BBC ON THIS DAY | 18 | 1989: East Germany leader ousted About This Site | Text Only 1989: East Germany leader ousted The Communist leader of East Germany, Erich Honecker, has been forced to step down as leader of the country. After 18 years in power he will be replaced by Egon Krenz, currently the head of internal and external security for the Politburo. The official reason for his departure is said to be "ill health" but failure to deal with the tide of discontentment sweeping the country and the party is thought to be the real reason. Up to 120,000 people marched in Leipzig on Monday to protest against a lack of political reforms and thousands of people are continuing to leave the country in search of better opportunities. We were dying on our feet under Honecker Student Steffi Muller The recent visit of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev is also being seen as a contributing factor to the downfall of Mr Honecker. The Soviet leader was highly critical of the East German leadership saying there was a need for people to feel involved with their country and to have their opinions taken seriously.

The placement of Mr Krenz is being seen by the opposition as a change of tactics rather than a change of direction. The banned opposition movement New Forum said: "Krenz's appointment shows the Communist party has no intention of sharing power. Reform under him is unlikely." A decade's grooming Mr Krenz, who at 55 is the youngest member of the Politburo, has been groomed to take over for more than a decade by Mr Honecker. The news has so far received mixed reactions. Student Steffi Muller, referring to the official announcement that "health reasons" were the cause for the departure said: "They were really referring to the health of the country - we were dying on our feet under Honecker." Rainer Eppelmann, an East Berlin vicar said: "Krenz must show that he has the will to change things, and not only cosmetically." Mr Honecker was expected to retire next year, following the country's 40th anniversary celebrations. E. Germany To Prosecute Ousted Rulers - tribunedigital-chicagotribune E.

Germany To Prosecute Ousted Rulers November 27, 1989|By Ray Moseley, Chicago Tribune. BERLIN — East Germany`s Communist Party rulers are engaged in an increasingly frantic campaign to save themselves by tossing former leaders to the wolf pack of party rank-and-file and opposition figures baying for blood. An announcement last week that former economic czar Guenter Mittag had been expelled from the party and that former head of state Erich Honecker would be investigated failed to satisfy public opinion. So the party announced that ousted party leaders suspected of corruption would be put on trial. That presumbly includes Honecker, Mittag and others who have been ousted. <script type=\"text/javascript\" src=\""></script>");document.close();})();' frameborder="0" scrolling="no" width="300" height="160"> Werner Eberlein, head of the party`s Central Control Commission, has become the avenging angel of reform. He has promised a thorough probe of ``the misuse of office, corruption, personal enrichment and other guilts`` by ousted leaders.

These announcements have been accompanied by denunciations of the privileges that party leaders formerly enjoyed, ranging from special shops at which they could buy goods unavailable to the general population to weekend villas to private hunting lands. Stories have been circulated about all-night parties at the home of Honecker attended by the party elite and by young women recruited from the Communist youth organization. The vilification of party privilege has been too much for several local party leaders, who have committed suicide. Officials say they also have not ruled out suicide in the death of Franz Rydz, a sports federation leader who controlled the financing of East German sports. The current strategy of airing the party`s dirty linen is obviously not without risk. If Honecker and others are put on trial, they could get back at their persecutors by testifying to the past abuses of those now holding power. It also remains to be seen whether the campaign can save new head of state Egon Krenz and his followers. A new government poll shows only 9.6 percent of the population supports Krenz, and the party has the backing of just 31 percent.

New Prime Minister Hans Modrow, identified with the party`s reform wing, proved to be the country`s most popular politician with 42 percent support. Heinz Mirtschen, a Central Committee member, revealed that 200,000 of the party`s 2.3 million members, or 8.75 percent, have quit since September. Speculation is growing that Krenz, 52, will be ousted at a special party congress Dec. 15-17, along with many Politburo and Central Committee members. Krenz told London`s Financial Times that he was confident of riding out the storm. ``I have not taken office in order to step down,`` he said. Krenz, formerly the Politburo member in charge of the secret police, has announced a series of reforms designed to gain credibility. He has sought to establish himself as the Mr. Clean of East German politics, moving out of a luxury housing development for party leaders and into a modest apartment. He also has given up his chauffeur-driven limousine and drives around East Berlin in a small, Soviet-built Lada car. But rumors abound, which Krenz has publicly denied, that he is a drunk.

West German senior officials say he had a serious drinking problem but has recently ``dried out.`` <script type=\"text/javascript\" src=\""></script>");document.close();})();' frameborder="0" scrolling="no" width="300" height="110"> Krenz`s party critics also have circulated reports about how he was instrumental in getting three young men expelled from an elite school for children of party leaders after they engaged in a political protest earlier this year. At recent party meetings, rank-and-file members have been outspoken in attacking the privileged lifestyles of their leaders. A particular target has been Wandlitz, the elite housing development north of East Berlin that Krenz abandoned after he took office. East German television, increasingly bold in its reporting on past abuses, carried a program last week in which the opulence of life in Wandlitz was made public for the first time. Wandlitz, scornfully referred to as ``Volvograd`` and ``Honecker City`` by many East Germans, was built in 1958 after the 1956 Hungarian uprising made East German leaders fear for their safety. It is surrounded by walls and is heavily guarded.

The TV cameras showed elegant villas with walls lined with imported wood paneling and bathroom fixtures rivaling those in luxury houses in the West. A television commentator hinted that furnishings had recently been changed to make the houses look less attractive. He also said there were rumors that lines of trucks had driven out of Wandlitz on recent nights carrying away special goods not available to the general public. But the film showed that the Wandlitz grocery store was well stocked with bananas, oranges and other fruit most East Germans never see. Kurt Hager, the recently ousted party ideologist, appeared before the cameras to denounce the ``inflammatory campaign`` being waged against the Honecker inner circle. ``This is a necessity!`` he said of Wandlitz. He complained that public scrutiny of party lifestyles had given him the feeling he was living in an internment camp. Krenz recently showed off his new, more modest apartment on television and claimed that Wandlitz now was a community for ``retirees who once belonged to the Politburo.`` But that ignored the fact that three members of the current Politburo live there.

There have been suggestions that Wandlitz be converted to an old people`s home, a medical or rehabilitation center or a museum memorializing abuses of the past. <script type=\"text/javascript\" src=\""></script>");document.close();})();' frameborder="0" scrolling="no" width="300" height="110"> MORE: Honecker Ousted in E. Germany, Ending 18 Years of Iron Rule - latimes YOU ARE HERE: LAT Home → Collections Honecker Ousted in E. Germany, Ending 18 Years of Iron Rule October 18, 1989 |From Associated Press EAST BERLIN — East German leader Erich Honecker was stripped of power today, ending 18 years of iron-fisted rule as the government grapples with growing public demands for a freer society. State news media said the Communist Party hierarchy replaced its 77-year-old leader with Egon Krenz, a Honecker protege and the youngest member of the ruling Politburo.

