Bishop maligned in Electronic World Book Encyclopedia

Al,

I'd blame it on that apparently insipid documentary (were these the same people that did that thing about the RCAF in WWII?). I have not (thankfully) seen TKWCM, but as a teacher I've noted the mass of the population sees these things and retains them. If a similar hatchet job were done on another pilot in a similar way, I'd wager you'd see the same type of comments in an encyclopedia.

[Craig]

This is not a hatchet job. Don't you guys read? If you do, read the Grub Street book on the Commonwealth aces. Their victory claims couldn't possibly be accurate without rendering their opponents extinct. Heroes are for mass consumption; I assume alot of those contributing are at least amateur historians and therefore without an excuse for what appears to be perilously close to idolatry! Or here''s one for mass consumption: do the math!

[Billy_Bishop]

Craig:

Of course we read, don't you??** If you had bothered to read ALL of what was said in the Grub Street books, you'd know that THEY don't question the claims either.** They simply gathered what evidence, claim forms, documentation on confirmation and such, and published it.** They went a long way toward confirming a long held belief of mine that Mannock didn't have 73 victories.** By the same token, they also showed that a long held belief by many, that Hawker had 9 victories was off by 2, he only had 7.**

And there were other scores changed by their research.** For years you would find ace lists showing Lufberry with 17 victories, now the best one shows him with 16.

And also, for the longest time, 4 of his victories gained while flying with 85 squadron were forgotten for Elliot White Springs who was listed with 12 victories.** But now his score is set straight at 16.

If you look at ATT, on page 77, on Bishop, the authors said this:

"...The whole question as to the veracity of many of Bishop's claims has been the subject of much controversy for many years, culminating in a full scale Senate Inquiry in Canada following a TV documentary questioning their legitimacy.** The authors feel that it is not appropriate in the context of this book to enter into such controversy, or to make judgements, but merely to record what was claimed and accepted at the time."

Of his list of claims, they note two that are likely corroborated by German records.** This is contrasted with McCudden's 57 claims of which a large number are matched against German losses.** This is often pointed out to me by another person, I guess because he has no other arguments.**

However, I'd like to point out that in the authors' notes they mention that the list was compiled in response to a Brigade Commander wishing to know his score, and as his book was published during the war, the Germans apparently translated it, and it was the subject of a Nachrichtenblatt report.**

Thus, I submit that McCudden's case is unique with regard to the attention displayed towards his score by both friend and foe alike, thus making it easier to confirm many of his claims against enemy losses.

To my knowledge, the GOGS didn't go about trying to match every claim made and confirmed for an RFC/RNAS/RAF pilot with a German loss.** I believe they did try to look into some of the stranger goings on, such as the 9 RFC pilots who made claim against one German, and the case of the multiple Fokker DR.I claims, when there was only ONE (Voss) known to be flying that day.

Otherwise, they simply compiled the records and published their results.

But, am I used to this sort of treatment of Bishop?** More or less, but it doesn't mean I have to accept it.** I shall go on fighting this sort of attack as well as the worse ones until I die, or until someone has 100% proof positive that Bishop knowingly lied about his claims.

VBR,

Al Lowe

p.s.** Thanks for the support guys.

As I've said many times on this forum, "history" is an individual "historian's" personal interpretation and evaluation.
Thus it has always been and shall always be. If you seek the truth you either have to go to the source or wade through reams of opinions and second hand war stories.
We will never know the real truth about Billy Bishop and René Fonck, will we?

[Paul Forster]

Bishop isn't alone in having his victories questioned.Even MvR has had his vics questioned over the years.The last time I looked at a copy of The Guiness Book Of World Record,they claimed no evidence could be found for about 20 of MvR's victories.They had Fonck listed as the top ace of WWI.They had Bishop at No.2

I think it's important that we recognize the distinction between "victory" and "kill" (or "destroyed"), especially when it comes to British claims. Too often the two are seen as the same thing in the mind, and if German records don't show a pilot killed or aircraft lost, the assumption is that the claim was falsified or should not be allowed. Really, it depends on the rules of the game, if you like--whether or not the British at the time defined a valid claim solely on the basis of an aircraft destroyed. To me, there's a reason why it's called a "victory" and not a "kill." OOC and DDOOC were accepted as a victory, especially later in the war--you drove the enemy from the field of battle. While the presumption was that the aircraft was out of control, and therefore its destruction was probable, it did not have to be seen to strike the ground (since this was often not possible).

