I don't know where you are from but The Battle of Gallipoli is definitely a great source of nationalism in Turkey. First of all, the only major commemoration Turks hold for WW1, a war that indirectly determined the country's fate, is for the Gallipolli War (18th of March, Commemoration Day for Çanakkale Martyrs). Secondly, our biggest and most prominent memorial is in Gelibolu. In fact, if you went there, you would see that that whole area is like a really big memorial. Thirdly "Çanakkale Geçilmez" (Çanakkale cannot be passed) is a very common phrase many Turks use as a nationalist phrase. The same goes for, Atatürk's famous quotation in the Battle of Chunuk Bair "Size taarruzu değil ölmeyi emrediyorum"(I am not ordering you to attack, I am ordering you to die!). There are several other very famous quotations from this battle. To add, The Battle of Gallipoli was and is seen as one of the greatest glories of Atatürk, the nation's founder, all the while mostly ignoring the German general (Lemon von Sanders) who commanded the Turkish troops. If that is not nationalism, I don't know what is.

Maybe you have a mistaken perception of the Turkish view of Çanakkale, and that may be because of how that battle is eclipsed by the Turkish War of Independence. As I explained; however, this does not mean that it is not a very major part of Turkish nationalism.

Turk here. I figure I can comment on the perception we have of the Gelibolu(Gallipoli) theater. For an objective historical perspective you should ask somebody else.

In our high school history classes we are taught that the Ottoman Empire lost on all fronts during WW1, except for Gallipoli. The reasons given in classes for this are British short-sightedness (the initial naval assault), geography (hilly and rocky terrain), morale (nationalism/imperialism and self-defense) and smart planning by Turkish officers (we'll get back to this in a minute).

However, what is mentioned alongside this is how the ANZAC forces suffered. The living conditions and the overpopulation in the trenches, the temporary cease-fires to round up bodies, diseases are taught too. English troops didn't get the same recognition when I was in school. The narrative for Australians is being whipped half a world away to fight a war. The narrative for us is self-defense and as a side note the ANZAC Troops. After the war, Atatürk wrote a tribute:

Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives... You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side now here in this country of ours... you, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.

Additionally, out of the officers leading troops in Gallipoli, our "founding father", Mustafa Kemal Atatürk made a name for himself there. A few years later he'd be leading our War of Independence and forming a new nation.

To answer your question, the Battle of Gallipoli is a big factor in our national identity, perhaps a little less than Australia/New Zealand because we fought our War of Independence shortly after. Nonetheless, every Turk learns about it and many go to the memorials on the peninsula once in their lifetimes.

The reason as to why it is a point of pride for Australia and New Zealand are the same reason why it is a point of shame in Ireland (not for the irish but for the british).

The Gallipoli campaign was a blunder, it needlessly cost thousands upon thousands of lives for no gain. All the Allied forces fought bravely, including the Australians and New Zealand brigades, but a large part of how the sacrifices of the campaign were (and still are) viewed depended largely on the identity of those doing the interpreting. Australians and New Zealanders during the first world war still had a prototypical cultural identity. By and large, they identified as British that lived in Australia or New Zealand. Gallipoli for Australia and New Zealand is a major formative moment that defined part of the Australian and New Zealander. Most nations that became independent from G.-B. have similar moments, Canada for example, has the Battle of Vimy Ridge. So, the Gallipoli campaign is a source of nationalism in Australia and New Zealand in part because it takes its place in the creation of the national experience of those nations.

Ireland is a special case, it did not break away from G.-B. peacefully, and the campaign killed many soldiers from Ireland at a moment where the nationalist flame had been lit and there was a convinced number of people in Ireland that wanted their independence now rather than later. In that context, Gallipoli doesn't become nationally significant in the same way as it does in Australia and New Zealand. It becomes interpreted popularly as a waste of good Irish blood that could have been best used shooting at the British rather than for the British. The campaign becomes one more ignoble act that the Irish have to swallow for the British. And that, is why it becomes both abhorred by the Irish and a real and lasting cause of the Irish rising and the subsequent Irish war of independence.

One of the most famous ballads about Irish independence is called "Foggy Dew" and it contains the words "Twas better to die 'neath an Irish sky than in Suvla or Sedd el Bahr" both were locations where large numbers of Irish volunteers died during the Gallipoli campaign. For the Irish, this sacrifice, wasn't worth it. They had nothing to gain by fighting for the British and the public opinion in Ireland was that the British had needlessly and cruelly spilled the blood of the Irish again. Far from being a national pride as it was in New Zealand and Australia, in Ireland it was a national humiliation. The Easter Rising would come 3 months after the end of the Gallipoli campaign and it would lead Ireland to eventual nationhood.

