Bishop. New evidence

[Vin]

Was Hugh Trenchard in on it ?

I could see the connection between Bishop and Vimy had the battle been a disaster on the lines of 1 July 1916. But Vimy Ridge was perceived, even at the time, as a triumph. Losses weren't that heavy, given the nature of the objective. Further, Vimy was a marked tactical success, and Canadians knew it.

By comparison, Canadian losses on the Somme were more than twice as heavy as those at Vimy. In percentage terms, Second Ypres and Mount Sorrel were much worse. If Canada could cope with the news of 25,000 casualties in a couple of months of the tactical disaster that was the Somme, I don't see how the nation could be judged to need a made-up hero in the aftermath of 10,000 casualties in a victory so spectacular that it gave the Canadians a reputation as crack offensive troops that endured for the remainder of the war.

And anyway, if someone felt that we needed an airwar hero, why pick on someone like Bishop? In April 1917 he was an unknown quantity. By comparison, A.D. Bell-Irving was a genuine ace, had been wounded in action and was of what passes in Canada for an upper-class family. Granted that in spring 1917 he was serving as an instructor; my point is that there were other Canadian pilots with proven records who could have filled the need for heroes.

I still can't accept that Bishop was the only recipient of such largesse. If there's evidence to suggest that senior RFC officers approved dodgy claims for one pilot, then there must be similar evidence pointing to others.

Who, for example, is the Australian Bishop?

Great thread! I am happy to have see something like a confirmation to something I have suspected for some time now. There was great propaganda value to the RFC. In fact, I think the RFC had a disproportionate impact on decision makers and, as Alex's post shows, eventually those decision makers pointed the air war's propaganda value toward the public. The Fokker Fodder flap points out the impact the air war could have in Paliament. I further suspect that loose claiming by the Brits was one way of boosting numbers that showed the movers and shakers in government that British arms were up to the challenge, despite setbacks on the ground. There was the mention of French and German heroes being played up for the public, let me recommend an article in the July 2003 issue of "War In History." The article, by Tim Cook, points out how Lord Beaverbrook worked overtime in lionizing Canadian troops and their accomplishments (no reference to BB or the RFC). I can't help but wonder if BB was the beneficiary of some of this attention. Why weren't there other heroes created? Perhaps they didn't have Beaverbrook.
DD

[Ginger.]

It does beg the qustion, as to why from all the possible candidates for a 'Nelson's Eye' from the Staff Wallahs, BB still stands out like a blind cobbler's thumb.

[Darryl]

Originally posted by Michael Skeet@Jul 6 2004, 08:56 PM
[b] Who, for example, is the Australian Bishop?

No VC winners......

I really couldn't say..... but he would have to be the sort of man only a brother could love.


Darryl

[Vin]

Originally posted by alex_revell@Jun 29 2004, 11:19 AM
[b] As he was out alone his statement was unconfirmed. He made a fairly graphic description of his combat when he wrote out his report.
Combat reports were of course scrutinised by the Squadron Commander, commented upon if appropriate, and signed. They were then forwarded to Wing for similar treatment, then to Brigade. The Major commented 'Lieutenant B was flying alone and this is unconfirmed’. Wing made a similar comment and passed to Brigade. This was the sort of stuff to satisfy the carping critics in Parliament! Squadron was informed that these victories had been approved.

Is this description of the process accurate ? How was Squadron informed ? If by letter or written communique, who signed the letter/communique ? Who authorised the signing of the letter/communique ? Did this procedure apply to all of Bishop’s claims, or, after a while, did the CO of 60RFC give in and accept as confirmed all of Bishop’s claims ?

Greenhous’ theory is that the confirmations were made by the CO of 60RFC, “Jack” Scott and that his connections with the upper ranks of English society, through his friendship with Lady Mary St Helier, translated his report of the air raid of the German aerodrome in a VC. Whether true or not, Greenhous’ explanation is interesting reading in the context of this thread.

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engraph/Vo...pdf/61-64_e.pdf

Regarding FONCK--
About a year ago, possibly even later, Fonck's autobiographical Ace of Aces came up; according to one of our Forumites from Germany, this book was nothing more than "whole cloth"-- that Fonck, or whoever in fact wrote this book, actually invented a German ace as a worthy opponent...
When I mentioned that a translation might have been at fault, this Forumite was adamant-- this opponent was an invention...
[IIRC, this Forumite was our esteemed Volker Nemsch.]

Regarding MANNOCK--
If you're going to mention Bishop's score or who was the Empire's Ace of Aces, Mannock's name will inevitably come up:
We have as Mannock's tally the number "73" from Ira "Taffy" Jones, recalling the last phone conversation he had with Mannock (in which Mannock gave his score as 73); this is recounted in Jones' book on Mannock The King of the Airfighters (which, I'm afraid, although I haven't read it, strikes me more as hagiography rather than biography)...
That being said--
I've come across a C&C article concerning Louis BENNETT, one of the forgotten aces of the United States, who served in the RAF; in a letter home he mentions having attended a lecture given by Mannock in 1918, in which he mentions that Mannock was "the 75 victory ace" (and adding that when someone has that many victories, it's a good idea to listen to anything that he has to say).

The point being, we don't have to take Jones' word for it-- Mannock's score, whether 73 or 75, was understood to have been that high; by the same token, perhaps it was also understood at the time that Bishop's score was inflated...

Respectfully submitted,
Captain Lewis

PS Language appropriate for the gutter-- someone even offering to give his wife away-- WHAT A THREAD! That it should come to this...

[EARTHLING]

[QUOTE]Mannock The King of the Airfighters (which, I'm afraid, although I haven't read it, strikes me more as hagiography rather than biography)...
That being said--

My dear Captain Lewis how can you know that it might be a hagiography if you have never read it. It is like saying I don't like Budweiser because I've never tasted it.

I have read it more than once and as a true Welshman, Taffy never uses one word where three will do. He freely admits he suffers from hero worship but hagiography is not in my opinion its vice.

It seems to me that we seem to be lacking Al Lowe and this thread delightfully spun by A R has attracted the antis and doubters.

Regards

Earthling formerly Peter S

[Billy_Bishop]

I think I shall with hold comment for now, as anything I say in response to what has been said will undoubtedly piss off some people. And what they say in response to my comments will likely start me on a tirade without end.

I shall simply add, IF this unknown should become known, then it might carry more weight. Until then it is simply the opinion of one more of the many unknown.

[Vin]

Originally posted by Billy_Bishop@Jul 12 2004, 11:45 AM
[b] I think I shall with hold comment for now, as anything I say in response to what has been said will undoubtedly piss off some people. And what they say in response to my comments will likely start me on a tirade without end.

That will depend more upon how rather than what you say, Al. I would most be interested in your views on the issue of process I posed in my post which is dated 7 July at the top of this page. Assuming ordinary courtesy and restraint I promise not to get pissed off by your reply nor to respond in such a way as to reasonably incite a tirade.