Billy Bishop: 'Liar and Cheat'

[Billy_Bishop]

According to one of my sources, one of the things Greenhous used was a letter that Phil Markham supposedly received from Willy Fry in 1994.

What makes this appear special is that Fry died in 1992.

I guess the UK and Canadian postal services aren't so great either.

VBR,

Al

[Tom_Cervo]

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

We can argue the old facts and the old articles again, but I'd like to comment on something he told me that I didn't know.
1. Not being a psychologist, I don't like doing diagnosis, but Bishop seems close to the definition of a pathelogical liar, based on the letters he wrote home compared to the known reality of his war service. EVERYONE changes the truth a bit to favor themselves, but the letters he wrote his fiance seem to lie for the sake of lying. He's not looking for sympathy, or trying to boast--he seems to lie for the sake of lying, knowing that he can never be found out by her.
2. Bishop seemed to have a genius for forming useful attachments. In his earliest war service he joins the socially useful cavalry regiment and *becomes the pet squire of the Colonel's lady. In a hospital he makes the acquaintance of Lady St. Helier--no longer a shadowy type of dotty dowager, but a society hostess on a first name basis with royalty, also introduced to Bishop. His CO is a MFH, and he quickly gets on his good side. He gets some UC Americans to go into 85 Squadron, including EWS, a chap with a checkbook. He may well have loved his wife, but it probably helped that she was Tim Eaton's granddaughter. Bishop may have been one of those likable, lovable chaps who attracted friends wherever he went, but the fact that so many of them were rich or well-connected or both seems to overwhelm coincidence.
3. Bishop seems to have gotten out of a lot of the heavy-lifting in life. Once he gets a flight he's got a friendly CO above him, a senior flight commander for the high jumps and an able deputy to run the flight. Once he gets a squadron he's got similarly able flight commanders to take over while he plays the lone wolf. An Eaton heiress makes civilian life a breeze, and his WW2 service is pretty much that of an honorary Canadian Royal, showing up at graduations and ceremonies while his contemporaries are running an air war or doing the serious training.

It's a pity, really, since a tough CO could have turned him into an effective leader and possibly made a man of him. As it was, Bishop seemed to use the system better than it tried to use him, but toward the end of his life the knowledge of the hollowness of his achievement seemed to dawn on him, based on the reports of his alcohol abuse and his premature death--many of his contemporaries managed to avoid both. Caldwell seemed to feel sorry for him; Caldwell's old age was accompanied by the respect of his colleagues and the admiration of the younger generation that he trained; respect and admiration that he knew that he had earned. Self-knowledge is usually the last thing to come in life, and can be a good or terrible gift.

[Billy_Bishop]

I believe I can take exception to the comment about the alcohol abuse with my own example.

A WWII vet I knew, experienced life in the "rough" as it were. Fighting in the Field artillery with the US Third Army. Now, before everyone goes on about how the FA had it easy, I would remind them that GS Patton was not one to let anyone in his command sit still. Just because you were in the FA, did not mean you were in the rear with the gear.

To prove it, one of many of this particular vet's experiences was patroling the perimeter around his unit's location. On at least four seperate occasions he had cause to use his M1 Carbine to defend himself. Each time causing at least one death among the enemy.

Of course, when called upon, this vet also was part of a 105mm gun crew that would lay in fire support missions when called upon. He told me, he made the mistake one time of "visiting" a town after his unit had shelled it. He never made that mistake again.

To give you an idea of what this man had going for him before he went to France, he and his brother had standing contracts waiting for them with the Cincinnati Reds Baseball team for when they got out of the army. His brother was killed in action at Metz.

He of course did survive the war, but after wards he was in no shape to play professional baseball.

Instead, he came back to the USA, got married, had two children, worked in factories as a blue collar worker, never owned his own home. I don't think he ever had more than $200.00 in the bank at any one time. And he was an alcoholic.

Did he drink because he felt guilty? I don't know. If he did feel guilty, I figure it was for taking human life.

