使用者:Ericmetro/沙盒7

de:Wende und friedliche Revolution in der DDR、en:Peaceful Revolution

1989年11月4日的亞歷山大廣場示威

東德轉型（德語：Die Wende）在德語中指代1989年至1990年德意志民主共和國政治、經濟與社會的轉型，其內容為德國統一社會黨政權及中央計劃經濟的終結，恢復議會民主制和市場經濟，並最終走向兩德統一的一系列歷史事件。導致東德轉型的非暴力的抗議示威活動又被稱為和平革命（德語：Friedliche Revolution）。

1980年代末，戈巴契夫領導下的蘇聯放鬆了對東方陣營各國的嚴密控制，這一決定導致東歐國家的改革運動迅速興起。除了這一外交政策的變動外，戈巴契夫推行的經濟改革和開放政策亦顯示了東德計劃經濟制度的不足，東德外債亦在80年代末迅速增加。然而統一社會黨卻對蘇聯的改革持反對態度，動搖了德國統一社會黨的統治基礎。

1989年5月開始，匈牙利和捷克斯洛伐克解除了與西方鄰國的邊境管制，離開東德變得更為容易，東德的人口外逃顯著增加。同時1989年5月的地方選舉被懷疑出現舞弊，東德民眾的不滿情緒逐步表露出來，集會抗議和反對派人數大量增加，其中東德社會中的知識分子和教會人士是和平革命中的主要推動力量，從萊比錫開始的大型示威逐步蔓延到東德其他城市，直至東德40周年國慶時統一社會黨尚未對示威採取武力行動，東德民眾表達改革的意願變得更為強烈。

面對人口外逃和改革意願的壓力，統一社會黨政治局迫使昂納克下台，由支持改革的埃貢·克倫茨接任，漢斯·莫德羅擔任部長會議主席。其後，史塔西被廢除並開始籌劃自由選舉。1989年12月人民議會廢除了東德憲法中統一社會黨的執政權，統一社會黨政治局隨後全體辭職。1990年3月舉行了人民議會的首次自由選舉，反對派德國聯盟取得了勝利。

針對東德人口外逃的形勢變化，東德政府放鬆了旅行限制，卻意外導致了柏林圍牆的開放。東德政治體制的變化為德國統一掃清了障礙，兩德邊境形勢的變化促使東西德政府開始進行對話，並通過談判達成了兩德統一方案。1990年10月3日，兩德最終統一。

背景

蘇聯外交政策的轉變

A fundamental shift in the policy of the Soviet Union under 米哈伊爾·謝爾蓋耶維奇·戈巴契夫 toward the 東方集團 nations was the background for large numbers of the East German population to show active dissent against SED regime in the GDR.

Upon becoming elected General Secretary of the Soviet Union in 1985, Gorbachev abolished the Soviet claim of leadership over the internal developments of the "socialist brother lands". The 勃列日涅夫主義 that had seen the Warsaw Pact invade Czechoslovakia in 1968 to quell the 布拉格之春 liberal reforms was replaced by the so-called 辛納屈主義; this policy announcement was in fact retrospective as the Soviet Union had already failed to militarily intervene – despite urging from the GDR leader 埃里希·昂納克 – during the Polish crisis of 1980–81.

Gorbachev's decision largely stemmed from the lack of economic development within the Eastern Bloc in comparison to the western industrial nations due to the persistence of increasingly incompatible production structures and the failure to create service-orientated, micro-electronic or globalized industries. The Soviet Union therefore increasingly lacked the materials to continue the arms race with the Reagan-era United States – particularly with a drawn-out war in Afghanistan – and the resources to control Central and Eastern Europe. With his economic and sociopolitical reform program as well as his disarmament initiatives, Gorbachev therefore sought to take appropriate steps.

Having initiated a policy of 開放政策 (openness) and emphasized the need for 經濟改革 (economic restructuring), Gorbachev essentially permitted the six member states of the Warsaw Pact to now each take their own direction with their own reforms. While those reforms implemented the Soviet Union were met with broad approval by the peoples across the other Eastern Bloc nations – in particular amongst students and academics – the respective governments of the region reacted at first with reserve and later, in part, with rejection of the reforms.

