Billy Bishop Part 3

[Billy_Bishop]

Sorry Hannes,

1st, It wouldn't do me much good, I don't read German very well.

2nd, Unless you know of some that might be located in Michigan, or nearby, I'm relatively certain I'll never see one. But I would like to see just ONE. Anyone, it doesn't matter which one.

3rd, I've talked to people who have seen them, and they were not that impressed, what makes you think I'll be impressed?

I'm sure they're well written documents. But I was never much for paperwork anyway.

VBR,

Al Lowe

[rammjaeger]

Sorry Al,

I can not accept any of your 3 excuses.

Are you not realising how important this problem is for your own trustworthyness?

You are judging about things only from "hear and say"-point of view. (The same phenomenon in your behaviour was already mentioned repeatedly by other forumites.) If you are willing to see the documents you will find also a way to find some and to read (with a minor effort) some German sentences.
We say: "Wo ein Wille ist, ist auch ein Weg!"

VBR
Hannes

Sorry if I came across strongly, but I have to stand by my assertion that Alex's post--while phrased well--is pure conspiracy theory. His summary follows:

"We have a young, unknown Lt who is finding it hard to be accepted for pilot training He then meets a Lady St Helier who claims to be a friend of his father. He is then given a period of home leave in Canada and on his return his path to pilot training is smoothed out.

After a period of extremely high-rate scoring, he is awarded the VC under unprecedented circumstances, and in direct contravention of the terms officially laid out, and within a month of arriving in France is a Captain and a Flight Commander.

His claims, both for the aerodrome raid and victories are unconditionally accepted at both sqdn level and Wing, despite lack of witnesses."

The implication that Bishop's scores and VC raid were faked is pretty darned clear, if not stated directly. And that the faking occurred with the complicity at the highest levels. And that therefore dozens or perhaps scores of people, at various levels in the military and government, cooperated in the plot.

The build-up to this postulation is well-crafted. Initially, he appears to be on Bishop's side:

"Firstly I abhor the terms ‘anti-Bishop’ and ‘Bishop detractors’. Speaking for myself, I have no wish to be known as an ‘anti’ or a ‘detractor’.Bishop was a boyhood hero of mine, as he was to many other people."

Then some wariness:

"Actually there are many strange aspects to the Bishop story which have been overlooked and I’d like to go into these later."

Then some facts:

"The aerodrome raid. So far no record of this raid, or the casualties from it, has been discovered. It therefore becomes B’s word against that of the German records."

Present a possible solution:

"It has been argued that these are not necessary complete."

And then just rule it out:

"But let’s leave that for a moment. The hard inescapable fact remains that B was awarded the VC for an action which was not witnessed by any other."

And so on, teasing at the conspiracy:

"There is something very strange here. I feel that it is possible that there may have been a hidden agenda in the elevation of this young, unknown and possibly malleable Lt, who had a reputation of being not particularly truthful and was regarded by his fellow pilots as being a ‘medal chaser’."

I have no doubt that that is exactly what is going on here. And it bugs me. Conspiracy theories have been around for centuries--traditionally it was the Jews or the Free Masons running the world behind the scenes. There was plenty of "evidence" to this effect, too. Today that seems silly and certainly politically incorrect. These days, the popular conspiracy theories focus on government agencies performing complex machinations, behind-the-scenes control, and covert operations. The CIA killed Kennedy, the NSA reads all of our e-mails, the water-powered car has been hidden away, and there are alien bodies in Hanger 51. Make no mistake, there's enough factual evidence combined with hearsay and speculation to make it ring true, or it wouldn't work. And I bet there are people out there who believe the X-Files, too.

In this case, please consider the logic behind the conspiracy. How many people at how many different levels would have to be involved in this Bishop conspiracy? Would they all keep their mouths shut for all that time? Would they all be willing to do it? WHY would they do it? Presumably to give Bishop a VC. WHY??? As I said, am I supposed to believe that they couldn't find an ACTUAL hero to whom to give a VC during the course of the war, so they had to start making them up? They actually gave some out to other airmen, you know. There were actually quite a few brave men out there, who performed actions worthy of recognition...

Okay, I'm getting angry again. Sorry. I just don't know why we have to postulate some complicated theory when facts are missing or paperwork is out of sequence, or something odd happens. Odd things do happen, paperwork is just paperwork, and no two people see the same thing the same way.

Maybe there was some high-level plot to make Bishop a hero. I just really, really doubt it. It would be fun, but it makes a better plot for a book than it does for history in my opinion.

