I need clarfication of this author: Arch whitehous

[Ron_F]

a fellow modeler was qouting from this book:"Legion of the LaFayette" by Arch Whitehouse.

the name sounded like one of those that many here have listed as untrustworthy/false etc. i would like to ask the forumites to make sure im not confusing with another.

This is rather offbase, but i dont know who else to ask, or how to ask it. we are here to learn, i didnt want to accuse an author of being one of those that are 'not to be trusted'.

altho, i do discount the passage that was qouted in refernence to WW2 german victories and the fallacys qouted there in. which leads me to suspect it somewhat.

any good advice is welcomed.

Ron

[WFS]

Ron

I have read "Heroes of the Sunlit Sky", short bios of famous WWI aces, and "Hun Killer", a biograpy of Frank Luke, by Arch Whitehouse. Whitehouse was an observer and pilot in WWI and so deserves some respect. Unfortuneately, he seemed to feel that because he had "been there" his opinions carried as much weight as others facts. Also, I think that he was more interested in tellng a good story than in creating a history text. I have seen the same problems in the writings of some other WWI flyers.
Wayne

I have heard the same said oif Arch. He never let the facts get in the way of a good story. There are other ex pilots who had the same trait, but Arch seems to be the worst of them all.

Andrew.

PS A lot of books have been rubbished in the past on this forum, some deserving this type of treatment more than others, however, even the "worst" book may hold a new piece of startling information written by the author, the problem is, trying to ascertain which is fact and which is fiction.

[Tom_Cervo]

Whitehouse became a pulp writer and war correspondent. As such he was paid for output, and not accuracy, but he seems to have tried to be as honest as he could. Obviously the sources we have now were unavailable to him.
His best book is "The Fledgling", his memoir of his own service in the RFC and RAF. It's along the lines of Fred Libby's recent book, but Whitehouse was a much more polished writer, and he seems to have seen more action, with a few more kills as a gunner than Libby--or he puts more drama into them.
As for accuracy, those with a sheaf of communiques may be better able to judge. I found one indicator: he reported that his return home was noted in a story on the front page of the New York Times, in a list of war briefs. I happened to look that up--it was the first page, but of section B. It's the kind of mistake that a man writing about 50-year-old memories might make.
As for opinions about what constitutes a dogfight--he's earned the right to an opinion.

[Scott]

From The Aerodrome mailbag, 21 August 2001 from Arch Whitehouse's son, Douglas Whitehouse:

"... Arch Whitehouse was indeed the second for Captain Bush for a great number of missions in France, and with him scored most of his German kills. *Arch Whitehouse started his military career in the Northhampton Yeomanry in October of 1914. *His unit was converted to infantry and sent to the trenches shortly after completing their training, and arriving in Calais. *After several months as a foot soldier, he volunteered to return to England with the goal of becoming a pilot. *By mid-1916 he was back at the front as an observer/gunner, assigned to No. 22 Squadron in Chipilly near the Somme battlefield. *He experienced his first combat from the front basket of an FE-2b. *His longstanding partnership with Captain Bush began in these early 'pusher' aircraft, and together they graduated to the Bristol Fighter. *In 1917, they flew the first long-range bombing/strafing missions of the war. *22 Squadron regularly flew missions to Gontrode, 40 miles over the line into German territory near Bruges. *Gontrode was the German base for Gotha squadrons that bombed the east coast of Britain. *Arch Whitehouse was awarded the Military Medal for destroying a 2-engine Gotha during the first assignment over Gontrode. *Three days later, Arch Whitehouse was given 14 days leave. *While away, Captain Bush was killed in action. *This loss haunted his memory for the remainder of his life. *In June of 1918, Arch was awarded the opportunity for pilot's training. *He attended Cadet School in Cramwell, England, learning to fly on Avro trainers, the Sopwith Pup and Camel. *He gained then rank of 2nd Leftenant. *Later in October of that year, Arch was given overseas leave for having put in more than three years of active service. *He returned home, and the war was over by November 1. *In all, Arch Whitehouse shot down 16 enemy aircraft, and 6 kite balloons. *He was awarded the Observers Wing, the Military Medal and a wound stripe. *He began a long, successful writing career. He published over thirty fiction and non-fiction books, most all about military aviation. *He wrote extensively on WWI aviation, and in his time was considered one the foremost authorities on the subject. *Following his death in 1980, most of his manuscripts and archives were given over to the care of Boston University. *He was a great man who led an amazing life. *I had the honor of knowing him for 25 years of my life, and take every opportunity to tell his story to whomever will listen.