統一社會黨對蘇聯改革的牴觸

The fact that the GDR was a second German state, subject to western recognition and the wide influences from the West German side, meant it was considered to be of particular importance among the Eastern Bloc nations to the Soviet Union. As the weak outpost of the Iron Curtain, the GDR profited from both a unique economic relationship with the Soviet Union and a relatively stable supply situation. It was notably the only Warsaw Pact member to have large numbers of Soviet troops permanently stationed on its territory.

However, Gorbachev's reforms soured relations between the GDR leadership and the Soviet Union as the SED showed an increasingly clear dissociation from these policies. Information about the new developments in the Soviet Union was also placed under stronger censorship. In an interview with the weekly Stern magazine in March 1987, the SED's chief ideologist Kurt Hager commented disparagingly on perestroika: "If your neighbour wallpapered his apartment, would you also feel obliged to wallpaper your apartment?"

A further escalation of this hostility occurred in Autumn 1988 when the SED banned the Soviet monthly journal Sputnik, which had a circulation in the GDR of 190,000, on account of its supposedly distorted historical articles. This provoked a wave of protests from those in the GDR population, including even many SED members. At the turn of the year 1988/89 GDR leader Erich Honecker began speaking of "socialism in the colours of the GDR" to emphasize the countries' differences in policy.

東德的財政危機

1991年東西德的家庭電器擁有率

家電	西德	東德
洗衣機	98 %	73 %
洗碗機	62 %	1 %
微波爐	49 %	5 %
電話	98 %	18 %
彩色電視	96 %	95 %
錄影機	97 %	94 %
汽車	97 %	94 %

Since the start of the 1970s, Honecker had led social policies built on debt such as wage and pension increases, highly subsidized consumer prices as well as a large-scale home construction programs. When Günter Ehrensperger, the leading economic expert in the SED Central Committee at the time, informed Honecker in November 1973 that the national debt would increase under the current economic direction from 2 to 20 billion Valutamark by 1980, he was forbidden by Honecker from calculating such scenarios and ordered to destroy all evidence relating to such projections.

In 1981 a reduction in Soviet oil deliveries at special rates brought the GDR's planned economy into difficulties and throughout the decade insolvency was only avoided due to western credit. By the end of the 1980s GDR productivity in comparison to the FRG lay at only 30%. It was attempted at high cost to become a producer of micro electronics. Even the official presentation in September 1988 of a 1-Megabit-Speicher that was firstly developed in the GDR, couldn't mask the slow speed of development in comparison with the West. Nonetheless, as late as August 1989, Honecker assured at a symbolic handing over of the first 32-Bit chip produced in the GDR that: "Neither an ox nor a donkey is able to stop the progress of socialism".

Reform of the economic system was rejected, with the chairman of the country's trade union federation Harry Tisch explaining to the Politburo on 29 August 1989: "If the economic basis is formed in a capitalist manner, the socialist superstructure cannot be maintained".

Outdated production facilities and methods were not only economically inefficient but also caused environmental damage and affected people's health. There were barely any ecologically intact flowing waters and lakes; the means were lacking for more effective environmental protection. In some especially affected regions of Leipzig-Halle-Bitterfeld, loud speaker announcements were made to keep windows and doors closed. The legal but counterproductive measures of environmental protection created further hostility toward the regime.

1989年的形勢變化

地方選舉舞弊

民眾高漲的政治情緒使1989年5月計劃進行的地方選舉顯得非比尋常。東德居民早已習慣東德選舉的形式：不使用有遮擋的投票站，僅將寫有指定候選人列表的選票簡單摺疊，投入票箱即完成選舉。然而1986年反對派觀察員發現若干投票站偽造選舉結果，各地均有此種系統組織的行為。故在1988年夏天起，若干宗教團體號召基督徒抵制1989年5月7日的選舉。

In the face of rising unrest, the SED wanted as impressive an election result as possible and took precautionary action to achieve this. Hence, all those who had applied to travel abroad, known opponents of the regime and those who had failed to vote in past elections were all removed from the electoral roll. By the same token, by mid-April 1989, more than 80,000 people declared their non-participation in the election. Under the codename "Symbol 89", the Stasi undertook measures to hinder non-participation. Parallel to this, there was also the attempt to give this election a notably democratic feel. People were asked to raise their concerns with the National Front coalition and to involve themselves in the selection of the candidates. Attempts by independent groups to select different candidates, however, failed almost without exception.

