how is the system of Innere Führung (leadership development and civic education) standing up to the test posed by operations abroad? How has the image that soldiers have of themselves developed since reunification, in particular in the international environment of operations? In what way do operations abroad have an identity-building effect? What prospects do the Weise Commission report and the ongoing reorganization of the Bundeswehr provide in this respect?

4) The example of ISAF – the Bundeswehr in transformation since 2001 and levels of operations-based contemporary history: How have decision-making and command structures in the United States and Europe changed since 2001; how have ISAF operational structures as well as training, mission preparation and mission procedures developed within the Bundeswehr? How have stabilization concepts (“reconstruction“, democratization, COIN, Comprehensive Approach) changed since 2001? To what extent has the Bundeswehr proved to be a learning institution? How has the perception of ISAF and the German contingent changed in the German media democracy? What findings has ISAF yielded for the exchange between military historians, development engineers and political scientists? To what extent has the Soviet invasion of 1979 been used as an object lesson for analysis and training and how has military history in the United States and Europe contributed to this discussion?

5) War experience and the conduct of individual soldiers with deployment experience as well as research approaches: How do soldiers with deployment experience define themselves, how do they structure training and operational deployment and how has this process changed along with the quality of operations? How do contingents “function” and organize themselves and what do their internal structures look like? What changes have there been in the way in which each soldier handles different situations and scenarios during operational deployment? Has any work been started on summarizing individual experiences during operational deployment into collective biographies and on drawing representative conclusions? What contributions have social scientists, doctors or military psychologists made to research into and the assessment of individual experiences during operational deployment? Where are the methodical chances and limits of a comparison between those experiences and the processing of the war experiences in the period before 1945? Can the history of operations benefit from methodical findings of world war research or do we have to draw a clear line – especially with a view to World War II? What practical projects and what infrastructure do we have at international level to save the “memories of veterans”?

6) The Bundeswehr and society since 1989: What reciprocity has there been between the “Army of Unity” and the operations abroad? Looking back from a historical perspective, what role has conscription played with regard to the Bundeswehr being an expeditionary force? What are the effects and consequences of the operations for society in Germany and how can its “friendly disinterest” be rated in a diachronic comparison? Have new reservist concepts taken account of the increasing importance of reserve soldiers for routine military duty and the operations abroad? What impact has the German military presence had on the societies in the countries of deployment, what connections have developed and how have they been perceived? Who is doing research on this issue in an international comparison?

7) Operations abroad since 1990 as a starting point, basis and mirror of a new military self-image in the army and society and the role of the humanities: How does the Bundeswehr plan and steer training, how have relevant procedures developed since 1989/90, and to what extent do plans and reality or outcome match up? How have interfaces between academics and society on the one hand and the Bundeswehr on the other been established or changed? What internal cultures (e.g. closely related to operations vs. unrelated to operations) have developed within the Bundeswehr and how far have they drifted apart? How have theoretical debates been conducted within the Bundeswehr and to what degree has the individual soldier been able to really benefit from relevant theoretical models? Have the institutions and competence centers – set up, for instance, to impart new training contents – met the requirements of an expeditionary force? What challenges do military history and related subjects face today and what possibilities do they have? What form is the discussion taking in which on the one hand demands are being voiced for military history to be more focused on application and on the other claims are being made that the foundation for excellent basic research is under threat? To what degree is the change in military operations influencing the demand for greater focus on application? Are fears and taboos in society leading to a rejection of certain potential applications and does the assignment of the focus on application really endanger the ideals and norms of free research? What purpose do records and analyses of operations abroad ultimately serve?

The 52nd International Military History Conference (ITMG) will be held at the Congress Hotel on Lake Templin in Potsdam from 26 to 28 September 2011. Speakers will receive a fee of 150 Euros and their travel and accommodation expenses will be covered. A fee of 150 Euros will also be paid for papers published in the projected conference volume. If you are interested in speaking at the conference, please submit a résumé of your paper (no more than one page) and a few details of your personal and professional backgrounds to the address below by 28 February 2011. In order to allow a large amount of room for discussion, speakers will have no more than 15 minutes to deliver their presentations. The conference languages will be German and English.

With a view to the topicality of the subject, MGFA will publish a conference volume shortly after the event. We therefore kindly ask you to submit your reviewed papers at the conference if possible, but no later than two weeks after the end of the conference.