Billy Bishop: 'Liar and Cheat'

Some of Stephen's points had passed through my mind, but I had discounted them. For one thing, I am not confident that senior British officers in general (and those on the panel approving VCs in particular) would be attuned to the fine points of Canadian politics. Canadian nationalism had, to a very great degree, been recognized in the appointment of Sir Arthur Currie to comand the Canadian Corps.

The events that we are discussing (2 June 1917 flight to 11 August gazetting) took place before (though not much before) the Canadian conscription crisis really became hot (the Military Service Act did not become law until 29 August 1917 and the election that split the country was four months beyond that.

While Bishop's societal impact undoubtedly grew with the VC, his letters indicate a degree of acceptance in aristocratic circles which is as extensive as it is inexplicable. (The reasons given by Arthur Bishop, and repeated by Greenhous, still leave me puzzled). But the Beaverbrook connection - now there is a tempting route for inquiry.

Whether as Sir Max Aitken or as Lord Beaverbrook, he was a fascinating character - a Canadian nationalist and a British Imperialist who saw no contradiction in those roles. He was not popular (one "friend" described him as "an efficient little shit") and his elevation to the perrage was one reason cited in the 1918-1919 campaigns in Canada to abolish titles and knighthoods for Canadians. But he was a superb propagandist. Maria Tippett, in her book "Art at the Service of War", commented (I believe she was quoting someone else) that "the Beaver" was giving the Canadian Corps so much publicity that people could get the impression that the Canadians were holding off the whole German Army, with a little help from the British and French !

Yet we could make too much of Beaverbrook. As of 1917 he had great influence in Canadian circles (as one of Sam Hughes' friends and as the man in charge of Canadian military records) and as a press baron, but these were not where decisions were made about strategy or Victoria Crosses. He did pack more clout when he became virtually the Minister of Propaganda in the British government - but that did not happen until 1918. A search of the Beaverbrook Papers (in New Brunwick) might yield something - or nothing at all.

Incidentally, some questions I raised in Post 259 (3 July) about Stephen''s review of THE MAKING OF BILLY BISHOP remain unanswered. Speciifically, (a) what is the passage in a periodical which he states was "severely misquoted" by Greenhouse (b) to what degree does the Greenhous version differ from the original © which passages does he believe have been inadequately foot-noted ? (d) How would he compare the level of scholarship (particularly in primary vs secondary sources) of Greenhous vs others such as McCaffrey or Bashow ?

[wings]

Has anyone compared Bishop's descriptions of his combats in his letters home with those in his combat reports and logbook? If so, were there major differences?

[Billy_Bishop]

How about this for a "major difference," in his book, "Air of Battle" as I understand it, Willy Fry says that Bishop came back from his raid of 2 June, 1917 without his Lewis gun. As well, Arthur Bishop, Billy's son reports the same thing in his biography of his father, "Courage of the Early Morning."

The difference? In the MANDATORY weekly report from from RFCHQ France to higher HQ in Britain, there is NO missing Lewis gun in the inventory for 60 Squadron. Also, NO ONE ELSE has EVER mentioned the missing Lewis. Not ANY of the mechanics, nor ANY of the other pilots.

VBR,

Al Lowe

Respecting "Wings" question, the following *article which appeared in Volume 34 No.2 (Summer 1996) issue of the JOURNAL OF THE CANADIAN AVIATION HISTORICAL SOCIETY may be deemed relevant. *But first, please read the note that accompanied the article as to his credentials:

Philip "Phil" Markham is a retired professional engineer who worked in the UK aircraft industry before the war. *He served in the RAF during World War II, and post-war with the Auxiliary Air Force and the Royal Canadian Air Force, retiring with the rank of Wing Commander. *In retirement, Phil has been involved with the Canadian War Museum, the National Aviation Museum and the National Film Board of Canada. *The author of several historical aviation research articles, Phil's interest in WWI aviation goes back to his school days -- pre Biggles. *In 1994, he was the recipient of the Fred Hatch Award, "for his distinguished contributions to the advancement of Canadian aviation history".

And now to the meat of this posting:

* * * A FLIGHT OF FANCY:
* * * BILLY BISHOP VERSUS MANFRED VON RICHTHOFEN

* * *by Philip Markham


* * *The White Knight of Canada plummets to fifty yards from the Red Knight of Germany. *Scarlet shows in the machine-gun sights. *Bishop is right on Richthofen's tail. *A drumful of lead spatters from the Lewis -- but the target has vanished. *The wily baron has gone into a lightning loop. (Alan Hynd, Liberty Magazine, 30 December 1939)


* * *INTRODUCTION

On 30 April 1917 at about 3:00 pm, Major A.J.L. Scott, officer commanding 60 Squadron RFC, accompanied by Captain W.A. Bishop MC, *attacked four Albatros scouts east of Lens at about 11,000 feet. *Major Scott's aircraft, Nieuport 17C1 B1575, was hit by one bullet, but otherwise no damage was done, and the combat, which was short and inconclusive, broke up on the arrival of four Sopwith Triplanes of 8N Squadron. *From this brief encounter the legend of an epic combat between "Billy" Bishop and Rittmeister Freiherr Manfred von Richthofen, "the Red Baron", would quickly evolve. *However, this notorious single combat is quite fictitious; in fact there is no evidence that Bishop and von Richthofen ever met at all.

