A Gallipoli victory 1915-16 end to WW1 could well wave away the preconditions for a WW2 I would think. Of course it may not, but it could
Is it a reasonable assumption that a decisive Gallipoli victory by the Entente means an early Entente victory?
Questions
1. Is it reasonable to assume that a victory at Gallipoli means a capture of Constantinople? I would assume yes
2. If 1. is reasonable, does this mean that the Entente negotiate an exit of some kind with the Ottomans? Or does this mean that Entente do not get agreement and have to keep fighting to enforce whatever it is that they want to do - e.g. dividing up the possessions of the Empire, including the Anatolian/European hinterland? With the benefit of hindsight, the former would be better, but the latter is likely, given that the Ottomans are likely to be the victim of the Entente avariace as per OTL. Would a victory in 1916 change that?
3. If there is a negotiated settlement that pulls the Ottomans out of the war entirely, or on the Entente side, then this will be best case, as the Entente will not need to get bogged down fighting there and can use troops/resources elsewhere. This would also mean that the Russians can do a similar effort and reposition their resources westwards, which may help a lot. Would this be enough to pressure AH/Germany to the negotiating table, or make for substantial Russian advantage in 1915/16?
4. If at the least, we get a situation where the Entente are both not commiting lot of troops in the East and but also cannot reposition substantial resources Westwards, does the mere facts of an open Straits (trade/resupply) and a pliant/distracted Ottomans mean an early Western victory?