I agree with saint fletcher. ANZAC does mean Australia - and - New Zealand army corps. As far as many Australians are concerned, it was the day when these two young nations had their first real baptism of fire in the first world war and really started maturing from then on, followed by the Somme, the following year, to mention other gruesome places, followed by WW2, and I think you get my drift.

The EUREKA STOCKADE What the Eureka Stockade was all about in BRIEF is in a DEMORACHY the people RULE The government of the day were BULLYING the People and they objected and they were charged by the authorities and placed before a JURY (their peers) and their peers (THE REAL LAW OF A DEMOROCHY)found that they had not broken the law

THIS IS ABOUT TRUE DEMOROCHY WHERE THE PEOPLE RULE NOT THE GOVERNMENT
TRIAL BY JURY IS DEMORACHY
TAKE AWAY TRIAL BY JURY AND YOU HAVE A DICTATORSHIP

I was under the impression that 'Australia' sent troops to the Boer War which continued after Federation and so WW1 was not our first military campaign as a nation.

I do accept the enormity of the sacrifice of the 61,521 Australian men and 199 Australian women who died in WW1, but I feel it must be acknowledged that, although the worst of times often brings out the best in people, they are still the worst of times. So while the people should be honoured the event should not be glorified.

Rob51....
Wikipedia states:
'Boer War 1899–1902
Before Federation of Australia and the forming of the national army, the six Australian colonial governments sent contingents to serve in the Second Boer War. These soldiers were paid by the British government and as such were technically part of the British Army.

The first detachment, in October 1899, was known as The Australian Regiment, mainly volunteers from the Colonies of Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia. The way the war developed, these troops were converted from infantry to mounted infantry.

Strong resistance from the Afrikaner forces led to further recruiting in the Australian colonies. Known as Bushmen's Contingents, these soldiers were usually volunteers with horse-riding and shooting skills but no military experience. After Federation in 1901, eight Australian Commonwealth Horse battalions were sent.

Many of the Australian units were short-lived and subject to frequent restructuring. Some Australians were transferred to multinational units, such as the Bushveldt Carbineers, famed as the unit in which "Breaker" Morant and Peter Hancock served, before their court martial and execution for alleged war crimes.

Australian units served at many notable actions, including Sunnyside, Slingersfontein, Relief of Kimberley, Paardeburg and Rhenosterkop . 16,175 Australians, with 16,314 horses, served in the Boer War; 251 were K.I.A., 267 died of disease and 43 went M.I.A. Five VC's were awarded to Australians.'

So as a technicality 'Australia' did send troops into action before WW1, but with few incidents worthy of being described as heroic and some worthy of the name 'war-crimes' i can't see justification for using it as a symbol for National Pride as the Anzac legend has established for the country and New Zealand.

Since 'Australians' were in the war before Federation and the formation of the Australian Army, WW1 was the first time Australia sent troops to war Uniquely as a nation than as a colony(s) of Britain.

I agree. I see no glory in War. My points were more to silence Negative Ne-Leigh and to show that it's Australian people's spirit combating oppression that is worthy of icon status for Aussies, be it at Eureka OR Turkey.