On election day itself, 7 May 1989, there were some unusual aspects. In many places individuals only handed their voting cards in at the polling stations in order to demonstrate their refusal to vote; this added to large queues in front of the otherwise mostly unused voting booths. Electoral observers identified an estimate electoral turnout of around 60-80% in their voting spots and abstentions of between 3–30%. When 埃貢·克倫茨 as Chairman of the Electoral Commission announced a 98.85% approval vote for the National Front candidates, this was viewed by many – not only by regime critics – as clear evidence of electoral fraud. There were districts in East Berlin where independent election observers at a selection of polling stations reported clearly counted more "no" votes than the official result for the entire area reported; a subsequent 1993 trial would find 漢斯·莫德羅 and three other associates guilty of altering the results.

Over the following weeks, a multitude of criminal complaints, petitions and protest actions against the suspected fraud led to a large number of disputes and countless arrests. The public opposition to this was on a scale not before seen, bringing together those who had applied to leave the country and other opponents at events such as the Alexanderplatz demonstration in Berlin on 4 November 1989.

鄰國開放邊界與人口外逃

File:Östreich.jpg

泛歐野餐當天越境後取得西德護照的東德居民

東德居民前往非社會主義國家有諸多限制，通常只有退休者、忠於黨的演出人員及參加體育競賽的運動員等部分人群得以允許出境，或是因緊急的家庭變故需要離境。離境許可也主要發放給其家庭成員仍大多在東德境內的個人。除非基於人道主義原因，對於要求全家永久離開東德的移民申請大多不被許可，且申請人將遭受在東德社會邊緣化和被歧視的境遇。即便申請移民得到許可，亦須等待數年方能成行，或由西德政府接其離境。

1989年之前華約各國已達成共識，將在防範居民逃向西方上互相合作。例如企圖通過匈牙利入境奧地利前往西方的東德越境者，一旦被發現將被遣返回東德，並在回國後被指控以「企圖非法越境」的罪名並被投入監獄。然而1989年5月開始，伴隨著匈牙利國內經濟和政治體制的改革，匈牙利政府放鬆了邊境控制，隨後完全解除了邊境的軍事控制，這是首個開放西方邊境的東方陣營國家。

1989年7月夏季到來後，東德有20萬人前往匈牙利，大部分人以度假名義出行，但實際上希望借道匈牙利前往西德。8月19日，臨近奧地利邊境的匈牙利肖普朗市的泛歐野餐使800-900名東德居民逃往奧地利。自8月開始，東德國內流傳著匈牙利不會對越境者的做任何記錄的消息，這樣東德政府就無從對越境者進行制裁。許多人因故前往匈牙利，開車到邊境附近後便徑直丟棄前往西方。

Once Hungary officially opened its borders to the waiting GDR citizens on 11 September 1989, some 15,000 people fled within the first three days; rising to almost 20,000 by the end of the month. In response, travel to Hungary was no longer to permitted by the GDR authorities. Upon this decision, the West German embassies in Prague and Warsaw became overfilled with GDR citizens claiming their right to leave. When this congestion soon brought hygiene problems and threat of disease, along with the refusal of the Czech government to have to deal with the problems of the GDR, Honecker felt compelled to allow the GDR refugees to travel as they wished. On 30 September the West German foreign minister 漢斯-迪特里希·根舍 announced from the balcony of the embassy in Prague that those within the embassy grounds would be allowed to travel into the FRG via a train journey through the GDR; around 4,700 people left from the Prague embassy and a further 809 from Warsaw.

On 3 October, a further 6,000 people had forced themselves into the ground of the Prague embassy, with thousands more en route there too. The GDR leadership had to once more permit their exit by traveling on special trains through the GDR. Attempting to limit the exodus, the GDR closed its border with Czechoslovakia, which led to further outrage, particularly from those had been depending on that border. Those already close to the border, headed to Dresden where the trains containing those allowed to travel were expected to pass through. Here, protests and violent confrontations with police and special forces broke out, in which not only those wishing to leave the country but those regime opponents content to stay were also involved.

Chaplain Frank Richter attempted to deescalate the situation on 8 October by convincing demonstrators and police to instead negotiate. Twenty demonstrators were chosen to take part in talks with the Dresden Mayor Berghofer who had declared himself prepared to talk after church intervention. Events in Dresden showed the unity between the two great opposition forces, as "we want out" was countered with "we're staying here".

