Mommsen wrote of continuities between Weber's "value-neutral" sociology and his "evaluative" politics. The second edition of "Max Weber and German Politics 1890-1920" argued that "values and science, in Weber's thought, were interdependent." Critics were dismissed as attempting "to shield Max Weber's sociological works against any possible criticism based on political aspects." Günther Roth responded in a 1965 American sociological journal, stating that Weber was a major target for a series of critiques aimed at political sociology in general, if not at most of social science. Roth also stated that Mommsen was removed from the interest of American sociologists in Weber, and his treatment becomes questionable when he interprets Weber's sociological analysis as political ideology. Roth stated that his "major intent" was "not to provide an historical defense of Weber but a review of critiques as they seem to bear on the raison d'etre of political sociology." He further stated that Weber "must appear relativist and Machiavellian to all those who, for ideological reasons, cannot recognize any dividing line between political sociology and political ideology. Weber emphatically insisted on such a distinction, while his critics refuse to distinguish between his scholarship and his politics."