http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7703747.stm
A row has erupted between Australia's PM Kevin Rudd and his Labor predecessor Paul Keating over the importance of Gallipoli, a WWI battle site in Turkey.
Mr Keating dismissed as "nonsense" the view that a new Australian identity was forged in 1915 at Gallipoli, where 300,000 troops were killed or injured.
Mr Rudd disagreed saying: "It's part of our national psyche, it is part of our national identity."
Many Australians regard the defeat of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (Anzac) at Gallipoli as the birth of the nation - its first major military action.
It is seen as a military disaster orchestrated by the British, and the legend grew that brave Australian soldiers had been betrayed by their incompetent former imperial masters.
Australia became more fiercely nationalistic as a result, says the BBC's Nick Bryant in Sydney.
I tend to agree with Kevin Rudd in that this was the point where Australia and New Zealand both forged a separate identity outside of the Empire after Gallipoli. I believe that's borne out later by the fact that Churchill wanted Australian troops to defend Singapore in 1941 when they vehemently disagreed and were focused on defending Australia against a possible invasion by the Japanese. Was Gallipoli the point where Australians believed they were independent of the British Empire?
