Billy Bishop: 'Liar and Cheat'

[Wayne Ralph]

Dear Captain Lewis,

The lady that wrote to the National Post on 19 April, the day my letter was published, is named Janet Forsyeth, of Toronto.

I have not attempted to contact her, but perhaps Information Directory, 1-416-555-1212, in Toronto could get her telephone number.

I am sure she would be happy to talk if she can be located.

Wayne Ralph

[Billy_Bishop]

Hi Al,

* * I was just stating that fact and you don't shoot down 52 airplanes, 2 ballons *and share 2 more with the 16 OOC if you are a bad shot.
* *

Oh!! Ok!!



VBR,

Al Lowe

[Billy_Bishop]

Dear Forum,
*Regarding the Caldwell's report (above), I've often wondered, is there anything significant in the fact that it came almost a month after Bishop's mission? Did it serve to confirm Bishop's feat, or was there doubt, even then, as to his veracity?
*Well?

The thing about Caldwell's report, it's obvious that it was in response to a telephone call, either from Wing or brigade HQ. If Caldwell, who was Acting CO at the time due to an injury, Maj. Scott was in hospital, or on medical leave.

IF Caldwell had any doubts, that was his chance to express them and likely stop any medal from being awarded, or at least, delay things even further. So, if he had doubts, why not express them?

The other thing that stands out is the description of the damage, "..17 bullet holes and trailing edge of plane shot away in two bays." My only question would have been WHICH plane? Upper or lower, left or right?

Another thing. Someone, I forget who (conviently I might add) stated that the mechanics had doubts about Bishop's raid on 2 June, 1917. If so, why didn't Sgt. Nicod say so in the article he wrote for Popular Flying in 1935? He didn't you know. Instead he said, "...but he had a very warm time returning to the aerodrome, as his machine was badly damaged by anti-aircraft guns and machine gun fire. There were a dozen bullet holes in the radius of just a few inches just behind his head as he sat in the cock;pit. A miraculous escape."

No mention of doubt. But wonderment at Bishop's "miraculous escape."

VBR,

Al Lowe

[CaptainLewis]

Dear Mr. Ralph,
*Thank you very much for your reply -- I plan to follow up on this. If anything does 'turn up', then I'll make every effort to attend the conference at Winnipeg to meet you and tell you in person; as well as have you autograph my copy of BARKER VC...
* Based on your posts to this thread, it would not surprise me one bit if you are also planning a book on Bishop; further, your focus would not be on the aerodrome raid, just as the Barker you 'fleshed out' was so much more than just a spectacular final mission...

Dear Albert,
*Now, Al, please, are you now going to claim that Caldwell is pro-Bishop? I can give you another point of view concerning his report -- that he was just giving the facts as he knew them and because that was all that was asked of him to do by the higer-ups. How can you honestly say that he would have used this report as an opportunity to debunk Bishop (or, for that matter, support Bishop)? I repeat my question -- why was this report submitted almost one month after the fact? Was it simply to be used as more support for Bishop's decorations/commendations?

*If you are going to bring up the mechanics, why not also cite what Fry had to say about them -- as well as his own observations -- regarding the damage to Bishop's Nieuport?

*Further, on your webpage, about a year ago, you cited a German aviator who said that Bishop's raid was (supposedly) common knowledge. Could you possibly elaborate on this? Or has this account been discounted?

* Lastly, please forgive any aggressive 'tone' that this post might imply (or you might infer) -- I'm not trying to prod you. That was the "old" Al; the "new" Al is much more reasonable. You've shown this by your reply to my post concerning Libby.

* (But I must admit, the "old" Al was a helluva lot more fun; just the mention of Bishop, and all hell broke loose!)

* *Now I'm off to celebrate Russian Easter -- God Bless you, Leo, and Mother Russia, too!

VBR,
Captain Lewis

[Tom_Cervo]

Al Lowe :
"The thing about Caldwell's report, it's obvious that it was in response to a telephone call, either from Wing or brigade HQ. *If Caldwell, who was Acting CO at the time due to an injury, Maj. Scott was in hospital, or on medical leave.

IF Caldwell had any doubts, that was his chance to express them and likely stop any medal from being awarded, or at least, delay things even further. *So, if he had doubts, why not express them?"


