Removed the politics from the section starting in 1945 and make it a history book vs. the political statement they are trying to make.
After listening, I couldn't figure out why it changed. I researched the authors and found Goldschmidt to be the historian and Daivdson to be some type of radical political type. Why would Goldschmidt let Davidson obviously takeover everything after 1945 and turn it into a weird personal political statement .
Good, easy to listen to , Didn't attempt to dramatize the book (which is a good thing)
After research. It seems to be Davidson
The title and career of Goldschmidt deserves better than to allow real work be skewed by a radical political agenda. Too bad.
Report Inappropriate Content