Even though it could be far worse, this book has some influence from the Social Justice Movement.
When western Europeans are interacting with other cultures or people, the historical aspect seems to always portray the western Europeans in the worst possible way. While when it's the other way around it's the complete opposite.
Some chapters also have a really outdated or outright weird way of formulating information.
Example:
"There is also another view of this revolutionary age, namely, that each country presented a special case, which can be misunderstood if specific national events are described only as part of a vague general international turmoil."
Another example would be the strange use of words that are either outdated or extremely uncommonly used, as the word "repudiate." One could rather have used a word like deny, refuse or even reject.
If there's any plan on making another edition of this book, then it would be a good idea to hire a linguistic to edit most parts of the book so it becomes easier to understand even for ordinary people.