Honecker, who directed the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961, will also be relieved of his largely ceremonial post as head of state and as chief of the military, the government-run news agency ADN said. ADN said Krenz, 52, in charge of security issues and government-run youth groups, had already taken over as the party chief and will be recommended for the posts as military chief and head of state. The latter two require the approval of the nation's Parliament, and that is guaranteed by the strong central control of the government. Krenz, like Honecker, is considered a Communist hard-liner. However, he signaled a softer stance when he reportedly urged police to stop their harsh crackdown on the thousands of people who have been staging protests in recent weeks. Two other key members of the ruling Politburo lost their positions. Politburo member Joachim Herrmann, 60, who was in charge of the nation's media, and Guenter Mittag, 63, the architect of East Germany's economic policy, "were relieved of their functions," ADN reported.

ADN said both men had also lost their posts on the Communist Party's 163-member Central Committee and 21-member Politburo, and Mittag will be relieved of his duties as deputy head of state. The move apparently was an attempt to placate growing public demands for a freer press and economic reforms. The change in leadership comes as East Germany is still reeling from the exodus in recent months of tens of thousands of its citizens seeking better wages and more freedom in the West. The flight has been followed by public dissent unprecedented in this Communist country. In Washington, President Bush said Krenz's rise to power was unlikely to signal fundamental change. "Whether that reflects a change in East-West relations, I don't think so," he said. "Mr. Krenz has been very much in accord with the policies of Honecker. So it's too early to say." In Bonn, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl welcomed the leadership change and said he hoped Krenz will "make the way free" for a better life for East Germans.

"We hope that in the interest of our countrymen that the reform process that has been so sympathetically received in Poland and Hungary and also in the Soviet Union will finally get its chance in East Germany as well," Kohl told reporters. ADN said Honecker asked to be relieved of his official duties for "health reasons." Honecker has reportedly been in ill health following a gallbladder operation in August. But Honecker had been under pressure to resign after a wave of protests swept the country. MORE: Fall of the Berlin Wall: 1989 Back to The Cold War Chronology To find the cause of the fall of the Berlin Wall, one must look, not in Germany, but in the Soviet Union. The change began when Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the Soviet Union in 1985. He tried to make changes in the state bureaucracy and in the Communist party by restructuring the economys production and distribution system, a plan now known as perestroika. In addition, Gorbachev also allowed for the policy of glasnost, or public criticism of the communist party. Gorbachevs reform contributed to the breakup of the centralized structure of the USSR.

During this time some states such as Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania declared their independence. In 1989, Gorbachev shifted his policies toward the satellite states of the communist block in Eastern Europe, including Germany. [2] In effect, the politics in Germany also began to lead toward the destruction of the wall. In the fall of 1989, there was an antigovernment demonstration in East Germany. In mid-October 1989, the Politburo forced the resignation of Erich Honecker, the leader of the GDR (German Democratic Republic). [5] In this way, Erich Honecker was ousted from office, and others soon followed. By the first week of November, the entire Politburo and all of the members of the East German cabinet resigned. [5] The new Prime minister, Hans Modrow, announced plans to decentralize the economy and an easing of travel restrictions. [4] This allowed the East Germans, from the communist sector, to cross the boarder into the west, the Allied sector. At this point, East Germany began to reform.

Then on November 9, 1989, the leader of the East Berlin communist party, Gunter Schabowski, announced that the boarder with West Berlin would be opened for "private trips abroad." Masses of people started to use hammers and chisels to knock out pieces of the wall. Shortly thereafter, on November 10, 1989 and later on December 22, 1989 checkpoints were opened at Potsdamer Platz and the Brandenberg Gate. On March 18, 1990, free elections in East Germany took place for the first time in 58 years. [5] By July 1, 1990, the wall tumbled down and Germany was completely united. [3] As a result, a massive emigration from East to West began, which has left economic and emotional scars that can only be healed by the hard work and understanding of generations to come. But on the day that the wall fell will stand out in all of history, as a day when friends and family and an entire nation were reunited, while tears of joy were being shed by all.

Brothers and Sisters torn apart Longed for each other with pain in the heart Mothers in tears held their arms toward the sky "Where are my children, who took them and why" A wall stood between them and gave them no rest The wall in Berlin, between East and West. Thousands tried passing, were caught and would fall She claimed her victims, the cursed wall But their longing and pain was stronger than fear As they tried to come home year after year. Their country divided, that's why they tried And their hope for reunion never died. East Germans, West Germans all felt the same Through tunnels and over the Wall they came. Many were captured, suffered torture and shame Still they fought that wall again and again. At Last their pain gave birth to a cry "Free us! Unite us! before we all die" Against their oppressors their outrage they hurled And their plea found an echo all over the world, Then they marched, like in battle, with tools in their hand, And attacked the concrete that divided their land.

Each chip that fell, fell toward victories crown And they never stopped till the wall was down Through blood and through tears, through sorrow and strife East Germany kept her dream alive And today, 1990, October three There's no East, there's no West, they are one, they are "Free!" by Ruth Carlson 1 'New Chapter' Promised by East German Leader - NYTimes.com 'New Chapter' Promised by East German Leader By SERGE SCHMEMANN, Special to The New York Times Published: October 20, 1989 EAST BERLIN, Oct. 19— East Germany's new leader, Egon Krenz, got off to a fast start today, visiting a factory to hear workers' grievances and meeting unexpectedly with senior church leaders to whom he pledged a ''new chapter of constructive cooperation.'' The meetings were shown prominently on East German television, marking a distinct change in style from the formal, ritualistic rule of Erich Honecker, the 77-year-old leader who was ousted Wednesday as party chief. Mr.

Krenz also moved to meet one of the most strenuous demands among East Germans by ordering the drafting of a new law on travel, which officials said would greatly expand the possibilities for traveling abroad. Mr. Krenz was selected by his colleagues on the Politburo after a mass exodus of East Germans to the West and a wave of street demonstrations showed the depth of popular discontent with the Communist party's resistance to change. 'Krenz Will Change Nothing' Though at 52 the youngest of the senior East German leaders, Mr. Krenz, most recently the Communist Party secretary charged with security and with youth affairs, is generally regarded as a hard-liner in Mr. Honecker's mold. ''Krenz will change nothing, unless there are more demonstration like those in Leipzig,'' said an elderly man touring the restored Nikolai District in the heart of East Berlin. His comment was supported by many others, ordinary Germans and leaders of the opposition movement, who all predicted that demonstrations like the one that brought more than 100,000 people into the streets of Leipzig last Monday would continue. Evidently aware of such skepticism, Mr.