What about Billy Bishop? In his writings, both letters and otherwise he mentions seeing the faces sometimes of his opponents.

As for his writings, I know from different books and letters of others that I have read, you don't always tell loved ones everything. There are things you keep to yourself. Not because you are telling a falsehood. But because you don't think they can take the horror that you have seen. Also because you don't want to relive it as you write it down.

As for Bishop's drinking, I think if you look closer at his life, you'll see it was something he did from his flying times on. And he did not appear to slow down very much either.

Yes, he did die young at 62. I'm told though that he was physically older.

The WWII vet died at 62. They said his heart just stopped. Personally, I think he was just tired of living with the memories.

It's been 24 years now since he died, and I still miss my father, even though we were not that close.

But having lived with him, his drinking and his nightmares, I think I know what Billy Bishop must have gone through.

To call him a liar and a cheat does him a great dis-service.

VBR,

Al Lowe

[Tom_Cervo]

I believe I can take exception to the comment about the alcohol abuse with my own example.

What about Billy Bishop? *In his writings, both letters and otherwise he mentions seeing the faces sometimes of his opponents. *

As for his writings, I know from different books and letters of others that I have read, you don't always tell loved ones everything. *There are things you keep to yourself. *Not because you are telling a falsehood. *But because you don't think they can take the horror that you have seen. *Also because you don't want to relive it as you write it down. *
As for Bishop's drinking, I think if you look closer at his life, you'll see it was something he did from his flying times on. *And he did not appear to slow down very much either.

Yes, he did die young at 62. *I'm told though that he was physically older. *


But having lived with him, his drinking and his nightmares, I think I know what Billy Bishop must have gone through.

To call him a liar and a cheat does him a great dis-service.

VBR,

Al Lowe

Well, the lying started a long time before the fighting did. He was in a fairly comfortable billet in England, and the lies were unnecessary to shield anyone from anything. They were stories for the sake of stories; he lied because he seemed to enjoy lying.
(A minor point here. Even a sympathetic reviewer noted that Bishop awarded himself a 1914-1915 Star that he was not entitled to. Those who earned it did mostly in the most horrific slaughters of the war, amidst privation and exposure. Mike Boorda killed himself partly because he innocently claimed a similar decoration and found out later that it was not his--only suicide could clear the blot on his honor. Military men take such things very seriously. Apparently Bishop did not. By no stretch of the imagination was he entitled to such an award. He wore it anyway.)
As for Bishop's drinking, amateur psychology again. It didn't bother him that much when he was young; his mess parties were enjoyed by many.There's the famous story of a chap trying to play a tune on the old piano in the mess and complaining that the thing was too dry. Not in this mess, said Bishop, pouring a bottle of bubbly into the works.
Sorry to hear about your father. At least he seemed to open up to you; mine never said a word about Tarawa, or much else about the war. He never made it to 60 either.
But one thing he never did was cut anyone too much slack when they blamed things on the war, or elicited pity for what happened to them. He was born Canadian, BTW.
There's men who knew better than you, I or Ben Greenhaus what Bishop went through, and we know what they thought of him. To assume that they were liars and cheats is also a great disservice.

(A minor point here. Even a sympathetic reviewer noted that Bishop awarded himself a 1914-1915 Star that he was not entitled to. Those who earned it did mostly in the most horrific slaughters of the war, amidst privation and exposure. Mike Boorda killed himself partly because he innocently claimed a similar decoration and found out later that it was not his--only suicide could clear the blot on his honor. Military men take such things very seriously. Apparently Bishop did not. By no stretch of the imagination was he entitled to such an award. He wore it anyway.)

You note a sympathetic reviewer. Who would that be?

All I said in my review was that Bishop wore the 1914-15 Star - not that he awareded it to himself. It should be noted that there is no proof offered in The Making of Billy Bishop that Bishop awarded himself the Star, despite the author?s blatant allegations of this act.

