When sobody reads the title of this article, he naturally considers, without obtaining even a trace of servility, that this is about an extreme approach toward the future, which makes no sense due to the prevalent situation.
In other words, even if he secretly wanted it, he finds it unbelievable and as a result he takes the entire issue off his mind.
However, he hasn’t understood that there is an ever worst case as it is not merely regarding the future of strategy, but also the past of history.
Consequently, our Chronostrategic analysis does not refer to an event which will occur in this manner at least, but to an event which took place and as a result it stopped a process which had begun in 1453 with the Fall of Constantinople.
We have become accustomed to analyzing the Treaty of Sevres of 1920, in the light of the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923, a fact which constitutes the first historical mistake of the entire approach since the Treaty of Sevres exclusively pertains to the Treaty of Suburbs, of the Treaty of Versailles of 1919.
However we again make a historical mistake. since we do not link the latter to the essential Treaty of Mudrou of 1918, which put an end to the Ottoman Empire’s actions in the context of World War 1, 1914-1918.
Yet another historical mistake we make was to emphasize in what was taking place in Smyrna and not in Constantinople.
And this results from the fact that we analyze the data in a Greek manner and within the narrow sense of Greece, and not in a topostrategic one.
Yet again the Moudros Truce Treaty is unambiguous , since it provides the Allies, that is, the English, French and Italian, the opportunity to occupy, for security reasons, any strategic points upon the territory of the Ottoman Empire, without consulting them in regards to it.
It also allows even for the assembly of all Allied prisoners in Constantinople and their immediate surrender, but in addition the surrender of the weaponry of the Turkish army with an immediate demobilization, except for the cases regarding border and internal security.
These were the conditions which led to what is commonly called the Conquest of Constantinople.
The French entered Constantinople on November 12, 1918, the English on November 13, 1918, and the Italians on February 7, 1919.
This situation preceded the Treaty of Sevres which came to enhance it.
This so-called Conquest of Constantinople was initiated institutionally on November 13, 1918 and it came to an end on October 4, 1923.
It therefore lasted five years. In actual fact, for the English and the French, it constitutes the vision of the Gallipoli campaign of 1915.
And this had occurred without the intervention of Greece at that point of time.
In any case, Constantinople was no longer under the same administration, and it was a huge phase change as from 1453.
In this manner the troops of England, France and Italy occupied the camps, the hotels, the French and Italian schools but the hospitals as well.
In fact, even for symbolic reasons as well, the French General Franchet d’Espèrey (1856-1942) who was born in French Algeria at Mostaganem, entered Constantinople upon a horse followed by two of his troops, an action which responded to what the Sultan had done back in 1453, in order to make clear that this period was over.

From December 1918, to August 1919 the High Commissioner was Admiral Somerset Gough-Calthorpe (1865-1937).

Thereafter he was replaced by Admiral Sir John Michael de Robeck (1862-1928)

Up until 1922. Specifically in regards to the Greek population, this occupation was nothing more than a recapture which in fact led to the liberation of the City.

In fact, the then High Commissioner of the Greek Kingdom was Efthimios Kanellopoulos (1872-1933).

Consequently that which some do not imagine occurred a hundred years ago.