Krenz took to the streets early on his first day in office, calling on the Seventh of October Machine-Tool Factory in East Berlin. ''We are being this open with you so that you'd know what's going on down here,'' one worker said after others spoke about shortages and the lack of incentives, and foreign travel. Meeting With Protestant Leaders Mr. Krenz said, ''What do you mean up there? The worker shot back, ''You certainly don't have the problems we have running around trying to find a garage to fix a car.'' Mr. Krenz had the last word. ''Let us not talk of top and bottom, big and small, but of comrades, colleagues, citizens of the G.D.R. who work together with equal rights on the same issues,'' he said. ''Can we agree on that?'' From the factory, Mr. Krenz went to a hunting lodge outside East Berlin to meet with top leaders of the Protestant churches, which have played a crucial role in recent years as mediator between dissenters and the Government, and which have called on East Germans not to leave for the West but to stay and work to improve their own country. Krenz's Stance on New Forum Meeting with Mr.

Krenz were Bishop Werner Leich, chairman of the Conference of Protestant Churches in East Germany, and Manfred Stolpe, the senior lay official and an outspoken critic of the Government. At the end of the meeting, Bishop Leich told West German television that he ''sensed a serious and honest wish for change'' in the new leader. ''He often used the term 'wende,' turnaround. Krenz himself said that he couldn't just keep talking and describing change, but had to act.'' Mr. Krenz described the talks as ''open, balanced and constructive.'' Bishop Leich said Mr. Krenz had led him to believe that new organizations like New Forum would not be excluded from the debate on East Germany's future. He also said Mr. Krenz had traveled to Leipzig to insure that demonstrations there, the largest of the recent wave, did not become violent. The police made no effort to stop tens of thousands of marchers who were on the streets the last two Mondays. Rejection of Reunification The official press agency A.D.N., in its report on the meeting, said both sides had agreed on the need for dialogue, on avoiding ''rash actions,'' and on the need to preserve East Germany.

The last point implied an agreement to reject West German calls for reunification. The burst of openness did not immediately dispel widespread skepticism over his selection. ''They changed the leadership only to relieve the pressure,'' said Karl, an engineer from Dresden, who was one of several people questioned about the new leader. ''Real change will come only with pressure from below.'' Sebastian Pflugbeil, one of the founders of New Forum, said: ''Our enthusiasm for Krenz did not boil over. We have no great illusions. Krenz is not the man who will or wants to lead the G.D.R. out of this crisis.'' There were those, however, who held out hope that Mr. Krenz would prove to be a reformer. ''Gorbachev also toed the line and then changed it all,'' said Jorg, a student. ''I don't know what Krenz is thinking. It's true, he did support China, but maybe he had to keep low. We'll just have to give him time.'' East Berlin Rejects Western Deal FRANKFURT, Oct.

19 (Special to The New York Times) - A high-ranking East German official, speaking for the new Communist leadership there, today strongly rejected offers of Western economic help in exchange for East German political and economic liberalizations. The East German Deputy Foreign Minister, Harry Ott, told an East-West conference here that Mr. Krenz, had promised ''a turning point'' and ''a dialogue with all the social forces in our country.'' But Mr. Ott said the goal had to be to strengthen socialism and sovereignty in East Germany - not to make it more like West Germany. ''To say that, first we have to make reforms, and then we'll get aid - I find that patronizing, not to say insulting,'' Mr. Ott said. ''The existence of two German states has been for four decades one of the realities on which security and stability in Europe depend.'' ''The G.D.R. deplores the fact that many citizens of our country, especially young people, have left,'' he said in his speech to the security conference of the Institute for East-West Security Studies, based in New York. ''We look for the causes in ourselves.

But it cannot be overlooked that certain forces are trying to exploit the situation.'' photo of Egon Krenz (AP) The East German Revolution, 1989 1. conducting dialogue between citizens and government leaders; 2. in organizing mass protests; 3. and in providing a safe meeting place for diverse activist groups, which united some of the most vocal dissenting elements in society that challenged the government's authority. East German Christians were also politically engaged after the Revolution (or "the turning" as they call it) in mediating and establishing a forum to debate the future shape of society and the government after the sudden end of 40 years of Communist rule. Several church leaders also held important positions in the new coalition government that followed the Revolution. This paper examines the contributions and direction which the Church gave to the political changes and attempts to offer some basic explanations for why and how the Church became such a critical agent of change in this, the only peaceful revolution in Germany's history. In order to understand the dissent that led masses of East Germans to unite in scores of anti-government protests (which of course were illegal), one must first understand the totalitarian nature of life under the SED party, the Socialist Unity Party.

Perhaps the country's official name, the German Democratic Republic, was somewhat of a misnomer. Some have joked that the Communist takeover after World War II rendered the GDR barely German, hardly democratic, and certainly not a Republic. During the nationï¿½s 40-year history, the Socialist Unity Party established and enforced the "total touch" policy characteristic of totalitarian regimes. Each sector of society was subdued under the careful guidance of the only official party, the SED. Nielsen points out that with no legal opposition parties, the Communist party, the SED, established and enforced the "most efficient police state in Europe" (Nielsen, p. 25). The Secret Police (or the Stasi, as they were most un-affectionately known) were famous for both their skilfulness and their ruthlessness. They oversaw a massive enforcement apparatus, well known for keeping rooms of files detailing the personal histories, and in many oases, the daily activities of citizens, commoners and leaders alike. One never knew if the neighbour next-door or across the street was a paid informant of the Stasi, on salary to report any so-called anti-government activities.

The Stasi also bugged and monitored telephones with stereotypical German efficiency (Nielsen, p. 25). ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ In his excellent comparative account of the revolutions in Eastern Europe, Niels Nielsen describes the conditions against which the East Germans rebelled. He notes that there were little or no open discussions of important societal issues, public demonstration was illegal, and travel outside the GDR was generally prohibited, unless one vacationed in other Eastern Bloc countries. Some exemptions were possible, and the government liberalized these policies in the last few years (along with emigration policy) in the face of growing unrest (Nielsen, p.25). Strict Marxist-Leninist philosophy was also enforced in the workplace and in schools at all levels. As "the only true worldview", citizens had to swear their loyalty to Marxist-Leninist ideals, or the government denied them and their children educational and employment opportunities (Pierard, p.501).

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Citizens wearied however, of this "total touch," and in many cases rejected this enforced worldview as ideologically bankrupt (Nielsen, p. 42). They demanded a radical restructuring of society, freedom of expression and travel, elections that were not rigged, and an end to personal harassment (Nielsen, p. 42,45). Nielsen explains that this groundswell of dissent in the 1980's coincides also with East Germany's prolonged economic decline. The governmentï¿½s inability to improve the citizens' standard of living helped convince the people, he concludes, that East Germany, under Erich Honnecker's leadership, was both ideologically and economically bankrupt (Nielsen, p. 45). On October 9th, considered by many commentators the turning point of the Revolution, West German President Richard von Weiszï¿½cker was asked how he explained the unprecedented upheaval in East Germany. He replied, "Gorbachev and the churches" (Nielsen, p.27).

