It was a popular notion that Australia and New Zealand were virtually the only troops at Gallipoli and certainly little is said here about any other troops on the peninsula. Not true at all. The British landed in comfort some time after the Anzacs, had a leisurely time of it for a while and then left. The Newfies came and also had a fairly easy time of it at the beginning, but saw some fairly hot action (on Caribou Hill and at Suvla) before they were withdrawn and sent to the meat grinder on the Western Front where they distinguished themselves in a place where the remarkable was fairly commonplace.
The real point of the Australasian emphasis on Gallipoli is that the Anzac troops landed (in the wrong damned place) under fire and hung on in that state for several months in spite of the fact that it was obvious to everyone that there was absolutely no way they were going to "win". It was the "baptism of fire" effect for the Anzacs (a term often used cavalierly for mundane events, but rarely so well-deserved), that made it so "special". It's not a deliberate attempt to demean or diminish the contribution of troops from other places.
My grandfather was there. He wasn't in the first landings, and he came out of Gallipoli unscathed. He then managed to skate through the next three years on the Western Front without being wounded only to be "mildly" gassed a couple of months before the war ended. He died at 63 of complications from the gassing.
