Oh no, Not Bishop again!!!!!????!!!! ;-)

Ironic - yes..........mean - well in a very friendly and yes, slightly sarcastic sort of way.

Al - A question - in the VC book by Peter Cooksley, he mentions at least two instances of combat reports filed by Bishop when he claimed attacking an enemy and not knocking him down (odd behavior for an egomaniacal, number hungry liar). I don't have the book in front of me and am not sure if it was balloon or scout attacks that were mentioned. I just wondered if there are other such combat reports mentioning encounters that did not lead to victory that you have come across ? I know he mentioned he was afraid of flying in the dark (he mentioned that at a Rotary Club meeting my father attended at which he spoke and I have seen it in print elsewhere). I guess what I'm getting at, is that while hardly definitive of anything, these episodes do not point to a congenital liar as often implied by those denigrating Bishop but a rather normal pilot reporting things that happened to him as well as owning up to a failing. Do you have any of these reports ?

John

[Billy_Bishop]

John, unfortunately, I do not have any of his reports, other that what has been reproduced in some books that were concerned with his actions.

However, consider this. It is reported that Bishop entered combat on approximately 200 seperate occasions. Assuming that he reported each incident, there have to be over 128 combat reports where he either didn't claim anything, or else what he claimed was not confirmed.

We know from Dan McCaffery's book that Bishop had at least 5 unconfirmed claims. And from correspondence I've seen copies of, from his former Mechanic, there are reports of another 25+ claims that were either not allowed, or else not counted as they were balloons.

Now, before anyone goes off on their high horse, remember from ATT, one of the introductory pages point out that not all Squadrons of the RFC counted balloons as victories.

So in answer to John's question, I'd say yes, there have to be many reports that Bishop filed where no claim was made.

But that's just my opinion. I can probably find out for sure shortly.

VBR,

Al Lowe

[alex_revell]

Al,
In a thread a little while ago you mentioned that BB had been recommended for the VC before the aerodrome raid. I asked you for details of this but heard nothing more. Now, for goodness sake, don't think I'm getting at you over this, but in the interest of research I would like details of where you saw this report
Regards
Alex
Alex.

[Craig]

Oh, if only things were really as some of you chaps see them - what a simple world it would be! Believe it or not, there are many points in between the extremes - Bishop the Sainted Martyr on one hand, and Bishop the Pathological Liar on the other. It doesn't really matter, all this patter about Bishop. The reality remains - the better part of his victory claims cannot be substantiated, while, curiously, those of many of his peers match up with info provided by "other sources". All the rationalizing, wishful thinking, blind faith and shield-banging in the world won't change that. But I don't imagine that it'll stop you . . .

I agree, Craig, that if Bishop was a liar, he was a skilled one, knowing how to mingle truth with fiction well enough to make a compelling story. His account of the aerodrome raid in "Winged Warfare" shows fear, dizziness to the point of almost vomiting, disorientation and other symptoms that ring truer than would an account of fearless heroism. Some people believe that he was telling the truth rather than sculpting a carefully crafted lie. We don't know.

When someone is called a liar on the basis of circumstantial evidence, especially a hero, emotions run high. In an indirect means of communication like this, where you infer the tone of voice and emphasis that gives so much meaning to conversation, things can get out of hand quickly.

I do find some of the comments amusing. Jasta challenged Al to prove 20% of Bishop's claims using the German records, since 20% of Malone's claims can be so verified. I pondered this, thinking "Malone, Malone--who's Malone?" so I checked the aces' list here on the site. Malone had a total of ten victories, therefore I assume two of his can be confirmed. I wonder why Jasta didn't say "a couple of Malone's victories" rather than "20% of Malone's victories"...could it be that the latter sounds a lot more impressive?

[Billy_Bishop]

John, concerning your question, from page 126 of "Knights of the Air" by Dave Bashow, he says the following:

On April 22, 1917, for example, Bishop had four witnesses, including Jack Scott, to an action in which he claimed one enemy aircraft damaged and another driven down out of control. On his own instigation, and based on what he had witnessed, Scott increased Bishop's damaged claim to the higher category of driven down.¹⁴⁷ Also, for those who would argue that Bishop's claims were being given carte blance approval by the War Office, the Public Records Office at Kew holds numerous un-confirmed claims from his war combats, suggesting that his claims were subject to the same scrutiny accorded to everyone else.¹⁴⁸

¹⁴⁷Jack Scott was fully justified under the RFC claiming rules of the day. The enemy aircraft had been removed from the combat arena as threats. McCaffery, Billy Bishop, 136

¹⁴⁸Chadderton, Hanging a Legend, 214. Joe Warne, in the official 60 Squadron History, has itemized seven such claims from Bishop's tenure at 60 Squadron alone. Other sources cite four specific unconfirmed claims from 60 Squadron Service, and one more from his short tour with 85 Squadron. At any rate there are a number of them. Warne, "60 Squadron: Part Four," Cross and Cockade 11, 4 (1980):177 and <

To Alex:

So far I have not been able to find anything more substantial than the mention in two books. The latest in "Knights of the Air" By Dave Bashow, the one before that in "Billy Bishop: Canadian Hero" by Dan McCaffery.

