Billy Bishop: 'Liar and Cheat'

[leo]

I have just returned from a visit to Toronto and Canada. I discussed the book with several people I considered to be informed and thoughtful individuals. They, like myself, see nothing new or credible in this new "work".

[SEDieter]

Leo,

Wish I had known you were in Toronto. I'm only an hour away and would have loved an opportunity to meet, and if possible discuss this topic.

[Ron_F]

Leo,

ill ask, as someone surely will:
what did these 'informed and thoughtful individuals' have to contradict what the blasphemer.. er, writer had to say about BB? :

any evidence? cuz im sure someone will ask....

[MilesC]

A lot of Phillip Markham's CnC article on the Bishop affair dealt with the technical details of the Nieuport 17 scout aircraft. However, he really needn't have gone to so much effort (granted he checked a lot of details to avoid a mistake) for Estourmel and the other Cambrai aerodromes were well within the range of the Nie 17. Bishop's base was at Filescamp Farm near Izel-le-Hameau (due W of Arras) and is only 35 miles due west of the town and aerodrome of Estourmel (just E of Cambrai). This distance is slightly closer for Awoignt and presumably a bit farther for Esnes. At the maximum rated speed of 100 mph for the Nie 17 it would take only 21 minutes to fly direct from one location to the other. Double that for the round trip gives only 42 minutes of transit time. The Canadian National Air Museum data gives the Nie 17 with a flying time of 90 mintues. With roughly 90 minutes of flying time this would have left Bishop with another 48 minutes to get lost, find several aerodromes, shoot one up, land, take-off, etc.

If you calculate it as distance rather than flying time then: the Military Aircraft Database and the Canadian National Air Museum give the range of the Nie 17 as 250 km (156 miles). So Bishop had 70 miles of transit flying, leaving roughly 86 miles in which to do everything he said he did.

This seems to be more than adequate. I will have to find my copy of Markham's article to review it as well.

Miles

[Ginger.]

Here are my thoughts, for what they are worth, on Billy Bishop.
He had worked out the punchline to the joke that war is better than most. He determined that if he got through it he wanted something back, that being advancement and glory.
Liar and cheat, I think he was, but a very brave one.
How's that for sitting on the fence.

[Billy_Bishop]

Well Ginger, that's not really on the fence. You're actually sitting just inside it, on the opposite side from me.

That is pretty much Ben Greenhous' stance. One of the reasons he refers to Bishop as "Brave flyer, Bold Liar." Which WAS going to be the name of his current book, at one time.

See I still can't work out all these other fellows who have come forward and told what they have. And in at least one case, Townsend told his story BEFORE the proverbial horse manure hit the oscillating wind machine.

LONG before there was a controversy, people have told how Bishop's VC flight was confirmed. Quentin Reynolds, Arch Whitehouse, George Drew. Even if you dis these guys as NOT being historians, you have to listen to what they said with a little bit of wonder.

Then, add to that, the words of Phil Townsend, George Stirret and Otto Roosen. If you ask me, the testimony is a bit over whelmiing.

Yeah, I know, neither Drew, Reynolds, nor Whitehouse bothered to mention their sources. Back then, hardly ANYONE did. I don't think anyone back then thought their writing would undergo the scrutiny it has today. By contrast, in Knights of the Air, David Bashow has 156 footnotes for Chapter 4 alone.

In the end, Ginger, you are entitled to your opinion. If you consider Bishop a "brave flyer and a bold liar," then good for you.

I just happen to disagree.

VBR,

Al Lowe

[Hugh_A._Halliday]

Subjects listed alphabetically to get your attention. I contribute the following without comment, from today's LONDON (Ontario) FREE PRESS:

May 1, 2002

Analysing flak in Billy Bishop dogfight

By MARK RICHARDSON -- For the London Free Press

There is nothing like a little research to get in the way of a good prejudice.

Early last week I was about to set my journalistic sights on the cranky critic of one of this country's greatest heroes, Billy Bishop, when something seemed to upset my vision. It may have even been the facts.

William Avery Bishop, VC, is a Canadian icon. His record of 72 enemy aircraft shot down placed him among the top 10 aces of the First World War and was the highest total of any Commonwealth fighter pilot.

His boyhood home in Owen Sound is a national historic site and there is a peak in the Rockies named after him. The headquarters of the Air Force in Winnipeg is named for him, too, as are Legion halls, schools, air cadet squadrons and a museum. His medals are in the Canadian War Museum.

However, The Making of Billy Bishop, a new book by military historian Brereton (Ben) Greenhous, may tarnish them.

