Bishop is a cheat

[Vin]

If, as one or more of the Jasta's do, you believe that Bishop lied about his victories and can point to facts that support your belief, why can't you call him a cheat ? What is this business about not being able to criticize pilots of WW 1 on the ground that it is an insult to their memory, they were brave men who flew/fought/died for their country (Brithish Empire Pilots arguably represented the Empire rather than the constituent countries) ?

Why can we not fault the pilots ? Why can we not say, for example, that Kitchener was wasteful of his soldiers lives ? Why can we not say that Hitler was the cause of great suffering ? If you believe that a pilot was foolish or dishonest and can point to the facts that lead you to your conclusion, why can you not say so ? If you believe that Bishop's squadron commander was wrong in confirming victories for Bishop based on Bishop's reports alone, why can you not say so. Since when has death been an exemption from criticism ? You are entitled to criticize anybody for their behaviour, as long as you can point to facts that justify that criticism.



Vin


P S What is going on here ?

[PeterL]

Vin, since returning to the Forum I have tried to keep my distance from the argumentative kind of thread, but as these are unusual circumstances perhaps I could just contribute a few words.

First I have to say that in many ways I agree with many of your submissions, where I have a problem is with the strident tone. It is quite acceptable, and productive, to say "I disagree, and this is why" but quite another to come out looking for a scrap.

I realize that to some extent you can claim only to be giving as good as you get, but this thread is deliberatly couched in provocative language. Please do not immagine that I am accusing you of being the sole offender, if we are going to put a stop to all this unpleasentness then we all have to moderate our tone. How about making a start right here?

[Vin]

Thanks, Peter

I hear what you say. On some occasions the intention is to be provocative and challenging as with this thread, because I think that the refrain about not insulting pilots is now being used to attack the contributor and as a substitute for comment upon the content of the contribution. It stifles comment. On others the intention is to be discursive. On others the intention is to be witty or whimsical. There is room for all styles of communications. Perhaps I am being too provocative.


Vin

[leo]

I have never believed Bishop was a cheat. I don't think many others were either. Although I will concede there may have been a few. These men worked within a system which invited inaccuracy ahd which may have been more for home front consumption than for anything else. Then, as my compatriot, Mr. Lowe, would say is there even proof that this was the case? I have no problems with investigating the records of men living or dead. One can comment on those records in such a manner as not to become inflammitory.

leo

Hi Vin,

Thanks for having the courage to say what other people are thinking. There's a certain heirarchy that rules the Forum and there is zero tolerance for decenting viewpoints.

You know what Peter L., I'm probably the chief offender your talking about and might not always be politically correct. Forgive me for not waking up every morning and not "Pledging ALOWEgence" to the flag every morning. If you have the unmitigated gall to be of the opinion that Bishop is not a deity or didn't accomplish half of what has been written, you get piled on by the "compatriots". They're like Jim Jones followers at a Kool Aid convention.

God forbid that there is even an iota of possibility that I'm right, I'm left with this ultimatetum, "If you can't prove something that never happened never happened - shut up!" That is not a Forum!

There is nobody on this site save possibly Barrett, Frank, Reinout, Soder, and Killratio with enough knowledge to "Pontificate" over the "Forum" and the aforementioned certainly don't flaunt it or make judgements as to the opinions of others!

In the grand scheme of things, the career of Lt.
William Avery Bishop is so trivial and unimportant
that it's barely worth mentioning. It's unimportant wether he shot down 2 or 102.

It has never been my intention to cause pain or discomfort to anyone here. This a great site and there are several people who's opinion I greatly respect and who's friendship I cherish.

I offer an open apology to anyone who's sensitivities I've offended and only ask in return that I not be forced to get in line like a lemming heading for the sea.

VBR,

Jasta 8

[Billy_Bishop]

Jasta 8, everyone is entitled to their opinions. And as long as those opinions are stated as such, and not shoved down my throat as fact (as they often are) then I have no problem with your opinion. As long as you realize I'm not obligated to accept your opinion. Just as you are not obligated to accept my opinion either.

VBR,

Al Lowe

I'm not trying to fan the flames here. I agree that opinions are opinions. But what happens when those opinions are based on respected primary/secondary sources.

The primary sources would be the german records, however complete. They can help prove something DID happen but can not prove something did not happen.

A primary source can also be the pilot's reports and subsequent records. These do indeed state what he did, what he thought he did, or what he claimed he did, depending on one's interpretation.

A secondary source would be the GOGs book which in a previous thread ("GOGS patronized" or something like that) in which Jasta used these references and cited them extensively to form his opinion.

Can we pick and choose when we are going to accept a source as worthwhile or inaccurate based on if it supports our belief? I can understand using other sources to refute a claim but I can't see dismissing outright simply beause it isn't what we want to hear.


This is not an attack on Bishop. This is also not an attack on Jasta or Al. It is simply some thoughts that have come to mind while reading these heated debates.

I wasn't hear for the first major Bishop debate so I don't know how much of this was aready answered.

As Al knows the only thing I seriously doubt about Bishop was that he attacked Voss's Jasta, which has long been dismissed by most authorities. I don't have serious doubts that he attacked an aerodrome, I just doubt it was Voss's.

Tobias

[Billy_Bishop]

Tobias!! Guess what! We agree!!!! I don't think Bishop attacked Voss' Jasta either!!!!!

All that I have found indicates the most likely victim of Bishop's attack was Jasta 20. A group that was on the move during the time of Bishop's VC raid.

For, according to The Jasta Pilots, not only was Jasta 5 not at Estourmel at that time, but Jasta 5 was NEVER at Estourmel during the whole war!!

AND on June 2, 1917, Estourmel was unoccupied. That's why I and others think the raid was at Esnes, and that Estourmel was the first field Bishop came to that appeared empty.

VBR,

Al Lowe

[Ron_F]

Al,
Jasta pilots has no 'known' airfield named Esnes or Estourmel. Doesnt mean there arent any there, tho those A/Fs are listed in ATT. Just hard to read the map in Jasta pilots and compare with the better one in ATT. i would like a better map to help in locating these dromes for the jastas...
any help out there?

Salute,
Ron F.

[Billy_Bishop]

Estourmel was also known as Awoigt. Esnes was usually only used as an emergency field.

VBR,

Al Lowe