He did. Take a look at item 2.
I won't even bring up the accounts which state that Horn took off with two others to look over the damaged airfield, or reports from balloon companies or observation squadrons. The sole basis for the report and the claims was "Personal evidence only". Since the VC was never awarded on such a basis, those words would rule out the award of a VC--or should have.
(Too bad they didn't. Bishop would have probably gotten a bar to the MC and we wouldn't be arguing over this. And it would not have diminished the man in the slightest.)

I'm sure that there are examples of "mute witness"--a soldier found dead at his post, the evidence of a ferocious lone firefight all around him, but no officer witness, no VC.

The animus against Bishop is his lonely status as the only man awarded a VC on his own say so. Jerrard did nothing to forward his own VC; he was a POW and knew nothing of it. After the war he was asked if under the circumstances he thought was entitled to it. He referred the questioner to the officers who wrote the citation, since he had little memory of the event. (That seems to be the case with Barker as well--little memory, and unconscious of the award he was pushed for.) From all accounts, including the Austrian ones, Jerrard was in the middle of a deadly fight and spent some of it soaked in gasoline, but he fought all the way down--he deserved something for that fight.

[SEDieter]

This weekend, the Laurier Centre for Military Strategic and Disarmament Studies and the University of Waterloo hosted the 13th Military History Colloquium.

Not surprisingly, one of the hot topics of discussion around the coffee table was The Making of Billy Bishop. Many of the conference particpants were keen to hear my views - especiaaly once they saw my bound galleys of the book!

No formal panel or paper was presented on the topc. Interestingly enough, the Keynote address dealt with Lord Beaverbrook. Interesting to note: Beaverbrook was unhappy with the status of Canadian unit War Diaries and indicated that they needed to be "filled" to reflect the operations of the Canadian units.

As I was listening to my good friend deliver this speech, I thought to myself, "Hmm. Did Beaverbrook fabricate things?" Mind you, Beaverbrook was in a position where volumes of information were key to his role as "Eyewitness", and to publications like "Canada in Flanders."

[Billy_Bishop]

Dear Albert,
*Now, Al, please, are you now going to claim that Caldwell is pro-Bishop? I can give you another point of view concerning his report -- that he was just giving the facts as he knew them and because that was all that was asked of him to do by the higer-ups. How can you honestly say that he would have used this report as an opportunity to debunk Bishop (or, for that matter, support Bishop)? I repeat my question -- why was this report submitted almost one month after the fact? Was it simply to be used as more support for Bishop's decorations/commendations?

*If you are going to bring up the mechanics, why not also cite what Fry had to say about them -- as well as his own observations -- regarding the damage to Bishop's Nieuport?

*Further, on your webpage, about a year ago, you cited a German aviator who said that Bishop's raid was (supposedly) common knowledge. Could you possibly elaborate on this? Or has this account been discounted?

* Lastly, please forgive any aggressive 'tone' that this post might imply (or you might infer) -- I'm not trying to prod you. That was the "old" Al; the "new" Al is much more reasonable. You've shown this by your reply to my post concerning Libby.

* (But I must admit, the "old" Al was a helluva lot more fun; just the mention of Bishop, and all hell broke loose!)

* *Now I'm off to celebrate Russian Easter -- God Bless you, Leo, and Mother Russia, too!

VBR,
Captain Lewis

Dear Captain Lewis,

The report from Capt. Caldwell came almost a month later, as it was in response to a phone call, from the day of Capt. Caldwell's report! To which, Capt. Caldwell's report starts out thusly:

"Reference our telepone conversation of to-day. Herewith information as requested:"

THAT is why the report was made when it was.

As for what the report was for, I'd say it was likely part of the 2+ month long investigation as to whether or not the VC was warranted for Bishop's actions. But since Capt. Caldwell didn't write down the conversation in detail, I doubt we'll know for sure.

As to whether or not Capt. Caldwell was pro or anti-Bishop, later correspondence suggests that his attitude of doubting Bishop only came AFTER the war, when things did not match. How far after? I have no idea. The comments he made came out in 1977, and there he stated his doubts because of a lack of corroboration with German records. I find this funny, since not all of his matched German records either.