Although the book does not come out till June, Greenhous is already taking flak: Canadian Alliance MP Peter Goldring and former defence minister Barney Danson, for example, have criticized the Canada Council's funding of his research. Bishop's son, Arthur, claimed in an interview the Greenhous book says nothing new and is "all bull****."

Even John Gray, author of the irreverent award-winning play, Billy Bishop Goes to War, accused Greenhous of being a publicity-seeking bone-picker.

Why the fuss? Because Greenhous claims Bishop was a liar and a fraud. According to Greenhous, young Billy padded his list of 72 victories and invented the dawn raid on a German airfield in June, 1917, that won him the Victoria Cross, the Commonwealth's highest decoration for valour.

Until last week, I was prepared to join the chorus of Greenhous detractors. While a library science student at the University of Western Ontario, I did a co-op term at the Department of National Defence's Directorate of History, where Greenhous helped write official histories of Canada's military before retiring in 1996.

Greenhous, I know, likes to push buttons. He burst my Churchill balloon by saying when it came to racism, the former British prime minister occupied the same moral plateau as Hitler. Later, he shot down my comment about democracy being good because it allows compromise by saying, "it forces us to compromise."

At a staff lunch he even offered lightly that, with AIDS, God got it right for once because usually it is the innocent who suffer. Turning to me he said, "I'm not shocking you, am I?"

He wasn't, but he had certainly established himself as a pain, so when news of his book broke, I was more than ready to take aim. Unfortunately for me, however, I discovered Greenhous knows how to write.

With the book unavailable, I turned to his 1989 article in the Canadian Historical Review for ammunition. The Sad Case of Billy Bishop, VC tends to be cited by Bishop admirers as evidence of Greenhous's ill will, so for the first time I read some of his work.

To my surprise, the article was even-handed. It trashes the National Film Board's The Kid Who Couldn't Miss for being a "sloppy, sleazy piece of (history)," for example, but acknowledges it was an "an artistic triumph."

It generously describes one defender of Bishop as a devoted worker for veterans' causes, even though the defender's book was a "curious compendium." Greenhous even says journalist Dan McCaffery's 1988 book on Bishop "gets closer to reality than any previous work."

So what happened to the irritating Greenhous effect?

In his article, Greenhous points out something his critics -- including me -- tend to forget. Quoting McCaffrey's question, "Was Billy Bishop a hero or a liar?" Greenhous adds, "Surely it is not an either/or question, since a man can be both."

We will never know for sure whether Billy Bishop lied about his dawn raid of June 1917, but I learned one thing this week.

A man can be both good and bad.

[leo]

I would mot have been able to meet this last trip, but I expect to be in Toronto for the EX this Summer. Could we meet then?

My contacts felt the book offered nothing new and that since it did not prove anything that Bishops claims should stand until they are proven to be untrue. As Mr. Lowe has often said,"There is no proof that Bishop's claims are not true".

[Michael]

Leo, keep me posted as to your Ex trip, since I'm also 30 minutes away. Perhaps we can set up a Forum get-together.

[dpcmodels]

Hello All,
* *I have been reading this thread with great interest. I wish to state up front that I'm neither
for or against what has been said about B.Bishop.

What really matters is and that almost everyone forgets... the final goal of winning the war was achieved. It didn't matter how. (my view)

I don't believe anyone here on the forum (myself included) can fully understand what kind of stress was inflicted on the pilots of WW-1 on either side.
They had to undergo pressure from headquarters, their fellow pilots, problems at home, the daily routine of fighting and mostly, the public press. It seems that we forget about those facts. It doesn't matter if the events took place. Quote from the british film "Ace's High"- " play the game for the gamesake".

That quote opens a broad range that I myself feel
this thread falls into. Who is to say the events took place or not. It just doesn't matter. I'm sure I'll collect a lot of flack for my statements but I stand behind my own beliefs and I'm sure everyone else
stands behind their own as well.

While the books written by the great aces may be peppered with truths, half-truths, false claims, claims.......I see no point in taking a personal attack
on any one pilot. I do however, admire all the pilots in WW-1, not only for their efforts during the war but also a peak into their personal lives. No one told them to write a book for us. Sure, some do read like a glamorous fairy tail, but you have to ask yourself...Where would you be today had it not been for their wonderful work?

To me, the real issue about this thread is of someone taking a personal shot (for reasons unknown) on a man who has my respect for his courage and as a human being. With that being said, I'll leave you all one final statement..."History is cruel no matter how you look at it".

Dave *;D