More neutral name for an Ottoman successor state?

Deleted member 94680

Now, what about something similar for an Ottoman empire successor? "Ottoman republic" is of course dumb, hence the need for a new name. I was maybe thinking Near Eastern republic but that also sounds dumb. Mashriq might do it, but the Mashriq region doesn't include Anatolia. Maybe some mashup like Mashritolia might be the best bet.

What do you guys think?

Anatolian Republic.
 
How large is this state? Are we just talking about modern-day Turkey with a different name, or do the borders still include a significant portion of the Balkans and/or the Middle East?

If the latter, perhaps it will style itself the Federation of Anatolia and the Balkans. There is nothing in there that should inherently offend Turks, Greeks, Slavs, Armenians, or anyone else.
 
It might have just been Turkey — westerners often just referred to the Ottoman Empire as “Turkey,” and even OTL the Republic of Turkey initially maintained claims to Aleppo / northern Syria and Mosul. Someone on this board also said that the loss of Mosul led tin Ataturk pushing a more Turkish-nationalist vision of the state, whereas earlier it was unresolved whether (despite secularism) it was meant it more inclusive of all post-Ottoman Muslims.
 
How large is this state? Are we just talking about modern-day Turkey with a different name, or do the borders still include a significant portion of the Balkans and/or the Middle East?

If the latter, perhaps it will style itself the Federation of Anatolia and the Balkans. There is nothing in there that should inherently offend Turks, Greeks, Slavs, Armenians, or anyone else.
I mean the latter. Also, I find it more likely that it can keep its arab territories than its Balkan territories
 
There are threads about a potential new, all encompassing name for a surviving Austria Hungary. Suggestions for these include Dunabia and Liethania.

Now, what about something similar for an Ottoman empire successor? "Ottoman republic" is of course dumb, hence the need for a new name. I was maybe thinking Near Eastern republic but that also sounds dumb. Mashriq might do it, but the Mashriq region doesn't include Anatolia. Maybe some mashup like Mashritolia might be the best bet.

What do you guys think?

What timeframe? Anything post-1878 is most likely going to be Turkey. The Circassian, Georgian, Bulgarian and Greek Muslims will melt among the Turkish dominated Muslim population, Albanians being more or less safe from assimilation.

Before 1878, Turkish Identity could be countered by the Slavic AND Arab populations. Without Egypt or the 1876 borders, the Turkish population is even bigger.

The only difference would be the rule. It is hard to enforce Turkification of larger Arab population.
 
If we're talking about a successor state that is neutral and dominated by no ethnic group, I'd suggest "Levantine Federation"
 
What timeframe? Anything post-1878 is most likely going to be Turkey. The Circassian, Georgian, Bulgarian and Greek Muslims will melt among the Turkish dominated Muslim population, Albanians being more or less safe from assimilation.

Before 1878, Turkish Identity could be countered by the Slavic AND Arab populations. Without Egypt or the 1876 borders, the Turkish population is even bigger.

The only difference would be the rule. It is hard to enforce Turkification of larger Arab population.
So, are you saying a surviving state with 1900 or 1914 borders would still be Turkey? Even with the significant amount of Arab territory?
 
So, are you saying a surviving state with 1900 or 1914 borders would still be Turkey? Even with the significant amount of Arab territory?

Yes... Turks are the biggest group and arw growing relatively between 1878-1914. The structure of the state would change though. Expect a Federal State and local autonomy... more dedication for Arabic in TTL than Kurdish for OTL.
 
One of the proposed names for a reformed Austria-Hungary was the United States of Greater Austria. Perhaps 'United States of Anatolia and Arabia?'
 
I imagine there would be a re working of internal subdivisions, with many provinces. Some Turkish majoirty, some Kurdish majority, some Arab majority. Maybe even a Greek or Armenian majority province if the political climate favors it.
 
(Sorry for the double post)

This is somewhat related, but how come the Ottoman Empire collapsed with nationalist revolts but Iran didn't? Ethnic Persians make up barely half of Iranians, and like the Ottomans, Islam was the main unifyer. Yet unlike the Ottomans who crashed down in flames, Iran stayed in one peice despite all the nationalist conflicts going on just west of them. Why was this? Was Iran way more accommodating to ethnic minorities or was it simply because the western powers didn't forcefully rip Iran apart like they did with the Ottomans?
 
Top