Gwynne Dyer: The Decline of the West

[reprehensor]

2 June 2004

The Decline of the West

By Gwynne Dyer

All the countries whose troops fought in Normandy sixty years ago
-- the United States, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, and Poland -- are
sending their leaders there on 6 June for the last big commemoration of
D-Day. The soldiers who fought there and survived are entering their
eighties now, and not many will be left in another decade. But it feels
like the last time for a lot of other things as well.

The D-Day landings were the biggest amphibious operation in
history, but the battle for Normandy was not all that big by 1944
standards. Total losses for the Western allies down to the break-out from
Normandy were 32,807 killed, while the simultaneous Soviet offensive in
Belorussia on the eastern front cost about 250,000 Soviet lives. And
despite the film 'Saving Private Ryan', less than a third of the Allied
dead in Normandy were Americans.

It was British and Canadian troops who fought their way through a
German killing zone twenty miles (30 km.) deep, drawing German resources to
the east of the beach-head so that General Patton's American tanks could
break out from the western end and race for Paris. 17,769 British and
5,002 Canadian soldiers (and 650 Free Poles) died in the Normandy battle,
compared to 9,386 Americans.

Yet Normandy really was an American battle above all, and an
important one. The war against Hitler was already won by June, 1944: the
Soviet army was less than a year away from entering Berlin. The D-Day
landings were really about where the Soviet army would stop, and their
success meant that the armistice line would be drawn down the middle of
Germany, not at the English Chanel. The result was a half-century in which
the United States and western Europe became so deeply entwined that people
talked about 'the West' as if it were a permanent political phenomenon. It
isn't.

http://www.gwynnedyer.net/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20D-Day.txt

more@link

[CHIMO]

1. Agree

If "West" means "NATO". Which, Gwynne seems to slip in between some jumps in logic about why the US jumped into the fray.
The UN and democracy is another thing. One topic at a time.

[ljm2002]

2. What do you mean?

NATO certainly reflects "The Western Powers" that we have all talked of in the political discourse for my lifetime (baby boomer here). And Mr. Dyer's analysis of NATO's history and current status seem solid to me.

What "jumps in logic" are you referring to?

I don't think Mr. Dyer is equating the UN with democracy, but he certainly is promoting the idea of the UN. Do you have a problem with that?

And why, exactly, should Mr. Dyer limit himself to "one topic at a time"? Because you'd prefer that? Why?

I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound combative, but you seem to be challenging the article while not making any substantive points of your own.

[CHIMO]

3. I Was Challenging

In a way.
NATO stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It was brought into existence with the rule that one for all and all for one with the enemy as the Soviet Union. Well the Soviets don't exist any more and NATO is in Afghanistan and also into Iraq.
Under NATO the US must be in control of their soldiers. Thus the other countries in NATO must come under US command in the field if the US is present. That was OK when the western Europeans were under the threat of the Soviets.
Afghanistan didn't attack the US. Afghanistan was not one of the original enemies of NATO.
Now NATO is being placed into fighting in other countries when there has been no declaration of war by anyone. The NATO countries are being asked to submit to the US rule and analysis.
But there is no attack from any country against NATO. Thus if the west is defined as NATO then there is no more west and no more need for NATO.
NATO is going the way of the dodo bird. In this I agree but one has to define the west as NATO.

Jump in logic
I am not a military historian. In the article it was implied to me that NATO was an extension of the US involvement in the war. The point I was implying is that the US did not enter the war until late and only after being attacked at Pearl harbour. In my opinion once they had become involved they had to remain involved to stop the Soviets. It was not something that originated as an in ital plan.

UN
The UN has gone at least two strikes recently. Rwanda and Iraq. In spite of their existence this has occurred. If this should happen again in Sudan then there would not seem to be anymore reason for the existence of the UN. The UN exists at the pleasure of the members and if the most powerful member does not wish to consider the other members opinions then it will not survive.

Democracy
Don't see where democracy has any relevance in the discussion. The founding fathers of the US did not make any reference to democracy in the constitution according to my last listening to Gore Vidal. They wanted a republic but didn't mention anything about democracy.

The discussion of the UN and democracy should be one topic each.

Don't know if the world is a safer place than the depths of the cold war. If the depth was the the Cuban crisis then I at least go to bed not worrying about an attack. But safer? That is debatable. Especially when everyone is saying that we are at war with terror and we don't have a declaration of war.

[ljm2002]

4. Hmmm

You say, "NATO is going the way of the dodo bird. In this I agree but one has to define the west as NATO." But isn't that the thesis? I mean, that's the premise: that "the West" was a politically defined entity, NATO, that emerged after WWII in reaction to the existence of the USSR and in order to help contain it. And that it is now in decline. And I didn't see him shedding too many tears over it.

I have no doubt that Mr. Dyer knows in depth the history of the U.S. involvement in WWII including our belated entry into the conflict.

The UN is an imperfect organization, as are all human organizations. The fact that "its most powerful member" often subverts its goals is certainly cause for serious concern. I don't think you and Mr. Dyer are in any disagreement there in any way, shape or form.

It was a short piece. NATO aka "the West" has often been presented as a bulwark of "Democracy" vs. the "Tyranny". It is only in the last 20 years or so that the language of debate was changed to that of Capitalism vs. Communism. So perhaps Mr. Dyer is old school. I wish more were.

Finally. I do disagree with Mr. Dyer on one point, and that is his statement that the world is a safer place than during the depths of the Cold War. The statement startled me. It does not feel safer to me, not right now. It feels to me right now like a political powder keg, and there are sparks all over the place. Just because we don't have two superpowers with their fingers on the nuclear button, doesn't mean the nuclear threat is gone. We also now have nuclear black markets, committed and growing terrorist organizations, and a world full of anger at the country that I call home. None of this makes me feel particularly safe. But then maybe I was too young during the Cuban missile crisis to really have a good idea of how close we all came...