* * *THE LEGEND CREATED

That same evening, 30 April 1917, in a letter to his fiancee, Miss Margaret Burden, Bishop wrote:

* * *Then this afternoon the CO and I went out and got mixed up with four really good Huns. *We chased them away, but oh heavens they did shoot well. *Seven bullets went through my machine within six inches of me, one within an inch, but still a miss is as good as a mile, isnt it? *(Bishop's letters to his family and his fiancee are available at the Directorate of History, Department of National Defence.)

In his `autobiography', we find the addition of von Richthofen to the combat first recounted:

* * *Then came my thrilling adventure of the afternoon....I was up in the air again, with my squadron commander, to see if there were any Huns about looking for a bit of trouble....We discovered four red Albatrosses...made up of Baron von Richthofen and three of his best men. *The Major reached them first and opened fire on the rear machine from behind. *Immediately the leader...did a lightning turn and came back at the Major, firing at him....In my turn I opened fire on the Baron, and...found myself in the midst of what seemed to be a stampede of bloodthirsty animals....Smoking bullets were jumping at me, and...I got in two or three good bursts at the Baron's `Red Devil'....Around we went in cyclonic circles for several minutes, here a flash of the Hun machines, then a flash of silver as my squadron commander would whizz by....I have never been in anything like it. *Firing one moment,...the next doing a quick turn to avoid a collision. *[Back at Filescamps Farm,] I found my machine had been badly shot about, one group of seven bullets having passed within an inch of me.[... *(William Avery Bishop, Winged Warfare, Hodder & Stoughton, 1918)

In a 1934 article, also attributed to Bishop, we read,

* * *...the only way I could avoid being shot down was to turn immediately across him, giving him the most difficult shot in air fighting, as I was flying directly across at right angles to him at roughly 100 miles an hour. *He fired seven bullets in one burst, all of which ripped through the back of my seat and through the folds of my flying coat....a few seconds later he had me in a position where the only thing I could do was to give him the same shot again....this time he allowed for more deflection and another burst of his bullets came right through, cutting my instrument board and instruments to pieces. *He had...also considerably damaged Major Scott, and had shot through part of his engine, with the result that it was operating at reduced power....(William Avery Bishop, "Chivalry in the Air", Popular Flying, Vol. 3, No. 7, October 1934)

Further dramatic narrative of this nature may be found in the serial article "Flying to Kill: The Story of Bishop, the White Knight of Canada" by Alan Hynd, quoted above (Liberty Magazine, 23 and 30 December 1939, and 6, 13 and 20 January 1940), and in the biography of his father credited to Arthur Bishop (The Courage of the Early Morning, McClelland & Stewart, 1965).

However, the most colourful account will be found in Dan McCaffery's 1988 description of the combat, and is quoted in full as follows:

* * * * * *After lunch, Bishop was up again, this time flying with Jack Scott. *At the same time, the Red Baron was leaving the ground with three of his best pilots - Kurt Wolff, Karl Schaeffer and his brother Lothar - in tow. *The two formations collided over Drocourt. *Before the smoke had cleared, Bishop and Richthofen would stage the most dramatic dogfight in history.
* * * * * *The blood-red Albatros suddenly separated from the pack and flashed directly across the path of the two silver Nieuports, banking tightly as Richthofen swung around in an effort to get behind his adversaries. *Bishop unleashed a five-round burst that failed to find the mark. *In the wink of an eye, the Red Baron was on Billy's tail and his guns were barking. *The Canadian turned immediately across him, presenting the German ace with a difficult deflection shot.
* * * * * *Richthofen triggered a burst of seven bullets as the blue spinner roared across his line of flight. *All seven tore through the back of Bishop's coat! *Later, Billy would term it the finest marksmanship he had ever seen.
* * *Jack Scott dashed to the rescue and the Baron was diverted for a moment. *But the red Albatros made short work of the major. *A dozen spandau slugs gutted Scott's engine and his crippled plane fell out of the fight. *Now the Red Baron and Bishop were alone again to settle their private war. *Richthofen wanted no help from his mates and they knew it. *None of the idle Albatroses made a move to interfere.
* * * * * *Within seconds Richthofen was on Bishop's tail again. *The horizon disappeared as the Nieuport spun to the right, presenting the Red Baron with another near-impossible target.
* * * * * *Richthofen had made a mental note of the fact that his tracers had struck just behind his opponent the first time. *So he allowed a bit more deflection and thumbed the triggers again. *A hail of lead ripped into the cockpit, smashing Bishop's instrument panel and sending a shower of black oil spewing into his face. *He was not wearing goggles but, miraculously, none of the oil got into his eyes.
* * * * * *Bishop, spitting the putrid oil out of his mouth, was seething with rage. *It was the first time in his career that he lost his temper in a dogfight and that is what saved his life. *He stood the Nieuport on its tail and zoomed straight up. *Kicking the rudder bar, he banked over hard and plunged down on the red devil that had been tormenting him.
* * * * * *Richthofen was taken by surprise. *So far he had been like a cat playing with a mouse and he was not prepared when the rodent turned and charged.
* * * * * *Bishop had the Albatros in his sight and poured a five-round burst into it. *Lewis slugs slammed into the wires, spars and struts of the red plane, throwing up showers of splinters. *The Red Baron swerved out of the line of tracers, diving straight down with black smoke vomiting out of his Mercedes. *Bishop was sure he had killed Germany's greatest ace.
* * * * * *The other black-crossed machines immediately moved in. *Bishop whipped around to meet them but before either side could open up another flight appeared in the sun overhead. *Nobody could see whose side they were on, and Bishop and the trio of Huns cleared off.
* * * * * *In a moment the Canadian recognized the newcomers as Sopwith triplanes from a naval squadron. *He waved his thanks and hurriedly looked below, hoping to see the Red Baron crash. *But 4,000 feet beneath him the red Albatros had flattened out. *Smoke no longer poured from its exhaust pipes. *The Baron had used an old trick to escape.
* * * * * *Bishop would write later: "He very nearly finished my young life but no other thought but admiration was in my mind as we flew home".
* * * * * *The triplanes escorted Billy back to Filescamp and along the way they found Major Scott nursing his battered Nieuport homeward. *The major, his engine skipping badly, happily joined the formation. *(Dan McCaffery, Billy Bishop: Canadian Hero, James Lorimer, 1988)