反對派的迅速增長

Parallel to the rising tide of those fleeing the GDR during summer 1989 occurred the formation and expansion of opposition groups focused on reforming the GDR. As a result, a number of new and (for the SED) subversive political organizations were created, beginning with the founding of the 新論壇 (東德) on 9-10 September 1989. Among its most noted members at the time were Katja Havemann, Rolf Henrich and Bärbel Bohley.

Expressly constituted not as a party but as a "political platform", the New Forum focused on the collapsed lines of communication between the state and society. It demanded an open dialogue about "the functions of the constitutional state, the economy and culture". They hoped for better goods and supply, but were also concerned by the costs and economic consequences. It called for economic initiatives but wanted to counter an "elbow society".

The calls of the New Forum prompted other opposition groups to now step into the spotlight with their own specific demands and political visions. "Democracy Now" emerged with its hope of a democratically reformed socialism with a Christian and critical accent - similarly against the western consumer society. On 1 October a further political group in the shape of "Democratic Awakening" with the regime critics Rainer Eppelmann and Friedrich Schorlemmer also entered the fray.

Many of these new groups consciously formed themselves not as political parties but instead used terms like forum, league or movement, which placed themselves within the concept of a civil movement. They placed value on basic democracy, openness and transparency in decision-making, in which interested non-members should also be able to participate.

The reformation of the Social Democratic Party on 7 October 1989, the 40th anniversary of the GDR's founding, which soon came under the leadership of the evangelical theologians Martin Gutzeit and Markus Meckel, was also of note.

1989年10月-11月：重大的轉變

The forming of oppositional groups across the GDR against the SED regime and the growing willingness of the populace to demonstrate became an additional threat to those in power, who were already overburdened with the problem of those fleeing the country.

Attempting to scare off protesters, the SED used the events that had unfolded around the time of the GDR elections in PR China where an oppositional student movement had demonstrated on 17 April 1989 in Beijing. On the occasion of a state visit from Gorbachev, which drew media attention from across the world, a million people came together to protest on 15-18 May. A day after Gorbachev departed, though, martial law was declared and during the night of 3/4 June 1989 the Chinese military was put into action against the opposition, leading to the Tiannamen Square massacre. The violent suppression of the opposition left thousands dead and tens of thousands injured across China.

The Chinese response to the protesters was viewed positively by the SED regime. The edition of the official party newspaper 新德意志報 on 5 June 1989 carried the headline: "China's liberation army defeats counter-revolutionary rioting". A statement read in the Peoples Chamber announced that law and order [in China] had been restored following disorder created by elements acting against the constitution.

In the weeks from the start of October until the opening of the border in November, it was completely unclear to both those affected and those watching on, whether the GDR leadership would seek to save itself using the "Chinese solution". By way of precaution the national army of the GDR was placed on high combat readiness during 6-9 October.

東德建國40周年慶典

建國40周年慶典當晚的火炬遊行

統一社會黨希望1989年10月7日有眾多外賓參加的東德國慶日能夠順利舉行，故加速遣送西德使館外的難民及其家屬出境。全國各地加緊國慶日的慶祝活動，在街道安置標語，政府下令保證食品供給，並準備展示階級意識的軍事閱兵。

然而，國慶日準備工作已遇到不少壓力：重要賓客拒絕慶典邀請、計劃頒發的榮譽被回絕、慶祝活動被迫取消。國慶日當天西方記者被拒絕入境，到處都是反對慶典的抗議活動。和平祈禱活動中對四十周年慶典特地加以批評，例如在哥達，民眾熄滅了40支蠟燭象徵希望的熄滅。來訪的戈巴契夫目擊了這些對統一社會黨政權的反對活動：

“ 在東德領導人和外賓就座的看台前，走過的是來自民主德國各區的遊行者。這是一個令人印象深刻的場面：樂隊在演奏、響亮的鼓點、探照燈閃爍著。當火炬點燃時我們看到——這恐怕是最令人印象深刻的畫面——成千上萬的年輕面孔。我被告知火炬遊行的參與者是經過嚴格篩選的，主要是由自由德國青年團的積極分子，統一社會黨、相關黨派及社會組織的青年成員組成的。更讓人動容的是他們行進中的口號：「經濟改革！」、「戈巴契夫！」、「救救我們！」米奇斯瓦夫·拉科夫斯基激動地走過來對我說：「米哈伊爾·謝爾蓋耶維奇，你知道他們在喊什麼嗎？」他隨後翻譯到：「他們在說『戈巴契夫，救救我們！』」這就是黨的行為的後果！這就是結束！ ” ——米哈伊爾·戈巴契夫：《回憶錄》

