Berlin to Baghdad railway what-ifs?

Say upon unification of Germany in 1871, an idea catches the imagination of the German people. Successful completion of this railway. An enormous megaproject the Germans could aspire to. Something like the Panama Canal dug by the Americans and the Suez Canal by the French. A megaproject to unify the German people after this war, earn their rightful place under the sun; a project the new country would complete to show the world German technological, economic and industrial prowess...

The Germans were already captivated by the prospect of colonies, even if Bismarck disagreed. Railways had already been proven as a winning cause in the recent Franco-Prussian War. The railways was envisioned IOTL anyway to bypass British control of the Med Sea and Suez canal and get the Germans a port in Basra in the Persian Gulf.

Would Germany have profited/benefited from this railway? In what form, colonies, trade, influence in Persia perhaps? More German colonies?

Earlier discovery of suspected (at the time) oil rich areas of Mesopotamia to Germany's and the Ottoman's benefits. Earlier conversion away from coal to oil economy? Earlier conversion of naval warfare from coal to oil with all pertinent benefits? Perhaps a German dreadnought type using steam turbines rather than triple expansion engines as the first of its kind.

A stronger Ottoman Empire with a firm grip on Mesopotamia and even Arabia. An Ottoman Empire with oil revenue and German investment plus technical know-how to reverse its declining status and change the balance of power?

Germany's relations with Austria-Hungary and rest of Balkans and rest of territories between Berlin and Constantinople? How secure would this corridor be? German monarchs on the Romanian and Bulgarian thrones could provide a friendly passage... A different German response to the Ottoman-Russian war of 1877-1878, rejection of Treaty of San-Stefano & different outcome of Congress of Berlin/Treaty of Berlin in 1878?

What responses from British, French and Russians to construction of railway and ongoing operation? Could the Germans gain cooperation/approval of any other powers.

So the discussion is a scenario after unification where Germans embrace completion of this construction of this intercontinental railway in say 10 years and completed by early 1880s. Please discuss.
 
The same route proposed and constructed in OTL. My only change is instead of beginning and never completing it in the 20th century, begin immediately after German unification and have it completed in 10 years.
 
Does the technology to drill the Taurus Mountains exists in the 1880s?

Other than that, there is too many political sensibilities in question, the Russo-Turkish in the 1870s is going to be vital. Favoring Russia would make the Ottomans align away from Germany, while favoring the Turks would make the Russian-aligned Balkans would be a roadblock on the project.
 
Does the technology to drill the Taurus Mountains exists in the 1880s?

Not too sure of the geography and topology of these mountains and if possible to construct around (in valleys) or tunnel through these. I'm guessing if the Americans could construct a canal in Panama around roughly this time period, then Id say yes to this railway.

Other than that, there is too many political sensibilities in question, the Russo-Turkish in the 1870s is going to be vital. Favoring Russia would make the Ottomans align away from Germany, while favoring the Turks would make the Russian-aligned Balkans would be a roadblock on the project.

The Russian aligned Balkans never happened IOTL. Yes the construction of this railway is going to collide with the 1877-1878 war only 6-7 years later. The Germans were not favoring Russia in the aftermath of this war anyway and my point is the presence of the railway would have given them yet another reason to oppose the Treaty of San Stefano and favor the Turks.

The Great Powers were all alarmed at the sudden extension of Russian power into the Balkans as well as a pro-Russian mega-Bulgaria. This successfully resulted in the Congress of Berlin and resulting Treaty of Berlin to trim back Bulgaria, install a German on the throne and return to the Ottomans some of this awarded territory. This endeared the Turks to the Great Powers and made Russia bitter.
 
The German Empire could use the money of the French war indemnity to finance it?.

On the terrain there is nothing in the way that the US dont overcame building their transcontinental railroad and the distances are close, so if there are motivation and money they could build and in less than 10 year.
 
What about the Black Sea question at the London Conference in March of 1871? Russia wanted to remilitarize the Black Sea and Bismarck supported this to gain Russian diplomatic support for the unification of Germany.

Bismarck (and I assume that he is still in power in this TL) is no fool. Russia can never conquer and hold all of the European *and* Asian Ottoman Empire. So a Berlin-Bagdad RR can work only with a friendly Sublime Porte. Germany has to support the Ottomans to keep their territory intact. Austria-Hungary, not yet a friend, will probably prefer a strong and reformed OE over a Balkans filled with pro-Russian Orthodox statelets.