It seems that Gorbachev's glasnost was indeed coming to East Germany, even though the SED leadership condemned the reforms and determined at first not to follow Moscow's lead and liberalize its policies (Burgess, p. 31). Without Gorbachev's decision to allow the protests, one might speculate that the Peaceful Revolution might have had a very un-peaceful ending. If, for example, he had decided to enforce the Brezhnev doctrine and maintain Soviet control of the GDR by force, as was done in 1953, there may have never been a successful Revolution. One should not underestimate the fortune (or as some East Germans suggest - the providence) of the simultaneous unrest in the Soviet Union that influenced Gorbachev not to entangle himself in East German domestic affairs. The moment seemed primed for change, and the Church, as Weiszï¿½cker suggests, took full advantage of this historic opportunity. In at least five ways, members of Protestant churches across the country, most notably in Leipzig and Berlin, but also in smaller rural locales, became engaged in political activity at the grassroots level.

Although the Church has had a significant political identity for years, it had never before fostered as much antigovernment protest as its members did in the final years before the collapse of Communist rule (Burgess. p. 17). In 1989, the Church became a key agent behind the mass mobilization of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of citizens, all demanding change. An examination of the Church's leadership role in the protests also indicates that its members consistently emphasized the need for peaceful protests by all citizens and the necessity of restraining from the use of violence. Pierard, a historian at Indiana State University, explains that tensions between hard-line leaders and reformers in government steadily grew throughout 1987 and 1988 (Pierard, p.502). However, during the summer of 1989 two events triggered action: the rigged local elections of May 7th and the dismantling of the 354-kilometre long iron fence border between Austria and Hungary (Pierard, p. 502). In Leipzig, the Stasi arrested more than 100 demonstrators who protested against the undemocratic election.

This prompted church leadership at a conference in June to break decisively with any remaining "accomodationist" sentiment and to condemn the falsified election as evidence of the government's undemocratic orientation (Pierard, p. 502). Meanwhile, in July and August, thousands of vacationing East Germans began pouring through the newly opened border in Hungary. Exercising again its activist voice in its official pronouncements, the Church drafted a letter to Honnecker "calling for an open discussion of the problems facing the country, respect for dissenting opinions, and an immediate end to press censorship and travel restrictions" (Pierard, p. 502). Again, on September 19th, the synod of the Federation of Protestant Churches sent an even stronger statement justifying the mass exodus of citizens and urging immediate democratic reforms. The development of special interest activist groups within local congregations is the second indication of its significant political involvement. The base groups were collections of individuals with a variety of social concerns who met to plan events and exchange ideas regarding peace and disarmament issues, human rights, preservation of the environment, and several other concerns (Nielsen, p. 37).

They served as a broad umbrella to bring Christians and other activists together into the grassroots organizations that later served as the core of dissent during the Revolution. The church sheltered and defended these groups, who were prohibited from meeting openly. They enjoyed relative safety inside the church walls, although the danger always remained that government informants could also infiltrate the church. John Burgess describes the unique ï¿½free spaceï¿½ that these groups provided for activists in contrast to the state-imposed conformity they experienced elsewhere. ï¿½The church offered a sense of freedom and acceptance,ï¿½ he explains, ï¿½that they did not find elsewhere in societyï¿½ Burgess, p.24). The agenda of these groups influenced the Synodï¿½s approach to social issues and helped keep the Church attentive to the political interests of East Germans at the local level (Pierard, p.502). The Church served as the key meeting place for dissenters during the Revolution and fostered the development of core activist groups. Members of these close-knit pockets of political dissent became instrumental as leaders during the weeks of mass protest.

New illegal political parties, such as Democracy Now and the New Democratic Departure also sprang up in 1989. The initial meetings of both were held in churches in Berlin and Leipzig. This third reflection of the Churchï¿½s involvement is most apparent when one examines the results of the first free election after the Revolution. On March 18, 1990 the Christian Democratic Union party won an overwhelming number of parliament seats, soundly defeating the former Communist party which had sought a facelift in its muchï¿½needed name change to the Party of Democratic Socialism. The significant point is not that the CDU won, but rather that out of 400 seats, 21 Lutheran pastors, 2 theologians, one Baptist layperson, and three other lay leaders were elected (Pierard, 507). The voters understood that the Church had led the Revolution in many respects. It had also maintained the only alternative worldview to Marxistï¿½Leninism over the years. Prominent Church members even led the new coalition government. The new Prime Minister, Lothar de Maziere, was a lay member of the presidium of the Protestant Church Federation.

Four Cabinet Ministers were also pastors, including the Foreign Affairs Minister (Markus Meckel), the Minister for Economic Cooperation (Hans-Wilhelm Ebeling), the Minister for Media Policy (Gottfried Mï¿½ller) and Rainer Eppelmann, the Minister for Disarmament and Defense (Pierard, p.507). Professing Christians would never have held these positions before the Revolution, because no one with personal or familial contact with the church could advance in the Communist hierarchy (Pierard, p. 506). They would be extremely fortunate, in fact, to have received a college education, since most traditional educational and professional opportunities were closed to those who did not officially disassociate themselves from the church (Pierard, p. 506). In addition to their official statements against the SED government, the housing of the core political groups, and their involvement in the new political parties, the church members also led the first mass protests in Leipzig. Often leaders within the church were relied on to lead rallies and organise protests (Nielsen, p.38).

Perhaps the most significant and well-known method by which the Leipzig churches contributed to the mass mobilization of their city to protest in October and November was through the ï¿½Montagsgebeteï¿½ or Monday prayer services. Every Monday since 1982 hundreds of citizens met at the Nikolaikirche (the Church of St. Nicholas) to pray individually and collectively for both personal and social concerns (Nielsen, p.25) Eventually the practice spread to other churches as well. In these meetings, people often offered prayers for peace and over the years, the weekly gatherings developed a significant political dimension. Nielsen explains: Their political engagement for peace and justice was intrinsic to their preaching. But it was members of the base communities, not primarily the larger constituency of the churches, which came to make up a subculture of resistance. Political opposition became especially intense as church prayer services served as a place of information, a voice for the voiceless (Nielsen, p.41.) The Monday-night prayer meetings served as a catalyst or rallying-point for the demonstrators in Leipzig.

Hans Taut, a doctor In Leipzig, whose family attended the demonstrations, explains that the weekly regularity of these meetings partially accounts for the large numbers that protested during October and November. During these months of the largest protests, citizens knew that each Monday, hundreds would fill St. Nicholas Church and afterward proceed with lit candles through the Leipzig streets to the centre of town. The reliability of these protesters to lead demonstrations always on the same evening enabled the thousands and later hundred of thousands of citizens to have a predetermined time and place to meet for mass demonstrations, whether they came first to a service in one of several churches or joined the demonstrators after they arrived in the massive open area near the University of Leipzig. Thus, the largest demonstrations always occurred on Mondays and grew in size as the summer weeks passed. Reliable estimates of the demonstrators attending the protests in October reveal a stunning progression: October 2 ï¿½ 10,000; October 9 ï¿½ 70,000; October 16 - 120,000; October 30 - 300,000 (Nielsen, p.30).

