A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve: Studia Historica 12. (Szeged, 2009)

BALÁZS György: Érvek és ellenérvek a Duna-Tisza csatorna megépítése körül

GYÖRGY BALÁZS CONSTRUCTING A CANAL BETWEEN THE DANUBE AND THE TISZA RIVERS Present paper discusses the idea of constructing a water canal connecting the Danube and the Tisza rivers. The plan was first put forward at the beginning of the 18

th century, during the rule of Charles III. Later the need for implementing the plan was current up to the years before the First World War. Those arguing for the building of the canal claimed that with its construction through the Danubian basin the Great Hungarian Plain and the Tisza region could join European economic connections, this way accelerating the economic development of the region. The problem was discussed again in 1925-26, also during the 1930s. Those supporting the building of the canal emphasized the fact that water transport is cheaper, that the diggers in the Great Hungarian Plain could be provided with work. They outlined the positive effects of the canal, such as the effectiveness of irrigation, the possibility of increasing fish-breeding and expanding electricity supply, etc. The geographical positioning of the mouth of the canal was debated. The partners agreed on the position of the mouth close to the Danube, but they could not decide about the position of the mouth close to the Tisza River. In the period of the Austro-Hungarian Dualism the construction of three canal mouths were planned: at Szeged, at Csongrád and at Szolnok cities. However, after the peace treaty of Trianon in 1920 Szeged became a border city, thus Csongrád and Szolnok competed for the construction of the mouth. Present paper discusses all the counter-arguments which finally led to the failure of the plan. The main opponent of the construction was the Hungarian State Railway, looking at water transport as a concurrency. The Hungarian government was on the side of the railway company, thus they disagreed with the idea. Finally, the lack of financial source blocked the implementation of the construction plan, which, according to the author of present study, was only a fallacious argument against the plan.