Professor Telford Taylor, who is best remembered as Justice Robert H. Jackson's successor as Chief of Counsel at Nuremberg after the War Crimes trial of the major war criminals, became an instant giant of the new industry by suggesting that if one were to apply to Dean Rusk, Robert McNamara, McGeorge Bundy, Walt Rostow and General William Westmoreland the same standards that were applied in the trial of General Tomoyuki Yamashita "there would be a very strong possibility that they would come to the same end as he did."' This suggestion by the person described on the dust jacket as "U.S. Chief Counsel at Nuremberg" inevitably elevates Professor Taylor to the status of a first magnitude star among the scapegoat makers.

Regretably, Professor Taylor produced a work replete with demonstrable errors of law and contradictions. He thereby forfeits the opportunity to assume a place among the very few who are qualified by experience and academic standing to produce "trustworthy evidence" of what international law really is. There are, of course, too many who, without experience in the field, write at length about what it ought to be and some who affirm that it is what it is not.