除了官方慶祝活動外，東德全境亦爆發了大規模的抗議活動。每月7日在柏林亞歷山大廣場集會反對選舉舞弊的民眾，在國慶日當天遊行至舉辦國慶晚宴的共和國宮外，聚集人數達3,000人，他們呼喊著「戈比，戈比」、「非暴力」、「民主——現在或再也沒有」的口號。然而在安全部隊的攔截下，遊行隊伍無法直接到達會場，故轉向前往普倫茨勞貝格，那裡有2,000人在客西馬尼教堂集會。

東德政府共計逮捕了1,200人，包括一些完全未參與的人，大多數人在24小時之內被釋放，但許多人被打、踢、辱罵和禁止使用廁所。與東德境內其他示威不同的是，東柏林的事件被西方媒體直接報道。雖然東德官方禁止居民收看西方電視節目，除東北和東南的部分信號無法覆蓋的地區外，大多數東德居民從西方媒體上得知了這一事件。

大規模示威

受到國際關注的萊比錫的大規模示威是和平革命中的一個關鍵事件。1989年10月2日，超過10,000人突破警察防線遊行至聖多馬教堂以加入聖尼古拉教堂和歸正教堂的和平祈禱，他們提出了駁斥昂納克的口號「我們不是暴徒」，隨後演變成和平革命中的一個著名口號「我們就是人民」。

At the following Monday demonstration in Leipzig on 9 October – two days after the 40th anniversary celebrations – the SED leadership initially hoped to restore its authority against the protesters. In addition to 8,000 armed security personnel, a further 5,000 people connected to the SED were supposed to mix themselves in plain clothes in among the demonstrators and cause disruption.

That the planned suppression of the Monday demonstration on 9 October was not seriously attempted did not lie solely with the fact that the planned police tactics were unlikely to have succeeded due to the scale of the crowd. The atmosphere of this demonstration was also influenced by an appeal for no violence by the three prominent Leipzig figures had agreed with three SED local party functionaries, and which had been broadcast over local radio during the day. In this, dialogue and contemplation was promoted.

Opinion among the SED chiefs was split upon how to react. 埃貢·克倫茨 declared in advance of the event in Leipzig that it could not come to violent means, even if the security forces themselves became attacked. When Krenz was telephoned by chief officer Helmut Hackenberg in Leipzig at 18:30 to confirm that there should be no action taken, he assured Hackenberg that he would call him back swiftly. However, while he did indeed confirm that, 45 minutes had by then passed, during which time most demonstrators had departed.

The peaceful passing-off of this demonstration encouraged many that reforms could be peacefully reached in the GDR and hereafter people became ever more willing to go on to the street. On 4 November the largest protest demonstration in GDR history took place at the Berlin Alexanderplatz. An estimated 500,000 attended the event, where civil rights campaigners, poets, actors and some political figures broke from the SED regime and declared their reform demands.

統一社會黨領導終結

Leading up the 40th anniversary celebrations, the SED leadership had used all available means to curtail the wave of people leaving the country and the pressure (both domestically and internationally) to reform. When the celebrations of 7 October 1989 failed to created the desired effect, the disillusionment became resounding. Ever since Honecker's health began to decline due to a bilious complaint that first struck at the Bucharest summit of the Warsaw Pact leaders in early July 1989 - at which the parting from the 勃列日涅夫主義 and the principle to not become involved in the domestic situations of the individual states was officially laid down - an overriding sense of helplessness had set into the SED Politburo in the face of the growing opposition to their leadership of the country and the dictatorial status of the party.

As Honecker rejected each of Krenz's proposed changes of course following the flawed anniversary celebrations, Krenz secured himself the support of other Politburo members in order to overthrow Honecker and become his successor on 18 October 1989. His first keynote speech before the SED's Central Committee was broadcast on East German television, in which he abstained from the popular terms "glasnost" and "perestroika" and instead set a future course of reforms on his own terms: "I must find a German term that both allows a turning to the proven ways of the GDR for 40 years but that also makes clear that we turn away from all that has brought our country to the current situation. With today's congress we will begin a turning point. Above all, we will regain the political and ideological offensive".