[Ron_F]

Gents,
first of all, if i went by the 'facts', i too, would believe that Bish didnt do it and therefore lied. however, then all the other RFC pilots, Collishaw comes to mind, then lied on thier claims.
but, i like a challenge, and i dont like the 'hero' bashing that is rampant on this board.
besides, we re here to learn. :}
which seems very relevent to some posters here of their dislike for 1 ace or another...and most of the time, its the big scorers.
i would like to ask jasta: how do you know that the Kofl 6 reports reflect EXACTLY what the units wrote? since no diaries exist, with the possible exception of jasta's comment sometime back about Jasta 5, how can you or anyone know they are exactly written as in the Jasta's logs? more specific on how and why.

second, as to picking a war hero for propaganda purposes, so far, i can find Collishaw, Dallas,Little,Fall,Bowman, and possibly a few others that didnt make the higher scores, but probably had them at the time frame of Bishops score. anyone of these could have been used for 'propaganda' purpose. if it was solely RFC, then Bowman fits nicely.

Alex wanted to know more about the spies. well, the only source i see is Hanging a legend. they mention the spies that witnessed it, but so far, i cant find the exact paragraph its in. suffice it to say, i wouldnt put much faith in it. just IMOHO. the French observers that relayed to the unit is probably more viable than believing 'spies' saw it...

Hannes,
your post to Al about excuses seems a bit harsh. not everyone can just pack up and go across the world/country to see if they could dig up some archives. wish i could i do it!
could you tell us, what they DO look like? typed, hand written or otherwise? are they DAY by DAY? actual documents from the war, or re done in the 30s as speculated?
it would help shed some light on 'Hanging a legend' and their main points.

More to come as the above gets comments...

vbr
Ron

[Billy_Bishop]

Hannes,

I HAVE to judge many things from a "hear and see" point of view. I am not independently wealthy. I am, in fact STILL in financial turmoil after almost a SOLID year with no work.

To date, I've received TWO pay checks from my current job. In each case, the money was practically gone before it got here.

The only way I'll see anything like the Kofl reports, or EVEN Fry's last letter will HAVE to be through the generosity of someone who has copies and can EITHER scan and email them to me, or is willing to copy them and send them by snail mail.

It will be a long time before I am in a position to due much else besides spending my time here, conversing with people, who for some silly reason take me too seriously at some times, and not serious enough at others.

It seems that EVERYONE expects me to sit back and ignore things while people make judgements based on a letter reportedly written by Willy Fry. You've seen some of the comments that were posted, shortly after his letter was published in Cross & Cockade.

"From the evidence we have now it looks like the raid was nothing more than a hoax. There is no evidence that the raid ever occurred."

Granted, some of the feelings, actually many of the feelings expressed here, in the Aerodrome have not changed much. I'm sorry, but I do the best I can with what I have. Unfortunately, I have to rely on others to gather info for me. I've also talked with authors of books, both pro and "not-pro" Bishop to get their take on it.

And I'll paraphrase what one told me, To really understand what happened, you have to look at those events with a Fighter pilot's point of view.

So many of us try to analyze the events to the smallest detail. What many of us don't take into account is that these men were fighting for their very lives. In most cases, they didn't give a fat rat's ass about details.

So when someone says to me, "how come Bishop thought the planes he attacked where Albatros DII's instead of DIII's?" I have to ask, "He was flying over an enemy airfield, at least 3 planes were taking off to engage him AND he was being fired at by AA, do REALLY think he CARED whether they were DII's or DIII's???"

Hell, if you look at many of the CR's submitted you'll simply see the expression of H.A. for Hostile Aircraft, or maybe "E.A." for enemy aircraft. A lot of times what mattered was the national markings. If it had a bull's eye, and you were English, French or American, you didn't shoot. If it had a cross, you fired away.

So many of us forget these men were busy fighting a war and TRYING to survive. I'll bet that in April of 1917, almost every time Bishop came back from patrol there were empty seats. For him to even survive during that period, Hell, I'd have given him the VC for that!!

Oh, about the VC, did you know he was recommended for it BEFORE the June 2, 1917 air raid?? I'll bet that many here didn't. It was turned down. And no, Bishop didn't know.

Perhaps though, I'm through here. Yes, I think I am. My arguments seem to fall on deaf ears, somewhat. Those that agree with me, agree with me, those that don't well, it varies. Some just disagree, others attack my methods. As I said, I'm limited in my resources, so my methods are limited too.