I hope this information was helpful, can be used to update your site. *All of my notes were culled from his autobiography entitled; the Fledgling, published in 1964 by Duell, Sloan and Pearce. *The Library of Congress number is: 64-22647...."

[muff]

Arch Whitehouse was there for 3 long years. and when he came home he started writing for quite a few aviation magazines of the 1920s and 30s. his stories on first WW aviation were what drew the interest of 1000s of young boys and men of those long ago years. made them think aviation which has carried them thru their lives, many, many of us learned to read reading his stories. you need to be an old man to understand. but Arch is like my country, Arch Whithouse right or wrong. the people who write the books have people to read them because A.W led the way. read them all you will enjoy them. Muff

[BobE]

Thank you Webmaster for posting the comments of Doug Whitehouse.

Thank you Doug Whitehouse for coming to your father's defense. He must have been a pretty good dad in addition to his other accomplishments.

I have been involved in three other discussions on Arch in various places on both the old and new Forums within the past month. Most of the posts above are repeats from those discussions so I might as well repeat mine.

I think Arch was honest and accurate in the things that matter.I would not build a model based on his descriptions of enemy planes that were shooting at him. I doubt if he was taking notes at the time!

I have asked elsewhere for people to give me specific examples of his errors and I get things like "He was wrong about Voss' markings for one thing!" or " He said the term Dogfight" only applied to mass battles ." Not exactly earth shaking stuff!

I have a video where Arch is interviewed and after he makes his infamous "Dogfight" comment he adds "Once you were in one all you wanted to do was get the Hell out!" Sounds like a pretty accurate statement to me!

"Years of the Sky Kings" is still one of the best overviews of the entire WWI air war. It is certainly the most exciting and I recommend it highly, especially to people new yo the subject.

"Years of The Sky Kings" was the first book on WW1 aviation I read when I was about twelve. He will always be number one with me.

Whitehouse's THE FLEDGLING is not the first WWI aviation book I have read, but it is my favorite.

[Billy_Bishop]

I have asked elsewhere for people to give me specific examples of his errors and I get things like "He was wrong about Voss' markings for one thing!" or " He said the term Dogfight" only applied to mass battles ." Not exactly earth shaking stuff!

I grew up reading Arch Whitehouse's books, so it's hard for me to criticize the man myself. *But, I have been "told" that he claims to have invented the "Dogfight". *Now, whether the people in question were referring to the term or not, I don't know. *But it has been pointed out that the term has been seen written in combat reports from that period. *And reportedly before AW entered combat.

And while he was always quick to praise British, French and American aircrew, the same cannot be said of his attitude toward the Germans. *Now, since he fought against them, I can understand his attitude. *But if he expected to be accepted as a professional historian he should have approached his subject a little differently. *

I've heard it said that he was one to take information from others and accept it at face value without checking into it. *Considering his popularity as a writer, he should have done some of his own research. *Or he should have at least looked at other sources and compared the results. *IT doesn't appear that he did this. *OR, if he did, he took that which he liked and ignored that which he didn't.

Some will say he was biased. *Well, shucks, aren't we all? *

For me, I have always liked what he wrote, even though I don't find all of it to be in agreement with what others have written. *His stories stirred my interest in WWI aviation. *And for that I will be forever grateful.