The Aerodrome Forum - View Single Post

Hugh_A._Halliday · 25 November 2002, 01:09 PM

"The charge against Bishop is solely that his statements do not match the personnel and equipment loss records of Central Powers Air Forces".

If only it were so.

Phil Markham, in "A Flight of Fancy" (JOURNAL OF THE CANADIAN AVIATION HISTORICAL SOCIETY, Volume 34, No.2, Summer 1996) demonstrated chapter and verse how Bishop had embellished an account of one action from Combat Report to letter home to his own book. In "The Early Morning Hours of 2 June 1917" (OVER THE FRONT, Volume 10 No.3, Fall 1995) Markham showed how shaky is the evidence on which rests his VC award. Ben Greenhous (THE MAKING OF

BILLY BISHOP) drew statistical comparisons showing how Bishop's victories were more likely to be claimed on lone patrols than when there were witnesses about - and also pointed out that Bishop wore a campaign medal to which he was not entitled.

Publication of THE MAKING OF BILLY BISHOP last spring provoked a debate on this Forum which has now fallen off and is presumably in the Aerodrome Archives. Some contributions were long on passion and short on reason. Others were more weighty. Wayne Ralph found the case against Bishop (as per the events of 2 June 1917) was unconvincing - yet he concluded that Greenhous was right on the money when it came to Bishop subsequently padding his score.

25 November 2002, 01:09 PM	#27 (permalink)
Hugh_A._Halliday Scout Pilot Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 300	"The charge against Bishop is solely that his statements do not match the personnel and equipment loss records of Central Powers Air Forces". If only it were so. Phil Markham, in "A Flight of Fancy" (JOURNAL OF THE CANADIAN AVIATION HISTORICAL SOCIETY, Volume 34, No.2, Summer 1996) demonstrated chapter and verse how Bishop had embellished an account of one action from Combat Report to letter home to his own book. In "The Early Morning Hours of 2 June 1917" (OVER THE FRONT, Volume 10 No.3, Fall 1995) Markham showed how shaky is the evidence on which rests his VC award. Ben Greenhous (THE MAKING OF BILLY BISHOP) drew statistical comparisons showing how Bishop's victories were more likely to be claimed on lone patrols than when there were witnesses about - and also pointed out that Bishop wore a campaign medal to which he was not entitled. Publication of THE MAKING OF BILLY BISHOP last spring provoked a debate on this Forum which has now fallen off and is presumably in the Aerodrome Archives. Some contributions were long on passion and short on reason. Others were more weighty. Wayne Ralph found the case against Bishop (as per the events of 2 June 1917) was unconvincing - yet he concluded that Greenhous was right on the money when it came to Bishop subsequently padding his score.