Some can make a comment of support for Bishop, and not much is said, I make one and I get jumped on, often by anonymous people who NEVER post their email address.

Maybe I can't get to everything there is, but I have talked to people who have seen this. Their point of view is the same as mine, so why shouldn't I trust them?

But I'll tell all of this, I'll just go my seperate way now. I have my website, and I'll post what I want there with no input from others. So don't be too surprised by what you see there showing up there in the next few days.

VBR,

Al Lowe

p.s. Yes, it's my ball and I'm taking it home!

Al, I can't imagine the frustration you must feel in what usually appears to be a vain attempt to support Bishop. I can understand why it must be like beating a dead horse.

I would like you to know that you are one of the Forum's most valued members in my opinion, and I am confident that I'm not alone in that regard. Even those who question Bishop's record will agree, I'm sure. We need the balance that you have provided (time and time again--and I know that's the problem!) to the debate.

Yes, that debate will almost certainly never be resolved. And for people with our shared interest, it is the hottest topic of our era. That's why it just never dies.

I think you do a tremendous service in helping to keep the debate from becoming one-sided. No, you probably won't convert the ones who see falsehoods and plots everywhere in the historical record. For the younger members especially, you help them to understand that history is not just about what was written. They need to know that history is not just about record-keeping and that the quality of a hero is not just about how many people he killed (if they can be cross-correlated to those records). I know it's hard to keep posting the same material again and again, when a week or two later someone else starts the controversy up using some variation on the same old theme.

If you decide to leave, I would understand. But I would view it as one of the greatest losses to the Forum imaginable.

Al, I'm blushing. Is there a gun in the roses. Seriously, I think you do me a disservice by placing me on one side or the other in this debate. I am a rank novice in this area. All that I have done is ask questions. I was hoping they would generate more light than heat; they haven't, but there are now questions from a man of immense stature. I've noted the shrillness has declined, now if we can find some light...wouldn't it be grand.
DD

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Al Lowe:
I know exactly how you feel, remember Voss' cowling! Take a deep breath , go out in the garage a yell your head off, you'll feel better, and then come back and kick ass!! Al, I don't agree with you on this matter, but I 'll defend your right to your opinion.
Gentlemen:
There was no GAS, German Air Service. There was the Fliegertruppe, which translates to "Flyer Troops" or better, "Aviation Troops", which became in October 1916 the Luftstreitkräfte, the Air Force or the German Air Force there was never a German Air Service or a German Army Air Service, it is an incorrect translation of names.
Kofl Reports. The Kofl, (Kommandeur der Flieger,) was the Commander of all aviation units within an Army, except balloon units. Daily reports of activities were turned in to the Kofl staff by the various unit adjutants, The reports were compiled and PRINTED daily as the Kofl Report. These contained claims, losses and dis- position of units and locations, awards, promotions and intelligence information.
The Daily Kofl Reports from all the German Armies were summarized in the weekly printed Luftstreitkräfte Nachrichtenblatt. Monthly, a printed listing of victories were published. These reports were done in a professional manner.
I have some of the Kofl reports and the the Nachrichtenblatt (Bulletin) for 1917 and 1918. The Germans kept good records and copies of these record are surfacing all the time. They are also in the Army Archives in Germany and in Bavaria, Munich I believe. There are also REAL Jasta KTB out there, not all were destroyed by there unit personal. This is one area were there has been an inordinate amount of Bull about German records. My suggestion Gentlemen, do a little research before you shoot from the hip!.
Blue skies,
Dan-San Abbott

[Billy_Bishop]

Ed, Denny and Dan-San,

For the most part, my argument is not with you. I know that some of you disagree with me. And I know that at times we have agreed.

I guess part of it is the general attitude that just because I haven't seen these documents, I don't or can't appreciate them. Thing is, I do, but I also have to take them with a grain of salt.

I've BEEN in the military, and I know the kind of stuff that's possible with regards to "official" records. Let me ask all of you, would you believe a body count report written up in Vietnam?

I'm not saying I disbelieve them. But if there's a conflict, why do I have to believe the German records over the English records?? WHAT makes one better than the other?

One other question, IF, Bishop's claims for 2 June, 1917 had been recognized by the opposing side, and dutifully recorded in all the different reports, would THAT convince you? If so, WHY???

That's all.

Thank you, I'm returning to the garage now to continue my yelling, I should return soon.

VBR,

Al Lowe

If you did leave Al (hope you don't), you'd be Bishop's 73rd and the only one that could be verified!

Holck