The crucial years will start in 1875. The OE tumbles toward a state bankruptcy and raises taxes, enough to create unrest among the balkan Slavs.

When OE does declare bankruptcy and the Bosnian Uprising begins, followed by the Serbian-Ottoman War and the Bulgarian April Uprising of 1876, what will, what can Germany do?

They not wealthy enough to bail out the Ottoman single-handedly. About 40% of Ottoman public debt was in the hand of French banks, 29% in the UK, 7,6% held by Dutch banks, 7,2% by Belgian ones and only 4,7% by Germans. During the Krieg-in-Sicht-Krise, the UK and Russia have demonstrated to Berlin that they would not tolerate another German war (or military pressure) against France.

So while "Germany acquires (most of) the Ottoman debt, help putting down the uprisings and then basically becomes the overlord/partner of the Ottomans" sounds like a good way to start an earlier BBRR, I don't see how Berlin can manage that without gaining the enmity of Russia and France with A-H and the UK at best neutral.
 
How certain is a Russian victory? And if the Ottomans score a victory?

Well, the Ottomans scored their victory diplomatically in Berlin, when many of the Russian gains were reversed.

IN OTL, the Otztomans already had crushed the Bosnians, the Serbains/Montenegrine and the Bulgarians when the Russians enter the fun. At that time, public opinion in the West (UK and France) widely was sympathetic with the Orthodox uprising and thus in extension with the Russians. Only during the long Siege of Plevna did swing public favor towards the "plucky Turks" and old anti-Russian opinions asserted themselves again.

In another forum I have read a long dispute whether early and decisive action by Osman Pasha could have led to the destruction of the Danube Bridge near Plevna, which would have severely hampered the Russian attempts to cross the Danube in force. It might have led to an earlier end of the war with most of the Russian troops still in Walachia, not in view of Constantinople.

Of course, emotions in Russia ran high because of the long and bloody siege. Had it been obvious much earlier that the war had to end, without even a big crossing of the Danube, and had the OPorte offered a few token concessions for the Bulgarian subjects, then Russian public opinion might have shrugged, said "Honor defended" and cared about other things. Even tacit German diplomatic support for the Ottomans might not have been seen as the huge betrayal it was perceived as in 1878+.
 
Bismarck (and I assume that he is still in power in this TL) is no fool. Russia can never conquer and hold all of the European *and* Asian Ottoman Empire. So a Berlin-Bagdad RR can work only with a friendly Sublime Porte. Germany has to support the Ottomans to keep their territory intact. Austria-Hungary, not yet a friend, will probably prefer a strong and reformed OE over a Balkans filled with pro-Russian Orthodox statelets.

I agree with that; AH would rather see a stronger OE than one that fractures and promotes unrest in its own balkan minorities. This can be a defining point in their relationship and work together. Germany cements an alliance with AH, much like OTL but in this TL, also for the added purpose of controlling the Balkans together with OE. Germany gets a secure passage way through balkans for the railway. AH and OE secure balkan control and shut out russia.

IMO, AH would also benefit to transit goods etc... on this railway. Germany wouldnt be the only benefactor. AH's only ports are on the Adriatic sea where recently unified Italy is growing stronger and British control of the Med is a problem. A port in the Persian gulf could also serve AH's purposes and perhaps AH could also invest in this railway and help to complete it faster. AH has heavy industry necessary to build a railway and this would be a boost to AH economy and bypass UK naval power. AH suffered in WW1 from the Otranto Barrage...


So while "Germany acquires (most of) the Ottoman debt, help putting down the uprisings and then basically becomes the overlord/partner of the Ottomans" sounds like a good way to start an earlier BBRR, I don't see how Berlin can manage that without gaining the enmity of Russia and France with A-H and the UK at best neutral.


This I also agree with. Russia, with her desire for a warm water port, will feel shut out of the Balkans and her Orthodox Slavic brethren are locked into AH or OE control. France already fearful of German power is no fool either and sees this will add to Germany's power as well as to AH and OE.

UK will prefer to keep Russia away from Turkish straits by all means possible. They also supported the railway in OTL even if it meant for competition with UK trade in the area.
 
Top