Book Reviews Meissner, Boris, Dieter Blumenwitz and Gilbert Gornig (eds.). Das Potsdamer Abkommen. III. Teil: Rückblick nach 50 Jahren. Wien: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1996. Pp. 243. In this third volume of a series on the topic initiated in 1977, the editors aim to present a final evaluation of the Potsdam Agreements on Germany and to offer an outlook on the creation of a European order of peace and the rule of law. The book's perspective of the past, however, is rather one-sided. Of course, there is much to reproach the Allied Powers for, namely their failure to resist the violent expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Germans from their home lands. But the contributors do not find it necessary to contemplate the relationship between Potsdam and the preceding aggression by Nazi Germany and the atrocities committed during the War. Otto Kimminich's contribution sympathetically analyses the British and US positions at Potsdam, but does not even seek to understand the Czech and Polish viewpoints. Horst Glassl even diminishes the declaration made in the 1960s by the Polish bishops, who generously professed their readiness to reconciliation. Burkhard Schöbener manages to write an article about the Dachau trials - the equivalent to Nuremberg for the personnel of the Dachau concentration camp - with only bare mention of the criminal character of the camp as such and the atrocities committed there by the defendants. Instead, he squabbles over the punishment of the Dachau personnel for participation in `common design' and `conspiracy' and insinuates that the Dachau guards were - innocent? - `kleine Leute', `ordinary people'. The articles on the Far East show considerable sympathy with Korea, but limit their treatment of the Japanese case to the Kuril isles. The promised outlook falls rather short. Several authors recognize the final character of the German-Polish border after the conclusion of the 2 + 4-treaty and the German-Polish treaty of 1990, but Bernhard Kempen believes it necessary to add the possibility of its `peaceful change'. In a contribution filled with pseudo-technical vocabulary, Jürgen Schwarz hopes for the benefits of `interlocking organizations' in the new European `security architecture'. One can only hope that the European future will be based on a deeper understanding of European history than that professed in this volume. Andreas L. Paulus Harvard Law School
	© 1990-2004 European Journal of International Law All comments and suggestions should be sent to webmaster This site is part of the Academy of European Law online, a joint partnership of the Jean Monnet Center at NYU School of Law and the Academy of European Law at the European University Institute. This file was last modified: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 12:34PM