I'm still looking, but no luck so far.

VBR,

Al Lowe

Craig,
Funny thing is the point you made is the point many of us who are identified as in the "Bishop Camp" make. There very well may have been exaggeration, lying and promotional reasons for Bishop's victories as well as his VC. The point is though is there is no PROOF that this took place. There is innuendo, conjecture and shaky statistics based on incomplete documentation. This I feel is not enough to drag down a dead man's reputation and to infer, imply or claim that a man is a liar and a scoundrel.

There is a line between degrading a reputation and historical inquiry. I have no problem with saying Bishop has fewer cross referenced victories as does McCudden for example. This opens up more avenues of inquiry...many avenues... locations, times, types of claims, completness of records, CO'c standards for victories etc...etc..... To jump however immediately to the conclusion that Bishop is a liar is frankly stupid and also quite poor history (this is not directed at you Craig - just at the vehement anti-Bishop crowd).

I do not "worship" Bishop - in fact my interest is in Austro-Hungarian aviation. Still this rather bizarre dedication on some peoples part to tear down Bishop who by most every standard of the time was a true hero - without PROOF - I personally find repugnant.

I bet if we really dig hard we can find numerous examples of fliers lying or exaggerating during the war - also examples of fliers not giving a damn about personal reputation and demonstrating selfless dedication. To what end ? Is this to prove that these young men demonstrated normal human failings we see every day around us ? Wow, there is a revelation.

Bottom line assaulting anyones reputation based on speculation will naturally raise the hackles of many others - it is lousy history and morally bankrupt. Research away, bring FACTS to light and possibly accept the fact that we may never know - and if that is the case - let a dead man rest in peace, and give him the benefit of the doubt his contemporaries so obviously did.

John G.

[Craig]

John
There are those on this thread who will gleefully claim that I am, in fact, part of the "anti-Bishop" faction. This is, in my opinion, because I hold to the standard that Bishop's claims must be proved, not disproved. Not 100% proved, but somewhere in between there and the paltry number that can be more or less confirmed. I apply this same standard to all other pilots, not just Bishop.
I doubt the veracity of Bishop's claims. The whole of the RFC overclaimed to a stunning degree, and he is certainly no exception. Why they overclaimed - other than fog of war - is open to speculation. Not interested in that, I am however concerned with 'how many they REALLY got'. And it seems pretty clear that Bishop's real score wasn't 72, or even very close. It is not up to me to disprove his claims. It is up to his 'entourage' to prove them.

Cheers;
Craig

P.S. It's funny - we don't go 'round and 'round about McCudden. Ever wonder why?

Well Al, I see you are still at it. For those who may not remember Al and I had this out, what a couple of years ago?

"...Still this rather bizarre dedication on some peoples part to tear down Bishop who by most every standard of the time was a true hero - without PROOF -...."

Anyway, regarding the above quote, You use the word proof without regard to the fact that it is that very word WE are so concerned with. There IS no proof of the vast majority of Bishop's victories and none of the Aerodrome sortie. Bottom line= No Proof he did those things. Research into his life before the war showed that he was devious and dishonest in school , and apparently lying and cheating were NOT unknown to him. V/R David Johnson

The British government officially sanctioned the VC for Bishop - and his victories were credited to him. That is all the proof required to support the notion he was a succesful and brave man who did his duty. He was awarded those victories and the VC - it is up to those for whatever reason want to denigrate the man to PROOVE that they did not happen - not that they aren't recorded - that happens all the time - but that they DID NOT happen.
If you argue from the point that every claim by every pilot must be "proven" again we better wipe the victory lists clean and prepare for a real debate on almost all claims by all pilots. This wasn't a sporting contest with official scorers hanging around - it was a war with all the attendent mess.
Without rehashing the arguements - there are many points to support as well as doubt Bishop - but until things are PROVEN why call the man a liar ?
Ddi he have character flaws - I would imagine - we all do. Did he make mistakes in his life - yes - we all do. I would like to be judged not by my worst moments but by the whole of my life. Bishop "cheating" in school - even if proved does not remotely equate to proof that he lied about claims or the VC raid.

I just wish I could understand the persistant attacks on the man - the desire to shred him personally. It goes beyond a pursuit for truth which can be objective and not filled with epithet or baseless conclusions.

The idea though that we who "support" Bishop have to PROVE his claims is ludicrous - the RAF and the British goverment did that to their satisfaction 80+ years ago.

John