Amidst this national crisis for the SED party, Erich Honnecker resigned on October 18th and was replaced by Egon Krenz, who remained in office less than two months. Leipzig pastor Hans-Jï¿½rgen Sievers details the Churchï¿½s involvement in the Revolution during the months before the fall of the Berlin Wall in November. His account of the Monday prayer meeting on October 9th provides insight into the role of the Church and the mind of the demonstrator. I offer here a translation of a passage out of his book Stundenbuch einer deutschen Revolution: St. Nicholasï¿½ Church had to be evacuated once again because of another bomb threat. Shortly after 4 P.M. entrance was forbidden, and only a few minutes later, three other churches were overflowing with people. For the first time, St. Thomasï¿½ Church and St. Michaelï¿½s Church were involved, both two streetcar stops away from the centre of town. The situation in the churches was a once in a lifetime experience. People sat, stood, and pressed themselves into any available spot.

They stood on the staircases up to the balconies, in the doorways, and outside in the streets. A breathtaking silence and focused alertness dominated the crowds. The crowds attending the services were filled with both fear and great determination ï¿½ determination not to allow themselves to be intimidated, and to go anyway out on the streets. At the same time, they feared the consequences (Sievers, p.73). Meditation texts used by the Church during these gatherings reveal the political nature of the Churchï¿½s message of resistance. For example, a political adaptation of the biblical text, I Corinthians Chapter 13, was read on October 9th in the Leipzig Reformed Church. The meditation, originally written by Canaan Banana, the former State President of Zimbabwe, and a committed Lutheran, indicates the Churchï¿½s awareness of the larger struggle for the recognition of human rights around the world. Although the author originally described political oppression in an African context, members of the East German Church recognised parallels with their own situation and included the text in its service. The meditation expresses scepticism towards the present political system, emphasizes the need to take action, and indicates a deep concern for the protection of human rights.

Portions of the African devotion include: I would be a hypocrite if I preached about the sacredness of life and watched the suffering of my people without doing anything. I would be a hypocrite. Love never gives up. As precious as life, are justice and human dignity. Political slogans will pass away, systems of exploitation will decay. People call for liberation, because God has given us the right to worth and freedom (Sievers, p.74). Perhaps one of the most significant contributions of the Church in its role of generating and organizing dissent was its consistent appeal to both citizens and government leaders for non-violent change. Base groups were especially effective in persuading demonstrators to avoid violent clashes with the police. Hans Taut explains that citizens feared that the government could order the police to fire cm the crowds at the demonstrations. Police encircled the demonstrators enclosing them, and they were always armed. What followed in Romania months later could conceivably also have occurred in Leipzig. Footage of the protests discovered at the secret police headquarters shows how high-powered cameras atop city buildings would focus in narrowly on faces in the crowds. The Stasi would seek to identify and arrest any leaders of the protests.

The possibility also existed that the police could plant agents in civilian clothes in the crowds to provoke fights. In the event of such a violent outbreak, the peaceful demonstrators from the Church, most holding candles and posters, were certain to lose. Given this tense environment, the base groups from the Leipzig churches made extensive appeals to the crowds before protests, urging non-violent demonstrations. Sievers includes in his account of the events of October 9th the text of an appeal made by the Leipzig base groups for justice, Human Rights, and Environmental Protection. The document describes the danger of past demonstrations, the uselessness of violent solutions, and it offers suggestions for peaceful protest. These citizen groups write, ï¿½We fear for the future of our country. Violence creates only more violence. Violence solves no problems, violence is inhuman, violence can not be the sign of a better societyï¿½ (Sievers, p.752) The base groups also implore the crowds not to attempt to break through any human chains which the police form and to restrain themselves from every form of violence. The conclusion of their statement reveals the effects of the democratic liberalism that upset the imposed Communist order in East Germany.

Affirming their sovereignty, they write: We are the people! Violence among us leaves behind eternally bleeding wounds! Above all, the party and the government must be held accountable for the rise of the present serious situation. But today it is our responsibility to prohibit a further escalation of the violence. On this our future depends (Sievers, p.76). Erwin Weber also points out that during the Montagsgebete, the Monday prayer services, thousands of people were praying for safe, peaceful demonstrations, before marching with their lit candles - symbols of their peaceful intent ï¿½ out into the streets. He writes, ï¿½You have to realize that the demonstrators were boiling with hate for what the state had inflicted upon them the last forty yearsï¿½ However, with the candle in their hands, a reminder of ï¿½Lord, make me an instrument of your peace,ï¿½ the demonstrators were kept from using force and resorting to violence (Weber, p.8-9). The Churchï¿½s insistence on non-violent protest helps explain why the East German Revolution is known in Germany as the ï¿½friedlicheï¿½ or peaceful revolution.

The preceding discussion has offered an introduction to how the Church became politically engaged in the Revolution in 1989. One learns even more about the political culture in the former German Democratic Republic by asking why the Church, as an institution, became such an important political actor. An examination of the unique political culture that developed in the East since 1949 is now a particularly significant and worthwhile study for Europeanists, when one considers the challenges which unification brings to the five new Lï¿½nder and to Germany as a whole. Several explanations help explain the Churchï¿½s strong role in political affairs in 1989. John Burgess, describing the development of churchï¿½state affairs in East Germany, notes that the Church has always maintained a strong political identity, one that at times has even overshadowed its religious identity (Burgess, p.172) He suggests, in fact, that the Church ï¿½has consistently represented the major ideological and political alternative to the Communist party and socialist stateï¿½ (Burgess, p.17).

The Church served as a voice of the people and developed into what the Nazi-resistor Dietrich Bonhoeffer called ï¿½the church for othersï¿½ (Nielsen, p.32-33). The Church embraced many people who found themselves on the periphery of East German society. Many writers and artists, long accustomed to censorship, found openness in the Church and joined the protest community there. Another contributing factor explaining the leading role of the Church in the events of 1989 is the state of unity the Church sought to maintain. While there was occasional division between base group members, Nielsen notes that the Church formed a more consistently unified resistance than other groups such as writers and artists. He relies on analysis by the East German sociologist and activist Erhard Neubert, who argues that the strengths and weaknesses of the Revolution reflects the protestersï¿½ ï¿½Protestant heritageï¿½ as it was linked to capitalism (Nielsen, p.40). Neubert suggests (not with derogatory intent) that the artist groups in the larger East German society ï¿½were highly individualistic and divided amongst themselvesï¿½ (Nielsen, p. 40).

