Steve Shaw - 02 Mar 17 - 12:09 PM

1: The books were not rubbished, bobad dear chap. Calling a book "rather vulgar" is not rubbishing it. I've read some really good "rather vulgar" books in my time. Very enjoyable too!"

Both books were most certainly "rubbished" Shaw dear chap. Both were subject to highly critical peer review and not solely by Geoffrey Wheatcroft - for you to state as you have done that Taylor and Clark's books were not criticised demonstrates your ignorance at best and yet another of your lies at worst. I'm sure you have read "some really good "rather vulgar" books in my time" - very plausible - but I think in your case the meaning of "vulgar" was far different from what Geoffrey Wheatcroft meant by "vulgar".

2: "Calling it "fraudulent" WOULD be rubbishing it, but of course the only person in the world who ever called Taylor's book "fraudulent" was Keith, and he was hoping to get away with it

It was for all of roughly ONE HOUR. Hoping to get away with what exactly Shaw - this being an article, a book and a subject that you say you have no interest in - it was however an opportunity that you seized on to "stick it to Keith A" didn't you, after all he had been trouncing you in discussions on the other WWI threads. Only trouble was Keith A acknowledged the mistake and immediately corrected it didn't he Shaw as can be seen here:

How Steve Shaw "makes up shit" and what an acknowledgement and correction of an error looks like:

On the 10th December, 2014 the following text was faithfully and accurately posted by Keith A of Hertford in a thread titled "WWI was No Mans Land" from an article by Geoffrey Wheatcroft that appeared in the Guardian, 9 Dec 2014

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."

This thread was closed on 18th December but the discussion continued on another WWI thread titled "I am not an historian but ..." in which Keith A made a passing reference to the passage quoted above on the 17th December, 2014

The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."

Steve Shaw questioned this and within an hour of Steve Shaw posting Keith A of Hertford replied as follows:

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:22 AM

Ok Steve. [The acknowledgement]
The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent." [The correction]

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY:

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:25 AM

The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively. [Further correction making clear what adjective applied to which author's work]

After the above acknowledgment and correction had been given in the "I am not an historian but ...." thread the complete passage from Wheatcroft's article was posted five times which when you couple that to the speed of Keith A's response and correction blows the Shaw theory of it being deliberate misrepresentation clear out of the water - and yet Shaw to this day still attempts to convey the idea that no acknowledgement and correction was ever made, which of course is a downright LIE.

Hope this helps!