Bishop maligned in Electronic World Book Encyclopedia

[Billy_Bishop]

It seems like I just can't look anywhere without seeing something like this:

Bishop, Billy (1894-1956), a Canadian flier, was a famous World War I pilot. He received credit for shooting down 72 German aircraft, but some historians have questioned that number.

It wouldn't be so bad, but others that have been questioned are not maligned so. For instance, how much have we questioned Rickenbacker? I know there are many here to question his WWI record, many of you have said as much in this forum, yet below is the entry in the same encylopedia about Rickenbacker:

Rickenbacker, Eddie (1890-1973), was the leading United States air ace in World War I (1914-1918). He shot down 22 enemy planes and 4 balloons.

Rickenbacker was born Edward Rickenbacher in Columbus, Ohio. In 1918, he changed the spelling of his family name to Rickenbacker. Before World War I, he became a professional automobile racer and won an international reputation as a racing-car driver. Rickenbacker enlisted in the Army in 1917, after the United States had entered the war. He served as a staff driver and as an engineering officer before becoming a pilot.

After the war, Rickenbacker worked with several automobile firms and was co-owner of the Indianapolis Speedway from 1927 to 1945. He served as president of Eastern Airlines from 1938 to 1959 and chairman of its board of directors from 1954 to 1963.

During World War II (1939-1945), Rickenbacker was a civilian inspector of American air bases abroad. On an inspection trip in 1942, his plane was forced down in the Pacific Ocean. Rickenbacker and six others survived on rubber rafts for 24 days before being rescued. Rickenbacker wrote about his wartime experiences in Fighting the Flying Circus (1919) and Seven Came Through: Rickenbacker's Full Story (1943).

And there are others that we have talked about here on the forum, yet Bishop is the ONLY ONE that gets this kind of negative publicity, no one else, only Bishop!!!

Can someone (other than Jasta) tell me why??

All things considered, I don't think it's very fair.

VBR,

Al Lowe

[leo]

It is hardly fair at all.** However, the entry does not lie. Some historians do question Bishop's claims.** The publication is probably an American one and we are quick to criticize those who are not exactly our own and at the same time accepting
the claims of our own as being completely valid.** While Bishop's record has been questioned, I have never seen any real evidence that would cause me to deny what Bishop has claimed and his country has accepted.

[Billy_Bishop]

I have to agree with you Leo, the entry does not lie on the count that some historians question the number of his claims.** It just seems so unfair that he is apparently the only one that any of this is said about.**

We all know that we've talked about others.** And those among us who are professional historians have brought up similar questions about some of the other Aces.** As well many things about some of the other aces has been pointed out to us by some of these professional historians.

While I understand the questioning of Bishop's claims, I don't understand why he appears to be the only one when we know there are others just as deserving of the same comments.

VBR,

Al Lowe

Al, fair or not, I think you know why Bishop's record is disputed these days:

1. "The Kid Who Couldn't Miss" was a terrible "documentary", but it brought attention to controversy surrounding his claims. The debate over it reaching the House of Commons and the media attention resulting from this only served to heighten the effect while it was supposed to redress the issue. The controversy is remembered, not the deplorable quality of the research behind it.
2. Bishop had a known history of cheating; his record at RMC doesn't help when it comes to questioning his honesty.
3. I may be wrong (and let me know if I am), but many of his claims were without confirmation because of his solo fighting techniques. They were credited to him by Jack Scott in particular without question, which places the onus on Bishop for their accuracy. I think Scott believed that "an officer and a gentleman" would not lie. In this he seems to have had an advantage over many other aces, who normally required independent confirmation of a claim.
4. Like it or not, there is no firm confirmation for his VC raid, even by historians trying to prove it. Which leads to:
5. German records (incomplete though they may be) fail to provide evidence for many of his claims. Yes, the same is true for most other Allied aces.

When you put it all together, poor old Bish gets the short end of the stick.

G'day Al,

I think we have a case of "Tall Poppy Syndrome". It is quite common in Australia, the more successful you are the more faults people try to find in you, and don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Bishop is in the front line when it comes to revisionists, and hence the focus on him, you can blame TKWCM for that. I have seen one website that states all of Bishop's claims have not been verified, but that's is rubbish, I have seen the CR of Bishops counter signed by Little, and from what I have read on Little, the last thing he would do is make a claim up for the sake of the "war effort."

Stick by your guns Al, BTW did they mention Goering at all, and if the did, what did they say about his WW1 record?

Andrew.

[Billy_Bishop]

Here's what they said about Goering's WWI career.

Goering had earned a distinguished record in World War I (1914-1918).** In that war, he served as the last commander of the famous squadron of fighter aircraft previously led by Baron Manfred von Richthofen.

That's it.** Nothing about HIS claims being disputed!** But then I guess that's small compared to what he actually did in WWII.

VBR,

Al Lowe

[wings]

At least Some of Goering's victories can be confirmed by British records.

[Billy_Bishop]

Well, considering that Bishop had witnesses for at least 22-24 of his claims, I'm surprised that the German records can't corroborate more than just a couple of his.**

i agree. it's not fair. for them to single out one man like that and try and discredit him is wrong. of all the flack you take here, and now this, it must seem like everyone is out to "get al". they're not. we're not. you know nothing is ever going to change you feelings toward bishop, so don't let it bother you. you know he had 72 kills, i know he had 72 kills. by the same token, people can talk until they're blue in the face. i'll never be convinced anyone other than brown killed richthofen. so don't let it get under your skin. stick by your guns. (lewis guns, that is.)

leon

[Craig]

It may seem unfair to 'single out' Bishop, when the whole of commomwealth 'claims' are questionable. Multiple pilots get credit for a single plane, OOC counts as a victory, etc. Most of the fighting was over German territory, so there was usually no wreck to provide physical evidence. But if HALF the claims in Over The Front were valid, there would've been no German air arm left by 1918. And that's not counting French or American claims. I know we all have our 'favorites', and this is a grand hobby, but get real - Commonwealth victory confirmation was lax beyond belief (compared to Germany , France and US), and should be taken with a block of salt by the ojective observer.
As for Bishop - a man whose honesty is suspect - he just may be the tallest poppy with the tallest tales. Also, questioning Bishop is NOT tantamount to sympathising with Goering!