Communists could more easily disrupt their occasional protests. This lack of concentrated dissent further opened the way for a vocal, engaged Church to become a key actor. Furthermore, as noted before, the Church seemed to offer the only alternative worldview in a society dominated by atheistic materialism. ï¿½Religious leaders, by contrast,ï¿½ Nielsen explains, ï¿½felt more keenly a living relation to a longer past and traditionï¿½ (Nielsen, p. 40). The people probably identified to some degree with this heritage which long predated the imposition of Marxist-Leninist ideology. In fact, a compelling interpretation explaining why churches across Eastern Europe assumed such significant roles in these anticommunist revolutions points to the ï¿½triple vectorï¿½ that churches provided against Communist totalitarianism. Patrick Michelï¿½s study La sociï¿½tï¿½e retrouvï¿½e politique et reliogion dans lï¿½ Europe sovietsï¿½e contends that the engagement of the church and its reception as a legitimate voice for the people was to be expected (Nielsen, p.6).

In most cases, it was the only institution in these Eastern European countries that took a stand ï¿½against the alienation of individuals, against the totalization of society and against the sovietization of the nationï¿½ (Nielsen, p.6). Religious conviction challenged the Soviet attempt to suppress personal freedom and distinct national traditions in the service of creating a vast, homogeneous Soviet empire. The present strength of national spirit across Eastern Europe testifies to the difficulty of this task. Religious practice in East Germany, however secularised, may have reinforced nationalistic, anti-soviet feelings among citizens at the grassroots level. In any case, it is entirely conceivable that the East German Church over the years supported an alternative subculture that sustained civil society in a totalitarian environment. The engagement of the Church in the Revolution reveals that its members contributed moral values, integrity and a concern for human rights to am East German society founded on scientific dialectical materialism and dominated by a government which often denied these benefits to its citizens.

The Revolutions of 1989 are popularly described as having required ten years of struggle in Poland, ten weeks in Germany, ten days in Czechoslovakia and ten hours in Romania (Nielsen, p.6). Although this understates the struggle of resistors in many of these countries, the observation accurately describes the quickness of the political change that transformed Europe three years ago. As several commentators have documented, members of Christian churches - Protestant and Catholic ï¿½ became key political actors in these historical events. In the case of East Germany, the Church conducted dialogue between citizens and the government, assuming the role of speaking up for the voiceless in the former Volksrepublik or ï¿½Peopleï¿½s Republic.ï¿½ Church and lay leaders also organized mass demonstrations, emphasizing the necessity of nonï¿½violent protest and the virtue in following Christï¿½s example. Churches also sheltered diverse activist groups, who later led protests, developed, and articulated the ideological basis of the peopleï¿½s protests. The Church was the main institution to provide an alternative worldview to the Marxist ideology that the Communists preached in the schools, in the workplace and in mandatory indoctrination sessions.

Niels Nielson summarizes the fundamental conflict between church and state in the former East German society like this: ï¿½it must be said that the stereotype of a group of steadfast true believers giving unqualified prophetic witness against a brutal system is all too easily invoked. Such situations existed, and there were faithful martyrs, but the larger problem was the conflict between religion and culture, church and state in the Communist setting. Religion is a social phenomenon, not simply a matter of individual belief. It exists in community. Even religious communities that were compromised under communism stood apart from totalitarianism, challenging it. The continued life of the churches in spite of state control indicated that Marxist atheism had not won fullyï¿½ ï¿½Tearing down the curtainï¿½ was not just the work of movements and ideas; it happened because courageous men and women resisted apathy and fear (Nielsen. p.9). ï¿½ Berlin Wall Fast Facts - CNN.com Berlin Wall Fast Facts CNN Library Updated 4:00 PM ET, Mon September 5, 2016 Chat with us in Facebook Messenger. Find out what's happening in the world as it unfolds.

Photos: Men's room, Main Street Station, Las Vegas – A men's rooms at this Las Vegas casino has been home to a portion of the Berlin Wall for about 20 years. Three urinals are mounted onto the graffiti-bearing concrete slab. The wall itself is protected by glass. Hide Caption 1 of 6 Photos: Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles – A 25-ton, 10-segment section of the Wall stands in front of the Variety Building on Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles. It's the longest stretch of Berlin Wall in the United States. Hide Caption 2 of 6 Photos: Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles – The Wende Museum in Los Angeles, a research and education institute that preserves Cold War artifacts and history, brought these segments to Wilshire Boulevard in 2009 with help from the German government and the City of Los Angeles. Hide Caption 3 of 6 Photos: Schengen, Luxembourg – The village of Schengen has fewer than 2,000 residents, but a segment of the Wall was put up to herald its place in European history.

The Schengen Agreement (now consisting of 26 European countries) was signed here in 1985 to grant citizens of its member states free travel without border checks. Hide Caption 4 of 6 Photos: Hilton Anatole, Dallas – Two segments of the Berlin Wall are a highlight of the 1,606-room Hilton Anatole in Dallas, which hosts a massive art collection of more than a thousand pieces throughout 27 floors. Hide Caption 5 of 6 Photos: Hilton Anatole, Dallas – The Wall segments here were painted by German artist Jurgen Grosse in 1990. Hide Caption 6 of 6 (CNN) Here's a look at what you need to know about the Berlin Wall , seen as a symbol of the Cold War and East/West relations. The wall stood from 1961 to 1989, separating democratic West Berlin, considered part of West Germany, from communist-controlled East Berlin and from the rest of East Germany. The Wall: The Berlin Wall evolved from a temporary border of barbed wire fencing to a heavily fortified, concrete barrier with numerous guards, tank traps and other obstacles.

The wall between East and West Berlin was 11-13 feet high and stretched 28 miles. It also encircled the city of West Berlin and stretched approximately 100 miles. Buildings behind the barriers were demolished, and the wide open area became known as "no man's land" or the "death strip," where guards in more than 300 sentry towers could shoot anyone trying to escape. Read More Wires and mines were buried underneath the surface to prevent escape attempts; pipes on top of the wall prevented it from being scaled. Over 100,000 people attempt to escape over the wall. Between 5,000 and 10,000 succeeded. Approximately 200 people were killed while trying to escape; many of them were shot by guards or had a fatal accident. The most famous border crossing was known as Checkpoint Charlie. Sections of the wall may be viewed at NATO Headquarters in Belgium, midtown Manhattan, and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

Timeline: February 1945 - In the waning days of World War II , the Allies' Yalta Conference divides Germany into four zones of occupation: Great Britain, France and the United States occupy the western and southern portions, and the Soviet Union occupies the eastern side. Berlin, located in Soviet territory, is also divided into zones. 1949 - The western and southern zones occupied by Britain, France and the United States become West Germany (The Federal Republic of Germany). The Soviet zone becomes the German Democratic Republic (GDR), or East Germany. West Germany is a democratic republic. East Germany is a communist country aligned with the Soviet Union. 1949-1961 - More than two million East Germans escape to the West. Foreign citizens, West Germans, West Berliners and Allied military personnel are allowed to enter East Berlin, but East Berliners need a special pass to leave. August 12, 1961 - East German Communist Party leader Walter Ulbricht signs the order for a barricade separating East and West Berlin. August 13, 1961 - East German security forces chief Erich Honecker orders police and troops to erect a barbed wire fence.

