I have retrieved Mr. Dieter's message of 16 April. I sent no reply because none was required (unless he felt for some reason that he needed my blessing for his decision to wait a week).
Now let me get this straight. Mr. Dieter's review of THE MAKING OF
BILLY BISHOP (Globe and Mail, 25 May 2002) says, in part: "Of note is the reference to Bishop's squadron commander during his last days of service in 1917, in which a periodical is SEVERELY MISQUOTED". (I have added the emphasis).
The "severe misquotation" turns out not to be a quotation at all. Greenhouse cites (not quotes) a particular article which identifies the new CO of No.60 Squadron (the only words quoted are Trenchard's assessment of this man). To be precise, the passage as written by Greenhous that Mr.Dieter deems so reprehensible reads:
"His [Scott's] replacement was a newly-promoted twenty-one year old, Major W.J.C. Kennedy-Cochrane-Patrick, MC, considered by Trenchard to be ‘the most brilliant pilot at the front.'"
The Greenhous "sin" is that CROSS AND COCKADE identifies the CO as "Pat" Cochrane-Patrick, whereas Greenhous identifies him as W.J.C. Kennedy-Cochrane-Patrick.
This is a "severe misquotation" ?
Rather it is simply to give to the CO his proper name, which is William John Charles Kennedy-Cochrane-Patrick, as given in the LONDON GAZETTE of 16 April 1916 (gazetting of MC), 6 August 1917 (gazetting of Bar to MC), and 17 September 1917 (gazetting of DSO). I believe this is also the rendering as given in the obituary published in AEROPLANE, 4 October 1933.
"Severely misquoted" indeed !
For a reviewer who wrote piously of being "fair" and was critical of those who "pick up this work and carry the grudge going into page one", Mr. Dieter exhibits qualities quite the reverse of those he espouses. Although he expresses an ambition to be a historian ("hopeful historian"), his resort to misrepresentation of Greenhous in the review demonstrates that he is still rooted in his former role as "Historian of the Billy Bishop Heritage Museum." Wayne Ralph (another reviewer) at least had nothing personal at stake when he wrote about THE MAKING OF BILLY BISHOP.
"I do not know LCol Bashow's educational qualifications so I cannot comment on that, other than that he is a professor of History at RMC"
I am surprised Mr.Dieter is unfamiliar with Cololnel Bashow's educational qualifications, as I have been given to understand that he is enrolled in the RMC War Studies programme. They are, for the record, BA and MA.
Nevertheless, my question addressed NOT the FORMAL qualifications of Greenhous vs Bashow but the LEVEL OF SCHOLARSHIP exhibited. While both men use some common secondary sources (Fry.Scott, etc), does it not say something of the scholarship when Greenhous cites numerous primary sources (AIR 1 records, contemporary letters written by Bishop) whilst the relevant Bishop chapter in KNIGHTS OF THE AIR is based almost wholly on secondary sources, some of which (like Arch Whitehouse, cited twice) are truly laughable ? Indeed, Chapter 4 of KNIGHTS OF THE AIR, in 156 endnotes, acknowledges primary sources only twice (endnote 8 refers to RMC Standing Orders of 1911; endnote 80 refers to AIR 1/1555/204/79/75, itself already noted by Phil Markham).