Billy Bishop Again

Hugh_A._Halliday · 25 November 2002, 11:56 PM

Ed's theory boils down to this - either there was no corroboration and the VC was awarded anyway (in violation of the rules) OR sometime after 30 June they did find corroborative evidence - now lost - and went ahead with it.

In short - a 50/50 chance that there was corroboration.

While much importance is laid in these discussions upon the VC files destroyed after the war, I have noted over the years that important documents very often turn up in several different groups of files - the private papers of General Jones (subsequently donated to some university or archives), diplomatic correspondence between one government and another, the intelligence summaries of one or another Army Corps. *At this moment, Spink is offering at auction (on 5 December) a variety of Combat Reports, formerly the property of an unnamed RAF Station Commander, which are probably hand-written first-drafts of typed CRs in the PRO - just one example of what might be called "documentary slippage".

Given that important documents were often copied into other files, it is peculiar that nothing has been found in less travelled territory to corroborate the Bishop VC account. *The debate that goes forward is a familiar one as the same small pool of information is endlessly debated - a continuing autopsy on an 85-year old corpse, *to which nobody has been able to present a fresh piece of *evidence in all that time.

Vin · 26 November 2002, 12:02 AM

Who keeps tossing up those long hops outside Hugh's leg stump ?

Cheers
Vin

wingedwarrior · 27 November 2002, 02:42 PM

I don't know about the rest of you, but I for one find it extremely awkward having a debate about B.B. without the inclusion of Al!

Regards

Barrett · 28 November 2002, 10:00 AM

I agree, in spades. It ain't natural.
Anybody have a read on Al?

Billy_Bishop · 29 November 2002, 01:48 AM

Suffice it to say, the rumour of my death has been greatly exaggerated.

Now, as for BB, I will be among the first to say that he probably over claimed at least as much as any other WWI pilot did. Let's face it, in a swirling dogfight, how could he NOT overclaim, unless he had a computerized gun camera taking pictures of all of his victims.

As to BB's VC, I think Barrett will bear me out here, there is NO way of knowing whether or not witnesses were ever found to his VC action since all the paper work was destroyed long ago, most likely by bureaucatical cleaning of the records. So, to say "Without a doubt" that BB's VC was unwitnessed, is at least as much of a stretch as it is for me to say that they did find witnesses.

My personal opinion, I think they did. After all, they did wait a little over 2 months before announcing the award. As far as I can tell, that's the longest time for any ACE that was awared the VC for a single action.

As for Dave Johnson's comments, well, everyone is entitled to their opinions, even if they're wrong.

VBR,

Al Lowe

Billy_Bishop · 29 November 2002, 04:31 AM

Quote:

I read BB book when I was about 12,seemed like fiction then,same opinion now

Grant I assume

Sgt Popkin

EVEN BB, did not like Winged Warfare. He couldn't bring himself to read it, which indicates to me, he most likely did not write it.

VBR,

Al Lowe

Billy_Bishop · 29 November 2002, 04:34 AM

Quote:

This is one of many topics where trying to convince another forumite of your position is more difficult than getting water from rocks.

Other topics that are an apparent waste of time include(but are not limited to):
(snipped)

Not to pick on you Kory, but, if you consider it a waste of time, then why bother to post? *Newbies to the forum should be encouraged to post, not discouraged.

Even if you don't like their main subject of interest.

Just my humble opinion.

VBR,

Al Lowe

rammjaeger · 29 November 2002, 05:19 AM

Gerade wurde der schlafende Löwe geweckt ...

Billy_Bishop · 29 November 2002, 05:24 AM

Der schlafende Riese ist aufgewacht.

VBR,

Al

Billy_Bishop · 29 November 2002, 12:33 PM

Quote:

and also pointed out that Bishop wore a campaign medal to which he was not entitled.

What was Greenhous' proof? *Only the tunic that is now on display at the Canadian War Museum. *

How is THAT proof? *Did they take the tunic off Bishop before he was cremated and buried? *Are there any pictures of Bishop in this tunic WITH that medal? *If there are, why aren't they in Greenhous' book?

As for Bishop's telling of his missions in reports versus letters, versus a ghost written book, well, I guess no one has ever tried to impress a girl before. *I guess none of us has ever stretched the truth a little when recounting some event we were involved in?

I have to give Greenhous credit for one thing though. *He may have pointed out someone else's faulty memory when he showed us the records indicating that Bishop's Lewis gun was NOT missing after the 2 June, 1917 flight.

So far as I know, only TWO people EVER mention the missing Lewis gun in print, PRIOR to the so-called controversy. *One was Billy's son, Arthur. *The other, W. Fry, MC.

Has to make you wonder, don't it.

VBR,

Al Lowe