Krenz himself admitted in hindsight that this speech took the wrong note: "The people don't want to hear any more long speeches that sound like party reports. They want to know: Who is responsible for the country standing in the abyss? What are the causes? How should it go forward?". The change of power from Honecker to Krenz failed to quell the discontent within the country and Krenz's offer of a dialogue that should win the SED back "the political and ideological offensive" fizzled out in the hands of the party representatives within a few weeks.

After Krenz had called for an "unvarnished picture of the economic situation", the report of a commission led by Gerhard Schürer offered little comfort. For a country to be credit worthy, its debt-service ratio should not grow beyond 25%. In 1989 the GDR's debt-service ratio according to Schürer's figures was 150%. The commission was unable to suggest any way out of the situation and reported that an end to debt would mean an expected 25-30% decline in living standards in 1990 and make the country ungovernable.

The finger pointing was not limited to those closest to Honecker but also directed at the entire leadership. On 1 December 1989 the People's Chamber struck the SED's right to govern from the GDR constitution. The Politburo and SED Central Committee resigned en masse under mounting internal and external pressure on 3 December 1989, and three days later, Krenz also resigned as chairman of the privy council.

柏林圍牆倒塌與開放邊境

參見：Fall of the inner German border

That there couldn't remain the makeshift exit from the GDR across Czechoslovakia and that a travel law was now needed, which also had to offer reasonable conditions to those willing to return again, was by this point now clear to most of those in power in the SED.

A draft travel law published in 新德意志報 on 6 November was negatively received by the people and in the Peoples' Chamber. A new bill by the head of the passport department Gerhard Lauter was put before the Central Committee by Krenz and quickly debated and rubber-stamped. With the paper handed over by Krenz – and bearing some additional changes from the Central Committee session – 君特·沙博夫斯基 attended a press conference with the international media that was also broadcast live on East German television. Responding to a question by the Italian ANSA correspondent Riccardo Ehrman, Schabowski answered that the possibility to travel across the border into West German territory "without the existence of preconditions" existed "immediately, without delay". The new conditions were however only meant to come into effect from 4 am on the following day but this information had only been verbally shared at the Politburo sitting, at which Schabowski had not been present.

The reaction to the statement was instantaneous as news spread across western media that the GDR had abandoned its border controls. The West German parliament in Bonn interrupted its evening session to sing the national anthem. In East Berlin, more and more people made their way to the inner-city border checkpoints. No information had been conveyed to staff at the checkpoints though and it was only under pressure from the large crowd numbers that the first East Berliners were permitted to pass into West Berlin. Lieutenant-Colonel Harald Jäger ordered all passports to be stamped as henceforth invalid, thereby expatriating those leaving the GDR without their knowledge. The first crossings occurred at Bornholmer Strasse at 9.20pm. By 11.30pm attempts to stamp all passports were abandoned and the control barrier raised with the remaining checkpoints in Berlin then also being opened.

During the following hours, Berliners from both sides of the city celebrated at the wall as well as on both sides of the border after 28 years of separation. Checkpoints along the 德國國內邊界 were also passable on this night. The following weekend also brought a huge wave of travelers as the East German authorities issued more than four million visas for travel into the west.

政治體制的轉型

The fall of the Berlin Wall and opening of the inner German border set new challenges for both the government and opposition in the GDR as well as those in power in the FRG. These events also brought wider world into play, with Germany's European neighbors and the four victors of World War II having their own input. General opinion saw the fate of the GDR resting upon the attitude of the Soviet Union under Gorbachev. In his memoirs, West German chancellor 赫爾穆特·科爾 wrote that he had confronted the Soviet head during his visit to the FRG in June 1989 with the view that German unity would arrive - even against opposition - as surely as the Rhein that the two looked upon would arrive at the sea; Gorbachev did not dispute this.

After 9 November there was not only a growing wave of demonstrations across the GDR, but also a strong shift in the prevailing attitude to solutions. Instead of the chant "we are the people", the new and ever-more-heard refrain was "we are one people!". An unsolved problem for both the East and the West remained the continually high numbers moving from the GDR to the FRG, which created an ever-destabilizing effect in the GDR while also placing an ever-larger burden on the FRG to handle and integrate such large numbers.

參見

• 1989至1990年間的哪一系列事件導致東德政治經濟體制變革，最終走向兩德統一？