Soviet Union. Wolff’s personal story thus had larger implications, and, according to von Lingen, its impact on postwar trials and prosecutions needs to be seen through this geopolitical lens. Wolff was not immune when the tide turned in the Federal Republic of Germany and more West German trials were held. He was arrested in 1962 and brought before the courts in Munich in a trial that ended in 1964 with a guilty verdict for war crimes. At this point, Wolff’s case was merely seen as a missed opportunity from the Nuremberg era. Despite testimony from Taylor and letters of support from Dulles, who had recently been dismissed as head of the Central Intelligence Agency, the focus of this trial was on Nazi policy in Poland—not Wolff’s service to the western Allies in Operation Sunrise. On May 2, 1965, the twentieth anniversary of the Sunrise deal, Dulles and others met in Switzerland to commemorate the agreement and talk about Wolff’s plight. Dulles’s 1966 memoir, The Secret Surrender, was a result of this meeting, as well as of his desire to have Wolff released, which finally occurred for medical reasons in 1969. Personal relations clearly played a role here, but, as the wartime alliance with the Soviet Union collapsed, larger questions about political allegiances did as well. DAVID A. MESSENGER UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING doi:10.1017/S0008938915001077 The Business of Waste: Great Britain and Germany, 1945 to the Present. By Raymond G. Stokes, Roman Köster, and Stephen C. Sambrook. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Cloth $99.00. Pp. xiii + 331. ISBN 978-1107027213. Managing waste is one of the great challenges of contemporary Europe. Not only has the volume of waste increased dramatically since the postwar era and the waste itself changed in its character and composition, but increasing sensitivity to the environmental effects of industrial society has also fundamentally altered the politics of waste itself. Despite similar beginnings, West Germany and Britain have diverged dramatically in their approach to waste since the 1960s. Whereas the former has developed extensive recycling schemes and seeks eventually to avoid landfills entirely because of the threats they pose to groundwater, the methane they produce, and their aesthetic effects, the latter has chosen to rely on landfills as the chief method of disposal. This divergence, evident today to visitors to both lands, needs explanation. That explanation, Raymond Stokes, Roman Köster, and Stephen Sambrook argue, is to be found neither in some “in-built cultural factors” (304), i.e. national character, nor in any simple notion of “privatization,” but rather in dif- ferent paths of institutional development. Municipalities in both lands developed many different approaches to waste collection and dis- posal starting in the late nineteenth century. These ranged from Glasgow’s focus at the turn of the century on salvaging reusable trash and incinerating the remainder (the latter was used to recharge battery-powered collection vehicles) to Dortmund’s “dust-free” collection system of the 1920s, which was destined for local landfills in abandoned quarries. The different systems responded to the challenges of World War II, and afterwards sought to return to the status quo. After 1945, the growing wealth of both countries, the shift from heating households with coal to fuels that did not produce heavy, hot ash, and the development of packaging-intensive, self-service stores meant a different kind of waste that was much larger in volume and contained plastics and other materials that did not break down as easily. Growing labor shortages in Germany, as well as financial challenges in Britain, increased pressure to rationalize waste collection. Through the BOOK REVIEWS 587