August 15, 1961 - The first concrete barrier is built. August 18, 1961 - U.S. Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson and General Lucius D. Clay fly to Berlin as a show of U.S. support for West Germany. August 21, 1961 - Approximately 1,500 U.S. troops arrive in West Berlin. August 23, 1961 - West Berliners without permits are banned from entering East Berlin. June 26, 1963 - President John F. Kennedy speaks to an enthusiastic crowd at West Berlin's old Schoeneberg Rathaus (city hall): "Today in the world of freedom the proudest boast is 'Ich bin ein Berliner (I am a Berliner) all free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin. And therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words 'Ich bin ein Berliner.'" September 1971 - An agreement is reached allowing West Berlin and East Berlin to import and export goods.

December 1972 - West and East Germany sign a treaty normalizing diplomatic relations and recognizing each other's sovereignty. A TOP EAST GERMAN MEETS 2 LEADERS OF THE OPPOSITION - NYTimes.com A TOP EAST GERMAN MEETS 2 LEADERS OF THE OPPOSITION By SERGE SCHMEMANN, Special to The New York Times Published: October 27, 1989 BONN, Oct. 26— In a another first in East Germany's three-week experiment with tolerance and openness, a member of the ruling East German Politburo met today with leaders of New Forum, a month-old opposition movement that the Government originally branded as hostile to the state. Gunter Schabowski, the Communist Party chief in East Berlin and a member of the 18-member Politburo, met for two hours with Sebastian Pflugbeil and Jens Reich, two scientists who were among the founding members of New Forum. At the same time, about 100,000 residents of Dresden gathered for an open-air meeting at which Hans Modrow, the Dresden party chief, and Mayor Wolfgang Berghofer were confronted with frank and urgent demands for change.

The meeting was the latest and largest of a series of discussions initiated by Mayor Berghofer earlier this month after violent demonstrations in the city, East Germany's third largest. New Sense of Boldness These meetings and other developments reflected the rapidly spreading new sense of candor and boldness among East Germans since the Politburo first lifted rigid controls over public discussion earlier this month, and especially since Egon Krenz, 52 years old, replaced Erich Honecker as party leader and pledged to meet popular demands for change. Today, Mr. Krenz spoke by telephone with Chancellor Helmut Kohl of West Germany in the first direct contact between the leaders of the two Germanys since the outbreak of the crisis that brought Mr. Krenz to power. West and East German accounts of the conversation said it lasted 20 minutes and was ''businesslike and constructive,'' and that both men said they hoped to increase links between their countries. Mr. Krenz agreed to soon receive a representative of the Chancellor in East Berlin. Brief though it was, the conversation may have marked an end to two months of bitter recrimination between the Germanys over the flight of thousands of East Germans through Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland.

The talk also reflected a new sense in Bonn that Mr. Krenz may be serious about instituting significant changes in the East German system, and was therefore a man to cultivate. Mr. Pflugbeil, one of the New Forum leaders who met with Mr. Schabowski in East Berlin, said by telephone that the atmosphere of the talks was ''friendly, attentive and really constructive.'' He said the initial meeting resulted in no practical decisions, but that the two-hour session demonstrated ''there is movement here.'' Until now, even those party leaders professing readiness to meet with critics have shied away from New Forum, in part because the group is still considered illegal, and in part because of an evident reluctance to acknowledge an opposition. But the movement insists that it is a force to deal with, having collected 25,000 signatures of support. In an impromptu interview with Western reporters yesterday, Mr. Krenz indicated that he was willing to meet with anyone, but was uneasy with the notion of a political opposition. ''Let's get rid of this idea of opposition,'' he was quoted as saying.

''Let's say that there are in the German Democratic Republic citizens who have ideas about how we can go forward in this country.'' Real Change? Mr. Reich, the other New Forum participant at the meeting with Mr. Schabowski, said the Politburo member ''very vigorously conveyed the impression to us that this is a real intention of a turn, of change, and not merely a tactical move.'' Mr. Schabowski said in an interview with West German television today that the leadership would ''undergo rejuvenation'' at a meeting of the Communist Party Central Committee scheduled for Nov. 9 and 10. Seven members of the Politburo are over 70, and two important posts - Communist Party secretaries for the economy and propaganda - have been vacant since their incumbents were ousted along with Mr. Honecker. In his telephone conversation with Mr. Kohl, Mr. Krenz reiterated that East Germany would remain a Communist state and would accept no changes that might challenge this. But reports of the meeting emphasized the positive. When Mr. Kohl proposed a direct telephone connection, for example, Mr.

Krenz replied that it was ''always better to talk to each other than about each other,'' according to the account of the talks by the East German press agency. Why the Berlin Wall came tumbling down - Telegraph Germany Why the Berlin Wall came tumbling down Twenty years after the opening of the borders between East and West Germany, Charles S. Maier recalls how a bloodless revolution came about. By Charles S. Maier 12:56PM GMT 07 Nov 2009 All states have frontiers. East Germany, aka the German Democratic Republic, became a frontier that had a state. When the frontier dissolved, the state followed less than a year later. The Berlin Wall, which was breached 20 years ago on Monday, was only the most notorious segment of that frontier. On August 13, 1961, after consultation with their Soviet patrons, the GDR authorities laid down 97 miles of barbed wire around West Berlin – an island of western Allied sovereignty and West German constitutional liberty 110 miles within East Germany – to sever it from the Communist-controlled territory that surrounded it.

Twenty-seven miles of the new barrier zig-zagged north to south, along the urban boundary that separated West and East Berlin. Soon, the rolls of barbed wire were augmented with a high concrete barrier with watchtowers, floodlights, and a no man's land. Related Articles East Germans may have arrived in West Berlin hours before previously thought 07 Nov 2009 Dramatic derring-do enabled a few to scale over, tunnel underneath and even crash through, but 136 East Germans would die trying to cross. Just as daunting as the Berlin Wall proper was the German-German border to the West. It had been incised in the Fifties as an 860-mile scar of barbed wire, concrete obstacles, watchtowers, and self-triggering weapons. But this frontier had not stopped East Germans from travelling to their capital city and then crossing to the Western sectors, from where they could continue to West Germany by rail or air. About three and a half million people, many with much-needed skills, had departed the GDR by 1961, hence the decision to seal Berlin.

