Billy Bishop: 'Liar and Cheat'

[Dave_Kent]

Hello:

I suppose that one more opinion can't hurt so here goes.

IF Bishop faked the results of the raid, (please note the wording), I believe that it was neither pre planned or had anything to do with a desire to win a V.C..

IF Bishop faked the results of the raid, then I think it went something like this:

1. Bishop announces his intention to attack a German airfield.
2. Bishop gets up one morning to do it.
3. Bishop invites Fry to join the attack, but Fry declines.
4. Bishop takes off and flies to a German airfield, only to find it empty.

Now what does Bishop do ?

I believe that he only has 3 choices:
(a) look for another German airfield to attack
(B) go home
© land somewhere and fake the damage

The obvious choice is to do what Bishop claims he did, (a), look for another airfield.

But what if he does not find one, or one that is not empty ?

Now he only has 2 choices. Had Fry been with him, they could have returned to their airfield. They would certainly have been the focus of some good natured kidding, but it is unlikely that their word would have been doubted.

But Bishop was alone. How could HE go back and tell his squadron that he couldn't find a single Hun on the ground anywhere ? Who would believe him ? How many would suspect that he had just flown around France and not gone anywhere near the Front ?

If Bishop faked the results of the raid it was not to win a decoration, but simply to protect his honour or ego. He would have felt forced to take a desperate chance, the only one he had left, to avoid the embarrassment, humiliation and ridicule that he believed awaited his failure.

However, EVEN IF Bishop faked the results of the raid, and providing that he did not know in advance that the German airfield was empty, there might be justification for awarding the V.C.. The decoration is given for courage. Bishop amply demonstrated this through his solo trip to the German airfield. He knew the risks and was prepared to face them. "The audace of it" was sufficient, the results were, at best, of secondary importance.

Dave

[Ron_F]

interesting theory Dave,

but, BB wanted to do it, come rain or shine. if he had gone and found nothing. so what? he's gone on patrols before without action. chances are, IMOHO, i would try it for it again and again until i got them napping. or until info suggested they were waiting for lone attackers... etc.

who knows what his motives were, IF he faked it. IF.

[Ginger.]

Nice shoot yourself in the foot theory.
The VC is not given for showing courage, else they would all have got one. It is given for acts of extraordinary courage, above and beyond the call of duty, that must, for the decoration to be awarded, be witnessed.
The fact that Bishop recieved the VC in such circumstances is a slap in the face for men of the calibre of Ball, McCudden and Mannock.

Nice shoot yourself in the foot theory.
The VC is not given for showing courage, else they would all have got one. It is given for acts of extraordinary courage, above and beyond the call of duty, that must, for the decoration to be awarded, be witnessed.
The fact that Bishop recieved the VC in such circumstances is a slap in the face for men of the calibre of Ball, McCudden and Mannock.

Nice theory Ginger (that the VC effort needs to be witnessed), but the VC doesn't need to be witnessed in order to be awarded. That point has already been highlighted in this discussion.

[Tom_Cervo]

Nice theory Ginger (that the VC effort needs to be witnessed), but the VC doesn't need to be witnessed in order to be awarded. *That point has already been highlighted in this discussion.

Indeed?
I realize that it can be roundabout--a VC was awarded on the basis of testimony from ENEMY personnel--but there's a story now that a couple of SAS troopers in Afghanistan lack OFFICER witnesses of their actions, and may not get the VC. I can't see that lasting long in Blair's Britain, but there has to be something other than "Personal evidence only" for the ultimate award.
Except, of course, in the case that proves the rule.

[Ginger.]

Sounds a bit rum to me Steven.
A Spitfire pilot joined up with five aircraft during the B of B then realised the were 109s, one by one he nobbled them till he got all five.
Pretty good candidate for the VC, if only to boost morale in the darkest hour?
No one else saw this action and he was not credited with any of them, sounds a tad unfair, but then it's a cruel world!

[Richard_Schrader]

Ginger;
The Spitfire story sounds a bit rum to me.

Richard

[Ginger.]

Thank you Richard, almost sounds like a flight of fantasy, does it not my learned friends?
The prosecution rests it's case.

[EARTHLING]

I apologise for entering the fray with my limited information and repeating my puzzlement as to why our hero never seemed to encounter a Fokker DR1 during his three weeks stay with 85 Squadron. I hardly like to say commanded as he does not appear to have flown with them. A little harsh this.
In twenty four days he claims to have shot down 25 planes. viz:
8 Albatross D5
4 Pfalz D3
4 Pfalz (no other I.D.)
I find it hard to believe that he did not encounter a Fokker DR1 since his squadron in conjunction with 74 had fights with them.
Did he avoid them? Is there any reference to them in his log book or combat reports which I understand from EW Springs were models of brevity.
You can of course argue that by not claiming any it is proof of the accuracy of his claims.
I just find it remarkable that he appears not to have come across any. I will be happy to apologise if he did but he certainly didn't shoot any down.
I accept that he didn't come across the DV11 as it had not come into general use until late june.
I have always noticed that when I bring this up Albert always refrains from comment.
One further question is to ask if it would be easier to confirm victories if you were the CO?
I must confess that regarding the airfield attack, on Mondays and Tuesdays I believe he did but from Wednesday onwards I begin to have doubts.
I do believe, however, that he was a very brave fellow.
Kind regards
Peter S

[Barrett]

The 5 unconfirmed in the BoB may have gone to Tom Gleave, later best known as one of the early "guinea pigs." In Peter Townsend's "Duel of Eagles" Gleave was not unduly distressed at lack of confirmation, saying, "I know those blighters won't need their rations today" (He may not have said "blighters.")
Break-break.
There is no room for doubt that the VC must be witnessed (unless, of course, the head office decides to ignore the rules.)
From the original warrant:
The VC may be approved by various command echelons "but never without conclusive proof of the performance of the act of bravery for which the claim is made."
The preferred method was "under the eye and command of an admiral or commodore commanding a squadron or detached naval force or of a general commanding a corps or division or brigade..."
Naturally, aviation did not lend itself to such niceties, but Crook's volume describes a few early VCs awarded after the fact because the sufficiency of brass was absent at the time of the action.
When I was at the IWM in the early 80s a discussion arose about unusual VCs. The two I recall being mentioned were The Boy VC (whatever that was) and Bishop. It was stated that BB remained the only recipient based on his own testimony. Since the Brits evidently destroyed the records to recycle paper in WW II, we'll never know fershure...but it doesn't look good.