In either event, I think from that, and from earlier articles it is clear that Capt. Caldwell didn't express any doubts about Bishop until around 1977.

As to the evidence being personal evidence only, I'm of the opinion that the people investigating the award found the evidence they were looking for. Unfortunately, we'll never know for sure since the information was destroyed either during the war, or during the "housekeeping" that was done from time to time to reduce the amount of paperwork being stored.

As for Fry's remarks about the mechanics, where do you suppose the inspiration behind my remark of "Another thing. Someone, I forget who (conviently I might add) stated that the mechanics had doubts about Bishop's raid on 2 June, 1917." came from???

With regard to the "award on his say so" routine, I still think there were witnesses, those witnesses were interrogated and the information stored with the rest of the paperwork....until some bureaucrat came along and destroyed it all, thinking it would not be important!!

I can't prove I'm right, but no one can prove I'm wrong either.

VBR,

Al Lowe
(Now, where did I put those other drums for the Lewis??)

[Billy_Bishop]

Oh, regarding the German Rumpler pilot, Otto Roosen, others have said his testimony is of no consequence, but I have yet to find any fault with it.

VBR,

Al Lowe

[Billy_Bishop]

Al Lowe :
"The thing about Caldwell's report, it's obvious that it was in response to a telephone call, either from Wing or brigade HQ. *If Caldwell, who was Acting CO at the time due to an injury, Maj. Scott was in hospital, or on medical leave.

IF Caldwell had any doubts, that was his chance to express them and likely stop any medal from being awarded, or at least, delay things even further. *So, if he had doubts, why not express them?"


He did. Take a look at item 2.
I won't even bring up the accounts which state that Horn took off with two others to look over the damaged airfield, or reports from balloon companies or observation squadrons. The sole basis for the report and the claims was "Personal evidence only". Since the VC was never awarded on such a basis, those words would rule out the award of a VC--or should have.
(Too bad they didn't. Bishop would have probably gotten a bar to the MC and we wouldn't be arguing over this. And it would not have diminished the man in the slightest.)

ALL that Capt. Caldwell's report shows is he answered questions put to him on the phone EARLIER that day. There are NO obvious signs of any doubts he may have had personally. His responses were short and to the point, no more, no less.

As for the rest, see my responses prior to this one.

VBR,

Al Lowe

[CaptainLewis]

Dear Al,
Thank you for the thoughtful reply; I'm more than willing to accept that Caldwell was being asked for factual support for a decoration/commendation. Sorry, but I did miss your obtuse reference to Fry... I plan to bring him up later, but for now, a pause, while I relate something about Barker's VC (which will at the very least show that I've read Ralph's book):

Barker, in my opinion, was a most reluctant VC recipient; the fact is, he considered his final dogfight as a failure on his part, or, at the very least, a serious lapse of his 'situational awareness'.

It's not a question of how many he actually shot down, or whether or not he took on 15 or 30 or the now mythic "60" -- it was a matter that he had allowed an HA get on and under his tail (while he was busy with the two-seater) and then severely wound him (shooting away his elbow)...

We may look upon his combat as a heroic event -- the Canadian newspapers certainly did (and some of their reporting may even have crept into the VC recommendation) -- the point being, Barker NEVER did; there may even have been an element of disgust with himself (but now I'm giving my opinion)...

Returning to Bishop, a point of contention will always be the lack of witnesses; I wasn't aware that the VC had to have OFFICERS as said witnesses. It reminds me of the French's confirmation system -- wasn't an officer (or two?!?) required to witness a combat for verification? (Hmmm, what happens if you're a Sous-Lieutenant leading a flight of Sergeant-Pilotes, well behind Hun lines? You confirm their victories, but they can't confirm yours?)...

Obviosly, Al, the only way this controversy will ever be settled is for you and whomever to meet at the Winnipeg conference and duke it out with boxing gloves behind one of the hangars (I wouldn't be surprised if one of the hangars was already relegated for this purpose). I'd be more than happy to engage in said fisticuffs, but ONLY if Halliday would be the referee...

VBR,
Capt. "Battler" Lewis

(Reminds me of the Python sketch, wherein "God exists, two falls out of three.")