After more than three years and over 470,000 visitors, the Alfred Landecker Foundation funded exhibition is closing on March 22, 2026. In conversation with Fritz Backhaus, Head of Collections at the German Historical Museum, he explains what made the approach of Roads not Taken distinctive and why it is particularly important today to view history as an open field of possibilities.
What makes the exhibition concept of Roads not Taken special? How does this view of history differ from traditional historical exhibitions?
FB: What makes the exhibition Roads not Taken, developed by Prof. Dan Diner, distinctive is its attempt not simply to convey knowledge about German history, but to make the very act of reflecting on history its central theme. At each of the turning points presented in German history, the exhibition asks: Was what happened inevitable? Were there alternatives available to contemporaries? Which paths did they not take?
At the same time, the exhibition does not tell the story in a linear way from 1848 to 1989. Instead, it reverses the chronology, beginning with the peaceful revolution and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and then moving step by step further back into the past. This, too, creates a moment of productive disruption that encourages visitors to reflect on the constructed nature and openness of history.
What questions do visitors most frequently ask when walking through the exhibition? Which historical moments or “roads not taken” did they find particularly fascinating?
FB: The rooms that create personal connections (1989) or links to the present (1936, 1929) have resonated particularly strongly with visitors, as have sections that open up new perspectives, such as the turning points of 1914 and 1848, or the hypothetical scenario of an atomic bomb being dropped over Germany in 1945.
Particularly noteworthy is the strong interest in the transnational perspective on the turning point of 1989. The section dealing with memory culture in the context of 1944 has also sparked especially intense discussions and sometimes disagreement. The striking design and the use of concise explanations enabled many visitors to engage with the exhibition in an inspiring way. Questions about the likelihood of alternative outcomes or the possible consequences of these “roads not taken” demonstrate that historical contingency becomes tangible encouraging reflection not only on historical possibilities but also on history itself.
What do you hope visitors take away from the exhibition, especially with regard to their understanding of history and decision-making?
FB: We have often observed that the exhibition sparked intense and sometimes controversial discussions – whether about the alternatives at individual historical turning points or about the relationship between reflecting on history and understanding our own present.
The overarching goal of the German Historical Museum is to strengthen what we call “historical judgment.” The lively discussions within the exhibition and the often almost enthusiastic responses to this unusual approach suggest to me that this goal has indeed been achieved.
Why is it particularly important today to present history as an open field of possibilities?
FB: Many people perceive the present moment as one of crisis, and since the beginning of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine it has rightly been described as a “turning point.”
This also means that the present is shaped by fundamental political choices, and that liberal democracy itself can appear to be under threat. Looking at historical turning points and the consequences of past decisions makes clear that political choices are never without alternatives and that such decisions carry responsibility for the future.
What was your personal motivation for contributing to this exhibition concept?
FB: Personally, I found it very appealing to reinterpret the medium of the historical exhibition—not only to show what actually happened, but also what might have happened.
One particular challenge was the question of whether there are objects that can represent a possibility, and thus materialize a past that never came to pass. Equally important was the task of translating this demanding intellectual concept into an appropriate spatial and visually compelling exhibition design.
The reactions of many colleagues confirmed that we had indeed succeeded in breaking new ground with this exhibition.