As a young historian, I went to Potsdam to work at the East German state archives: only a few hundred yards from the GDR end of the Glienicke Bridge, known as the "Peace Bridge", where Cold War spies were exchanged, but a world away from West Berlin. These were the years when the courtyard of the archives, along with other public offices, was piled high with briquettes of brown coal, which gave the East one of its characteristic odours, along with the disinfectant used for swabbing corridors. On other occasions, I crossed to East Berlin from West Berlin using the elevated S-Bahn to Friedrichstrasse station, where the citizen of an allied power (or a German from outside Berlin) surrendered his passport to a guard behind a thick window, endured a wait designed to demonstrate GDR sovereignty, and finally continued into "Berlin: Capital of the German Democratic Republic" through a neighbouring bleak hall – dubbed the Palace of Tears for the family farewells that took place just outside, as West Germans left their East German relatives. The GDR's existence depended on those barriers.

The dominant impression beyond, in urban areas at least, was not of poverty so much as shabbiness: facades still pocked by bullets or bomb fragments; empty squares cleared of wartime destruction, but not rebuilt; bleak restaurants. The melancholy state-run "HO" stores were punctuated by Intershops where, with Western currency, one could buy GDR friends a bottle of imported whisky or some perfume. And there were gracious remnants that had survived the war: large houses in the Dresden suburbs, the Christmas fair in Potsdam with gingerbread and Glühwein and, not far from Friedrichstrasse, the innovative Komische Oper. Ultimately, the walls of the republic were vulnerable. Control of the frontiers required a commitment from neighbouring Hungary and Czechoslovakia to prevent East Germans from transiting to the Western lands they bordered. By the summer of 1989, socialist fraternity was fraying badly, and Hungary was no longer willing to act as a gatekeeper. Once Budapest party leaders allowed East Germans to exit to Austria in September 1989, the final act of the GDR began. Most East Germans, of course, did not want to leave, even if many longed to travel unhindered.

Throughout the late Eighties, encouraged by the reformist course that Mikhail Gorbachev was signalling in the Soviet Union, small numbers had joined earnest circles of environmental activists and disarmament advocates (originally encouraged by the regime as critics of the West). As late as the summer of 1989, the protesting groups seemed small and fragmented, but then, encouraged by the sense of change that their own activity helped to generate, many more joined the prayer meetings in the large urban churches of Leipzig and Berlin, marched with their candles for a relaxation of press restrictions and, emboldened by those who were heading West, shouted, "We are staying here," and by September, "We are the people!" Repeated Monday-night demonstrations in Leipzig swelled to 70,000 by mid-October, a week after the GDR celebrated its 40th anniversary. The regime could no longer control its frontiers, and chose not to contest the streets. A divided politburo ousted its old-guard members, including party chief Erich Honecker, and after massive demonstrations in Berlin, it decided to relax travel restrictions, leading to the joyous confusion of November 9. Was such a peaceful revolution inevitable?

Three months earlier, Chinese authorities had opted to use force and crushed the pro-democracy demonstrations in Beijing. Could the East Germans have wagered on a Chinese solution? Politburo elders, including Honecker and minister of state security Erich Mielke, who were out of touch with the profound dissent growing across their little republic, might have believed that they could. But we know from transcribed conversations that younger heirs to the state were despairing. Revolutions usually begin when a ruling group fragments, and the GDR leadership was deeply divided by late summer. For all the loyalty it might muster, the GDR's existence, moreover, depended on the presence of several hundred thousand Soviet troops garrisoned originally as occupation forces and, since 1955, as Warsaw Pact allies. Their tanks had suppressed the protests of striking East Berlin workers in June 1953, when local Soviet commanders understood that their fragile satellite might dissolve into the West. Until 1989, the Red Army's presence remained a deterrent, deployed against Hungary's impetuous revolutionaries in 1956 and Czechoslovak reformers in August 1968.

If there were violent clashes in the autumn of 1989, might Soviet troops be used again? In public, Gorbachev helped Honecker, whom he found tiresome and didactic, to celebrate the GDR's 40th anniversary in early October. In private, he was reported to have said that history punishes those who come too late. Discreetly, and through his embassy, he signalled that his Berlin wards were on their own. Russian troops would stay in their barracks. Local East German officials understood that a crackdown could lead to violence beyond their capacity to control it. The demonstrators enforced their own discipline and called mostly for dialogue. Their radicalism was limited: no one knew how much would change as the Wall was opened on November 9. Few leaders of the ruling Socialist Unity Party (the SED) and few of the demonstrators' ad hoc "civic movements" expected their republic to be swept away within a few months. However, Chancellor Kohl soon concluded that he must outbid the East German reformers' vision of existing side by side with the West German state by manipulating economic and national longings.

Simultaneously, he persuaded Western leaders (Mrs Thatcher excepted) that the Germans would remain good Europeans and Gorbachev that German self-determination was no threat to Moscow. The Russian leader, himself intoxicated by the momentum of change, did not expect that his own Soviet Communist Party and the Soviet federation would dissolve within two years, either. But he earned his Nobel for not resisting the dissolution by force. The GDR's rapid collapse does not mean that the state had no loyal citizens: it did not rest on force and surveillance alone. Two generations had come of age, enlisted from childhood in the mission of serving "the better Germany" as good anti-fascists and pioneers of socialism, peace and production. But after the Czech repression of 1968, ideals were hard to sustain in the Communist world. Even if East Germans did not know how zealously their leader Walter Ulbricht had urged Brezhnev to suppress Czechoslovak liberalisation, there would be renewed suppression of dissenters.

The continuing economic lag behind the West (glaringly visible on television), the pervasiveness of Stasi – secret police – control, the galling restrictions on travel, and finally, rigged electoral results – manipulated to inflate apparent popularity – overcame the loyalty citizens and intellectuals might have held. At the end, the state socialist project could not retain its credibility. Its restrictions, its shabbiness, its reliance on snooping – and, in East Germany, its unnatural division of families – flew in the face of the ideals it supposedly stood for. That the whole imperial structure of late communism could dissolve without vast waves of violence was a great achievement, not fully scripted in advance, but accomplished by those who marched in the autumn of 1989, by those who fled, and by those, such as Chancellor Kohl, who managed to channel the popular currents into a peacefully restored Germany and a reunited continent. Unfortunately, the rush to liquidate the East's rust-belt economy, the unemployment that furloughed many workers and professionals over 50 while keeping the young in make-work jobs, and the feelings of victory on one side and of failure on the other constituted the shadow side of unification.

There would be a generation of loyal citizens desolate and orphaned by the loss of their state, and many in unified Germany would cling to the diehard Party of Democratic Socialism, the successor to the Socialist Unity Party which dissolved among bitter reproaches in the winter of 1990. People don't like to be told they were pursuing a fool's errand for most of their lives and that their experiment (as one regime stalwart conceded) was a mere footnote of history. How to validate their 40-year experience without whitewashing an abusive system has proved an almost insuperable challenge – perhaps to be solved only by the final passage of the GDR generation. Charles S. Maier is Leverett Saltonstall Professor of History at Harvard University and the author of 'Downfall: The Crisis of Communism and the End of East Germany' (Princeton University Press) Return to Berlin

Question: Who was the East German leader ousted in 1989?
Answer: Erich Honecker