Sources: Gallipoli: The Fatal Shore Broadbent, H. Gallipoli Carlyon, L. and Gallipoli by Hart, P.

Seeing as how people are speaking about this battle, I'd like to take a moment to also throw it out there that the Dominion of Newfoundland also sent troops and fought in this battle (you always hear it was Aus and NZ, but NL was part of the battle as well, mostly playing a rear guard role for the ANZ troops). Because NL was such a small country with a small contingent the role it played often gets overlooked, but proportionally speaking NL gave as much to the war as the other Dominions of Canada, Australia, NZ, etc.

For super obscure history buffs who might be interested in reading more, check out this link.

I can only really speak from the Irish perspective but to put it in context it simple doesn't fit in with the national historical narrative of the time - and indeed the perceptions of those living at the time.

Why did Irishmen join the british army for WW1? Two reasons - either for a wage or because of the issue of home rule (on both the nationalist and unionists side). The GAA and Gaelic Leagues had been founded in the late 19th century and by the turn of the 20th century the nationalist revival started to kick into action. The founding of the Irish Volunteers, the Citizen Army and subsequent events such as the 1913 Lockout meant that events on the domestic level were at the forefront of national attention as opposed to those far away at war.

You also need to look beyond 1915 only indeed a year later to the 1916 Rising - an event where a group of men occupied key buildings across the city of Dublin, proclaimed an independence as representatives of the provisional government and fought the British Army. The phrase 'England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity' was a common one in nationalist circles at the time. The rising ultimately failed and did not have popular support. It caused huge damages and loss of life. However the executions of the leaders of the Rising (including that of James Connolly who had to be tied to a chair as he was unable to walk) turned public opinion to sympathise with the nationalist cause.

Elections two years later in 1918 saw the Irish Nationalist party Sinn Féin who wanted independence from British win over 75% of the vote. After a war of independence and civil war (of which I wont go into specifics about) were fought Ireland was partitioned with all but 6 counties founding the 'Irish Free State'. The new state emphasized the identity of the country to be that of Catholic Nationalist and a Irish speaking. Gallipoli simple didnt fit in with this image.

A whole host of symbolic changes were introduced with streets, train stations and in the case of Dun Laoghaire whole towns being renamed. Places previously with King or Queen were renamed as everything previous royal being national (although a few institutions opted out of this such as the college of surgeons). Even one stand in our most famous stadium Croke Park was renamed. Once known as Hill 60 after the Battle of Hill 60 in WW1 - in which the Royal Dublin fusiliers fought gallantly in - it was renamed Hill 16 after the aforementioned Rising. In essence the new state attempted to separate itself from the history of colonialism and our roles in the british army. It was only in fact last year when our government officially honoured those who fought. In the post independence era they were seen as traitors and families of those veterans were often spoken of as being 'raised on the king's pound'. So even now in Ireland the roles of those men who fought and their loyalties are still contentious issues even 100 years on.

Sorry if I went on and on but I hope I answered your question. A good source to learn more about Ireland and WW1 can be found here: http://www.rte.ie/worldwar1/

Sources: Robert Kee 'The Green Flag', Diarmid Feritor's 'Transformation of Ireland 1900-2000', Mike Cronin 'Ireland: The politics of independence 1922 - 49'

An interesting point to note is that British casualties were just under 4 times that of Australian/New Zealand combined, according to the chart here but in Britain the campaign is only really ever mentioned in combination with ANZAC.

Why Ireland?

anzac centenary in 2015.

I'm not a historian, but I'm Australian, and I have a high school knowledge of WW1 from the Australian perspective. The reason why we are so nationalist about it is because it was the most important battle for Australian troops in the war. We didn't have much involvement in anything but Turkey, and the western front. So when we had a battle where an enormous amount of troops died from the allies side, it is seen as the time when the ANZACS shined the brightest.

Adding on the fact that most Australians at the time would have known someone either directly or indirectly, who fought in the battle. the impacts of so many deaths and the amount of effort put into fighting battles such as the battle of Lone Pine made it pretty important.

It's also the battle when Australians were most prominent and important, an ideal one to stand by and use to fuel national pride.

I hope this helps to answer your question a bit, I can't speak for other countries or all Australians, but what I just said seems to answer the question for me.