So, I don't think it is in fact necessary that all of the victories correspond to German losses at all to be valid under the rules of the British at the time. Am I wrong?

What I would like to see is an examination of a number of Allied claims (not just Bishop's!) where the combat report clearly indicates the destruction of an e.a. (breaking apart in the air, wings falling off, going down in flames [not just smoking], seen to crash to nothing) and this account is verified by at least two other pilots or ground witnesses--and see if in every case German records show the loss. I don't trust records. To me they are no more reliable than any other kind of paperwork--in this case, paperwork filled out by twenty-year-olds with much more important things on their minds eighty years ago. If the German records fail to verify all of these claims, then either those records are not the gospel they are too often taken for, or the claimants were in a conspiracy to falsify their victories.

The truth is out there? I dunno.

[Billy_Bishop]

Well, according to what I've been told the term "Kill" is a more modern usage.** The term most often used in WWI was "Victory" and supposedly on both sides of the lines.

In any event, Bishop does have a number of claims where he has at least 2 witnesses.** Yet, most of these have so far failed to correspond to German losses.** But then I haven't really had the resources to look into this very deeply.** Others claim to have, but I have to wonder just how many accurate records actually survived the war.** What with the loss of records on both sides.** The British lost a bunch that were being transferred from France to Britain at/or near the end of the war.** Plus, many German records were destroyed in the retreat of 1918.

My concern isn't so much what is proved for Bishop, but in his case, I'm just tired of the incessant attack on him when it's apparent that he is the "rule" and not the "exception" as was so eloquently put by another forumite not too long ago.

I'm willing to accept that he likley did not actually shoot down 72 enemy aircraft.** We all are aware that the "fog of war" makes certainty in combat next to impossible.** But what I don't like is the implication that he purposely lied to enhance his combat record.**

What can't be denied, since even his detractors who flew with him admited, he was fearless in combat, and by all accounts a pilot who was far above average.**

When you put that together with what the man accomplished after the war, especially his tireless efforts of recruiting for the RCAF during WWII, are these the actions of a consumate liar and thief???** I think not.

VBR,

Al Lowe

[wings]

Maybe he told some lies, And did some good things. Maybe some of his victories were real, And some were fake(wings falling off).

You read the most interesting things on the forum. Things like;
1. People can talk till they’re blue in the face but I will never believe that anyone but Brown shot down MvR
2. History is an individual historian personal interpretation
3. I don’t trust records, to me they are no more reliable than any other kind of paperwork.

I hope those holding these views approach the rest of their lives with a bit more rationality.

As to the subject at hand, Bishop is singled out because;
a.) he claims 72 victories – not 9, not 17, not 22 but 72
b.) there is almost no back-up for these victories on the German side
c.) there were no witnesses or records of Bishop’s VC winning aerodrome raid
d.) he indeed is the “rule” rather than the “exception” when it comes to assessing Commonwealth victory claims, so he acts as a lightening rod for critics of that system of assessing victories

This is one of those topics (MvR vs. Brown is another) that will go on and on and on.

Regards,
Barkhorn.

For reasons already cited, it was more difficult for the Brits to verify enemy planes destroyed and pilots killed. Their liberal system allowing for multiple types of victories is understandable in light of the difficulties associated with verification.

The Mar 9, 1917 victory of H.C. Todd over MvR came to mind when reading some of the posts questioning whether problems with Bishop's claims were just as common with other British pilots. In the case of Todd's downing of MvR, I don't believe that he was even credited. I have read Todd's report of the encounter; he describes that the "E.A. retired eastward after being hit." There is no mention made in the report that the plane was forced to land (Todd probably never saw it happen). I have never seen it verified that Todd was credited with a victory on Mar 9, only that he had one victory prior to this encounter. This one's a bit different, what?