Info Thread: Bishop Controversy

An Open Letter to the Forum Debater's Club: In 1986, H. Clifford Chadderton, OC, CAE, wrote a book in defense of Billy Bishop. Called "The Hanging of a Legend" this 371 page book was published by a charitable organization called "The War Amputations of Canada", 2827 Riverside Drive, Ottawa, Canada K1V 0C4. This book is yours for the asking, and my plea is that folks on both sides of the argument, and those who are undecided, or don't give a damn read this freebie. THis book answers all of the criticism raised against Bishop by a 'film' made by the National Film Board such as 1) Total flying time to the scene of the action and return 2) Actual miles out and back and at the target area 3) Confirmation of the attack by British O-balloons 4) Weather during the fllight 5) Explanation of the bullet grouping in the tail empenage 6) Inconsistency of the statements made by adverse or hostile witnesses 7) Bias of the NFB against Bishop 8) The presence of other bullet holes behind the headrest (unreported by the actors in the film 9) Details about how to change the magazine on a wing mounted Lewis gun; and to dismount the gun 10) Confirmation of events by the VC Board in a two months investigation that involved British agents behind enemy lines who witnessed BBs action. 11) Alleged landing behind the lines contradicted by the fact that a Nieuport could not be restarted by one man. 12) The findings of the Government subcommittee that uncovered the biases of the producer of the film and concluded that he 'field fabricated' the the film to destroy a hero (Remember the anti-military bias of the 60s?). A quotation from the last page (371): "Every authoritative historical source agrees on one point of information: the Victoria Cross would not have been awarded without proof." You will find in this book that the producer had an agenda, and put in the film only what satisfied that agenda, which was to challenge Canada's need for heroes by destroying her best. I again repeat my idea that there should be several chat rooms to accommodate the various levels of historical research folks bring to the Forum. When debate breaks down to argumentum ad hominem, the debate becomes hormonal and adrenal; our choice is between being historians or propagandists; as US Grant said, "Let us have Peace."

[Vigilant]

I hesitate before stepping into this forumland minefield (and own up now that I haven't read "Hanging a Legend"), but I want to comment on Billy H's post above.

It seems to me that decorations were awarded by the RFC for propaganda / morale purposes without strict adherance to the rules which normally applied to those decorations. For instance the DSO was supposed to be awarded for a specific instance of courage, yet as far as I can see his second DSO (the bar) was awarded basically because he had beaten Albert Ball's total of 44 victories. The citation read:

"For conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty when engaging hostile aircraft. His consistent dash and great fearlessness have set a magnificent example to the pilots of his squadron. He has destroyed no less than 45 hostile machines within the past five months, frequently attacking enemy formations single-handed, and on all occasions displaying a fighting spirit and determination to get to close quarters with his opponents which have earned the admiration of all in contact with him."

DSO Bar citation, London Gazette, 9 January 1918

Although the RFC did not officially publicise aces, that line needs to be treated with scepticism.

Vigilant

[Vigilant]

Just to reiterate, I am not having a go at Bishop. I think the RFC/RAF's treatment of Ball (alive and dead) and of Mannock (post-war) was in a similar vein.

Vig.

[Billy_Bishop]

I already have two copies.
One is autographed by Cliff.
If you want to see it, check out this link.
The other is my "working" copy.

Regardless of what some of you may think about Cliff Chadderton, I found his digest to be very informative, and well researched. And before some you go off on his research abilities, I have to inform you that he employed PROFESSIONAL historical researchers for much of the work that was done in the digest.

VBR,

Al Lowe

[wings]

How did the British authorities get away with such false statements as "destroyed no less than 45" aircraft during 1917, or "total number of machines destroyed....is 72"? Did Bishop say anything about these false statements?

[Billy_Bishop]

Some how I doubt it. It wouldn't have done much good for him to have said anything anyway. By the time he would have found out, those statements were posted in the Gazette. And he likely would have gotten in hot water if he'd said anything about it without first checking with his superior officers.

You have to remember, the British did the same with EVERYONE who got a medal. On Mannock's VC citation they mention that he destroyed 50 machines. And this was published in 1919, after the war was over!

VBR,

Al Lowe

[Ron_F]

Billy,
Im trying to get a copy of that book through amazon.com. tho,i doubt they ll find it..it is on my want list, but id say it takes a lower priority than the other allied aces i am trying to get. already have winged warfare, and waiting on slow mail for 'courage of the morning' by Bishops son....

salute,
Ron

[stephen]

"Hanging A Legend" is a tremendously valuable book, but not because of its information on Bishop. Actually, HAL is just as biased as the film it was intended to rebutt. However, it has an enormous amount of information about a variety of topics, some of which hardly relate to the Bishop controversy at all. You really should get this book.

I had some corrospondence with Chadderton and his arguement can be essentially summed up in the sentence, "They wouldn't dare award it without proof." I have no stake one way or another in the whole Bishop thing, but if you hang your hat on that premise you're in big, big trouble.

[Michael]

Vig,

I must part company with you on your impression that the D.S.O. was purely a gallantry award. It is, as the name implies, for "Distinguished Service", although that service must be "under fire, or under conditions equivalent to service in actual combat with the enemy."

Bishop certainly meets that criterion.

VBR

Michael

[Billy_Bishop]

Actually, "they wouldn't dare award it without proof" is just one of his arguments.

Another one that he hammers on is that the German records are lacking. The Canadian senate even has official proof from the Federal German government, when the Luftwaffe told them that they had no records available to search for the time in question. Most having been destroyed during WWII.

Apparently the Luftwaffe doesn't like to rely on hand written copies.

BUT, HAL does indeed have a ton of info, only some of which relates directly to Billy Bishop.

VBR,

Al Lowe