“The Rhine-Main-Danube Canal will have the same importance as the Panama Canal and the Suez Canal. And if you don’t believe me, you should read Goethe.” Anyone who is older in Bavaria and still remembers the heated debates about this project, which was deeply controversial from the start, may know that this quote comes from Franz Josef Strauss. With these words, the Prime Minister at the time faced the – numerous – critics in 1986 who dared to doubt the sense of this waterway and warned of the destruction of the landscape that would accompany the massive construction work.
Strauss, who liked to peddle his classical education, then pointed out in the continuation of the quote that Goethe had already declared in his conversations with Eckermann that one of the great achievements of humankind in Europe would be the connection from the North Atlantic to the Black Sea. Because it was apparently in motion, the father of the country also gave the northern lights one piece of advice: since the Rhine ports in Holland would gain in importance after the construction of the canal, the North Sea ports at the mouths of the Elbe and Weser, such as Hamburg and Bremen, would have to unite “work hard” to stay competitive. Finally, Strauss added rather condescendingly: “I’m not saying that with polemics and not with spite. But the Bavarian jacket is at least as close to me as the German coat, and besides, we are Europeans after all.”
Ships were later to pass through the huge excavation pit: the work on the Rhine-Main-Danube Canal in 1980 near Leerstetten in the district of Roth.
(Photo: imago stock&people)
The expectations that Bavarians associated with the Rhine-Main-Danube Canal in terms of freight traffic have not come close to being fulfilled to this day. Instead, the state government likes to point out that with the many tourist ships, purchasing power is being transported to the region instead of coal. At least that is the conclusion reached by the historian Dirk Götschmann in his essay on the genesis of this “major shipping route”. The treatise is entitled “Project of the Century or Fail of the Century? Rhein-Main-Danube Canal” and is one of 15 texts that the House of Bavarian History has collected in its HdBG Magazine Number 7 with the title “Ois Anders”. They all deal with major projects in Bavaria in the period from 1945 to 2020.
With the Strauss quote, Götschmann not only leads to the subject of his observations, but at the same time he points to something that practically all the major projects described in the magazine have in common: After the Second World War, which was followed by an enormous push towards modernization, the once rural agricultural state is looking for a new identity . To a certain extent, Bavaria is struggling for its rightful place in the federal government as well as in Europe and the world. It is not surprising that such discovery processes are and are often accompanied by uncertainty. Strauss in particular should be a good example of this. Because behind his political bullying towards the rest of the republic, feelings of inferiority often seemed to be hiding. At the same time, Strauss’ appearance is a reminder of how often CSU-led state governments used to put opponents and critics of their favorite projects in the laces.
Another contribution is devoted to the use of atomic energy. Wolfgang Reinicke describes the “rise and fall of a future technology in Bavaria. From nuclear euphoria to the end of nuclear energy”. Here, too, the reader cannot ignore the father of the CSU: from 1955 to 1956, Strauss was the first Federal Minister for Atomic Affairs, who campaigned for atomic energy throughout his political life. However, the then Prime Minister Wilhelm Hoegner of the SPD did the same, with the result that on October 31, 1957 in Garching the first German research reactor went into operation – the well-known “atomic egg”. Many engineers and scientists were trained there, who later supplied the country with electricity in the nuclear power plants.
The massive protests against the planned reprocessing plant in Wackersdorf ultimately led to Bavaria’s state government abandoning the project in 1986.
(Photo: Udo Weitz/ASSOCIATED PRESS)
The state’s strong commitment to nuclear energy can be explained by a locational disadvantage: far from the coalfields, Bavaria had to import energy. And so, in 1958, the first experimental nuclear power plant was built in Kahl am Main in the Aschaffenburg district. Finally, in 1962, the RWE energy company commissioned the first regular nuclear power plant to produce electricity in Gundremmingen. However, by the late 1960s and early 1970s, the initial nuclear euphoria was no longer felt by the general public. The resistance of the opponents of nuclear power grew from year to year. And when around 100,000 people protested in Wackersdorf on March 31, 1986 against the planned reprocessing plant (WAA), the nuclear industry in Bavaria was probably past its best. After the reactor catastrophe in Chernobyl, after further, sometimes violent clashes between demonstrators and police officers at the site fence in Wackersdorf and almost 900,000 objections to the project, the state government buried the planned WAA in the Upper Palatinate.
The Großer Arber offers a view over the Bavarian Forest National Park. It has long since become a tourist magnet, in both summer and winter.
(Photo: Armin Weigel/picture alliance/dpa)
While most people probably associate the term “major project” with the impairment or even the loss of landscapes and established habitats, there are also major projects that want to help nature regain its rights. This undoubtedly includes the establishment of the Bavarian Forest National Park. The emeritus professor for geography didactics Johann-Bernhard Haversath asked the question: “Who has the authority to interpret nature?” In his text he recalls the controversy surrounding the project in the 1980s and 1990s. While the proponents wanted to “let nature be nature” – in the spirit of the national park administration – many opponents felt ignored by politicians and their sense of unity, their identity as foresters, not respected. From today’s perspective, Haversath judges that although the discussion at the time was tough, it ultimately remained under-complex. In other words, the single cause of “acid rain” as the explanation for the forest dieback at the time would have to be integrated into an overarching concept today, namely into that of natural and human-caused climate change. He also advises always comparing state goals with local concerns. Different concepts of nature and self-understanding also have to be considered, all of which have to be negotiated with those affected and involved.
In addition, there are a number of other clever considerations, such as urban development in the Free State, the Franconian Lake District, the agricultural turnaround in Gäuboden, the upheavals and upheavals of Regensburg, the Upper Franconian border landscape or the conversion of the Lech. The construction of the airport in the Erdinger Moos and the Isental motorway also occur, of course. The foreword that Richard Loibl, the director of the House of Bavarian History, wrote for the magazine should serve as the final word. In it he describes how he became aware – quite painfully – of how extremely Bavaria had changed in the past few decades, not least as a result of major projects. However, the magazine itself is intended to serve as the basis for a larger project: the House of Bavarian History is preparing the special exhibition “We are building for you! Major projects in Bavaria since 1945” for 2024.
The HdBG magazine number 7 “Ois Anders – Major Projects in Bavaria 1945 – 2020” is available for ten euros in the museum shop in Regensburg, on the Internet at www.hdbg.de/laden and available from Verlag Pustet.