Ah Shaw so there was nothing crucial at all, or at least nothing that you can point to.

As to the meaning of "vulgar":

vul•gar (ˈvʌl gər)

adj.
1. characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding or taste: vulgar ostentation.
2. indecent; obscene; lewd: a vulgar gesture.
3. lacking in refinement; crude; coarse; boorish.
4. of, pertaining to, or constituting the ordinary people in a society.
5. spoken by, or being in the language spoken by, the people generally; vernacular.
6. current; popular; common: vulgar beliefs.
7. lacking in distinction or aesthetic value; banal; ordinary.

While all those picked out in bold could apply my money is on the last one 7.lacking in distinction or aesthetic value; banal; ordinary as being what Geoffrey Wheatcroft meant (The others just do not fit).

Don't know about you Shaw but for the "Macauley of the age" to turn out work that was considered "rather vulgar" under that definition of the word, then I would consider putting it out for sale to the general public to be also rather "fraudulent". Not really the point though was it. The important thing, the bit that was crucial was that the work on the First World War that was written by A.J.P. Taylor and the one written by Alan Clark were both rubbished not only by modern day historians but also by their own peers at the time those books were brought out. Neither man Taylor or Clark were specialists in the subject and both wrote their books to make money. Neither of the books were very good but they are the books you and others felt made the points that you could use against the arguments being put up by Keith A and the host of modern day historians who had the temerity to suggest that during the course of the Great War the British Army was generally well led. Of course they are right in stating that, of course they are right in pointing out where the revisionists writing between 1929 and 1969 were in error. They could do so because they were armed with far, far better information available from a far wider range of sources than the "revisionists" had. Not my opinion Shaw just plain straightforward documented and recorded fact.

Couldn't give a toss whether or not you consider that Keith A acknowledged and immediately corrected his casual reference, but anyone reading the exchange can make their own minds up and I do not think for one nano-second that they will adopt your view on it. By all means continue to "worry" this particular bone of yours, but bring it up in any other thread at any time in the future and your lie will be exposed afresh, time, after time, after time. I've got it all saved under "favourites" and can have it in print in seconds.