Billy Bishop: 'Liar and Cheat'

TVO's "Studio 2" will include a 15-minute debate between Grennhous and Bashow. The program can be viewed (by those with access to TVO) at 8.00 p.m. EDT this night (24 May); the program is repeated at 11.00 or 11.30 and at some point in the wee hours of Saturday morning.

No matter which way this argument swings, Billy Bishop, joined up, flew and fought. Maybe he did all the deeds that he said he had done, may be he did not. He did his duty. He was a brave man.

Old Bill

I caught the Studio 2 piece on Friday night. It was interesting.

I wasn't able to hear Wayne's review. I certainly hope that it went well.

My reviews of The Making of Billy Bishop ran this weekend in the Books Section of The Globe and Mail as well as in the Kitchener-Waterloo newspaper The Record.

The review from The Globe and Mail can be viewed on-line at www.globeandmail.com/thearts . I'll update this link as the article gets moved off the main page.

yes voss did lose that engagement but look at what he accomplished out of it, 2 kills i beleive, several planes were writtin off, 1 sent home. 10 minutes of fighting then he finally caught it.

THE LEGEND

[Billy_Bishop]

yes voss did lose that engagement but look at what he accomplished out of it, 2 kills i beleive, several planes were writtin off, 1 sent home. * 10 minutes of fighting then he finally caught it.

THE LEGEND

But he did lose in the end. That is my point.

VBR,

Al Lowe

[MilesC]

Oh heck, Steven is too modest, here is his review from Globe and Mail:
-------------------------------------------------------
Historian v. Billy Bishop: case not proved

By STEVEN DIETER

Saturday, May 25, 2002



The Making of Billy Bishop

By Brereton Greenhous

Dundurn, 232 pages, $29.99

When word of this controversial book about Great War flying ace Billy Bishop hit the news several weeks ago, people were aghast that the author, former Department of National Defence historian Brereton Greenhous, could make accusations about one of our nation's heroes. Reading this book, Canadians won't find much to support his claims that Bishop was a bold, consummate liar about the mission for which he received the British Empire's highest military decoration, the Victoria Cross.

This isn't the first time Greenhous has written negatively about Bishop. In 1989, he wrote an article for the periodical Canadian Historical Review, stating that Bishop's record was largely composed of unsupported claims. This book continues that line of thought, arguing that Bishop's career was one of flukes, lucky breaks and propagandistic desires.

According to the history books, Billy Bishop, a 23-year-old Canadian pilot with 22 victories to his credit by this time, took off from his airfield in the dark hours of June 2, 1917. His mission was to attack a German aerodrome at dawn, generally considered a time when aircraft would be most vulnerable to attack as they were being rolled out for the day's first flights. Bishop was flying alone that morning despite attempts to persuade colleagues to join him. Locating an aerodrome with its planes and pilots preparing for first flight, Bishop attacked, shooting down three aircraft before returning to his home base.

On his return, Bishop filed a combat report identifying as clearly as possible the location of the attack, the damage inflicted and the enemy aircraft engaged. This report, along with a recommendation for the Victoria Cross from his squadron commander, would make its way to the higher formations of the Royal Flying Corps for review. After nine weeks of investigation, Bishop was notified that he would receive the Victoria Cross from King George V.

Greenhous attempts to establish that Bishop's Great War military career was based on fibs, exaggerations and bold lies. The dawn attack is central to his thesis that this mission did not occur as the combat report indicates. What is ironic is that the author himself supports portions of this same report. He spends several pages evaluating various paths Bishop might have flown that morning. If the mission never occurred and the report was a complete fabrication, why try to identify a flight path that supports it?

Considerable space (roughly two chapters) is expended to examine each of Bishop's 72 career victories, raising questions about eyewitness accounts -- or absence of same. This is quite impressive, given that most books simply rattle off the victories like a laundry list. Regrettably, as Greenhous acknowledges, there is a lack of accurate records from the period.

The book does, however, raise some interesting questions. For example, Bishop wore, as part of his military medals, the 1914-15 Star. This was awarded to military personnel who fought in France during those years. Bishop, however, didn't arrive in France as part of the Royal Flying Corps until two weeks into 1916. That Bishop wasn't awarded this medal is supported by documents at the National Archives of Canada.

Is there enough information to support Greenhous's main thesis? He makes extensive use of Bishop's original combat reports and letters home to various family members. He also offers information from some German weekly air activity reports. Their lack of corroborating information is a key support of his claim that Bishop couldn't have achieved the victories he claimed. In the end, the lack of information to prove Bishop's claims is the same lack of evidence supporting Greenhous's thesis.

[MilesC]

Part II
________________________________________
This is evident in many of the reports and war diaries of the Great War. Certainly those serving in 1917 could appreciate the context in which reports like Bishop's were written and filed. It is not inconceivable that many of the participants exaggerated or dim-inished aspects of their activities in reports or memories.

This inconsistency of information does not account for the errors and omissions in the book. Of note is the reference to Bishop's squadron commander during his last days of service in 1917, in which a periodical is severely misquoted. Several other passages lack footnoting adequate to allow the reader to review the source of the information.

Despite these faults, the book is a good read and does raise some interesting questions. In the end, it will be up to the reader to decide if Greenhous has proved his case. I am not convinced that he has.

There is one key point most people will agree to, which is that Bishop, and all flyers of that period, certainly were brave. Even Greenhous concedes that.

Interested readers should look at Billy Bishop's autobiography, Winged Warfare, recently rereleased. Other biographies include Arthur Bishop's life of his father, The Courage of the Early Morning (1965), Dan McCaffery's Billy Bishop: Canadian Hero (1988) and David Bashow's chapter on Bishop in Knights of the Air (2000).
Steven Dieter is a graduate student in the War Studies Program at the Royal Military College of Canada. He is the former historian of the Billy Bishop Museum in Owen Sound, Ont.

Many thanks Miles. You didn't say, however, what you thought of the review.

I haven't posted any of my writings(my Op-ed and Book review from The Record) I guess out of modesty.

As a side point, The Record ran an editorial on 16 May, just after the Canadian government declared Bishop's boyhood home (now the Billy Bishop Museum). My Op-Ed is referred to in it. This Editorial is on The Record's website.

[MilesC]

Steven,

I wasn't posting your editorial to express my opinion about it, merely as a service to my fellow forumites (and for posterity, now I know it will be archived somewhere ). However, as you asked, it was very helpful. It is good to know that Mr Greenhous has at least consolidated a bunch of information on the topic. I have been considering an analysis of this data for my own website for some time now, I've just been too hesitant to attempt it for fear of attracting a lot of attention from both camps and getting dragged into the morass of the arguments. :

Miles

Now that everyone has read the book, have we any personal FORUMITE reviews ?

Incidentally, Stephen Dieter in his review said, "This inconsistency of information does not account for the errors and omissions in the book. Of note is the reference to Bishop's squadron commander during his last days of service in 1917, in which a periodical is severely misquoted. Several other passages lack footnoting adequate to allow the reader to review the source of the information." *It would be useful to know (a) the passage which was "severely misquoted" - how does the quote compare to the original article ? (b) which passages does he believe have been inadequately foot-noted ? © How would he compare the level of scholarship (particularly in primary vs secondary sources) of Greenhous vs others such as McCaffrey or Bashow ?