[Billy_Bishop]

Who elicited pity for what happened to them in the war? *I've never read that Bishop did this. *

As for Greenhous' book, I'll only refer to a comment someone made to me in email.

"I have never seen so many unsubstantiated conclusions and leaps of logic in my life. If that was an undergraduate history student paper written for me, I would have given it an "F", just for total lack of objectivity."

As for my father, he only started telling me the unvarnished stories after my very first shooting incident when I was working as a security officer in Chicago. *I went to visit my parents that weekend and to sort of put things in perspective. *I guess when my nightmares woke me up that first night, he realized we had a little bit more in common, and started talking about the things that happened to him in 1944-45. *The not so funny things that is. *The funny stories had already been told.

In any event, as I've discovered in my readings, there were MANY men on both sides of the fence who knew Billy Bishop. *There are those who swore by him, and those who swore at him. *Since they're all dead now, they're now swearing anymore.

VBR,

Al Lowe

[Tom_Cervo]

You note a sympathetic reviewer. *Who would that be?

All I said in my review was that Bishop wore the 1914-15 Star - not that he awareded it to himself. *It should be noted that there is no proof offered in The Making of Billy Bishop that Bishop awarded himself the Star, despite the author?s blatant allegations of this act.

I understand.
It was on his uniform.
He did not earn it.
How did it get there?
He, or someone else, put it there. That's MY blatant allegation, as you might put it. Unless there's a clarification of the matter--some enthusiastic museum worker, or a relative, adding it sometime between Bishop's death and the uniform being placed on display--that's what we're left with.
We're left with a Scotch verdict, as you noted: case not proven. A verdict devised, BTW, so that a jury would not have to say that a guilty man, ineptly prosecuted, was innocent.

[EARTHLING]

Why do we have doubts in the case of W Bishop and as far as I am aware nobody else?
By this I mean doubts expressed by fellow flyers.
Al
I do not think it serves any useful purpose, to bring ones personal circumstances into a discussion, unless it is to make us feel guilty.
Why no comment on the lack of Fokker Tripehounds in the record of the three weeks in command of 85 Squadron. Did he never see one?

Regards as always
Peter S

[Tom_Cervo]

.
Why no comment on the lack of Fokker Tripehounds in the record of the three weeks in command of 85 Squadron. Did he never see one?

Regards as always
Peter S

Not all that surprising, since it was fairly old and there weren't all that many of them. The Albatros was the main German fighter in 1918.
The anomaly was Bishop's success as a lone hand against isolated German planes. Greenhaus and others point out that if a German plane was seen alone or in a pair there were usually a few more lurking above using it as bait--by the Spring of 1918 no one was doing solo patrols, it was simply too wasteful.

As of 5 July Al Lowe has still not read THE MAKING OF BILLY BISHOP but is content to accept the opinion of an unidentified correspondent that the book is marked by "unsubstantiated conclusions and leaps of logic" and suffers from a "total lack of objectivity". Are all the Bishopites objective ? Do some not grasp at frail straws ?

Meanwhile, Wayne Ralph (who has read the book) concludes that the case questioning Bishop's veracity as per events of 2 June 1917 are unconvincing. On the other hand, he notes that the VC gave Bishop "credibility invulnerability" (my phrase, not Wayne's), enabling Bishop to run up a very questionable record thereafter - in which field Wayne concludes that THE MAKING OF BILLY BISHOP argues a very strong case.

Having read the book, I side with Greenhous - but largely because I also trust a historian who did more original and thorough research than any other. . I refer, of course, to Phil Markham, whose research and findings were laid out in OVER THE FRONT, Volume 10, No.3 (Fall 1995) and which made mincemeat of claims that the raid of 2 June 1917 had been witnessed by a balloon observer or corroborated by follow-up flights.

Meanwhile, we are left with a question posed by Alex Revell on 19 April (Post No.49 on this thread) - "No one has ever explained or even attempted to explain why Bishop is the only person to be awarded the VC for an act which was not witnessed".