The unfortunate thing about these dramatic accounts is that, when Bishop decided to dramatize the story by bringing von Richthofen into the act, he was unaware of the fact that the Red Baron did not fly on 30 April. Nor has anyone writing later seen fit to reveal this fact!

FACT

There is no doubt that 60 Squadron and Jagdstaffel 11 encountered one another on many occasions. For example, 2nd Lt. G.O. Smart (killed on 7 April 1917) and Lt. W.O. Russell (prisoner on 14 April 1917) were both victims of Manfred von Richthofen himself. Perhaps, then, it was just as well that Bishop's and Scott's adversaries were not "Baron von Richthofen and three of his best men", who had enjoyed such great success during the days of Bloody April 1917.

The day on which Bishop is alleged to have met von Richthofen in the air was 30 April 1917, the last day of Bloody April. Bishop flew three times on 30 April, according to the Squadron Record Book; an Offensive Patrol from 9:30 to 10:35 am; another from 10:40 am (a 5 minute turnaround is quite remarkable!) to 12:15 pm; then, before tea, from 2:35 to 4:05 pm, with Major Scott, on the patrol during which the combat with von Richthofen is claimed to have taken place.

The jagdstaffeln of 6 Armée had been concentrated to operate as a single group on 15 April, but had been grounded by bad weather. However on 30 April, Jastas 3, 4, 11 and 33 flew together for the first time from Roucourt aerodrome, near Douai. They put up twenty aircraft in two formations, which had several successful combats in general sweeps behind the battle area. However Manfred von Richthofen did not take part!

Having shot down a Spad S.VII (B1573) of 19 Squadron, an FE 2b (4898) of 18 Squadron, a BE 2c (2738) of 12 Squadron and a Sopwith Triplane (N5463) of 8N Squadron on 29 April, for his 49th, 50th, 51st and 52nd victories, he was prohibited from flying, and ordered to go on leave. If he had defied the orders of higher authority on 30 April, as he had the previous afternoon, it is unlikely that he would not have scored, when his brother, Lothar, shot down a BE 2e (A2942) of 16 Squadron and an FE 2d (A6352) of 57 Squadron, Leut. Klein, of Jasta 4, an FE 2d (A6402) also of 57 squadron, and Vzfw. Menckhoff, of Jasta 3, a BE 2e (A2916) of 9 Squadron.

Less speculative evidence that he did not fly is to be found in his own book Der Rote Kampfflieger, in which he states that on 29 April he had achieved fifty victories, and it was now mandatory for him to proceed on leave. On this same evening he received the congratulations of the Kaiser by telephone from Supreme Headquarters. He spent 30 April with his father, who was visiting Roucourt on 29 and 30 April, and together they were witnesses to the crash of DFW CV 4874/16, of Fl.Abt.(A) 238, on the aerodrome, in which the observer, Leut. Hermann Benckisser, was killed. At 9 o'clock that evening, during the celebration for his fiftieth victory, he was informed that the Kaiser wished to see him in person on 2 May, and this necessitated his hasty departure by air on 1 May, flown by Leut. Krefft. As additional evidence, the entry for 30 April 1917 in the War Diary of Leut. Carl Bauer, of Jasta 3, reads in part, "the Kaiser has forbidden Richthofen to take-off today."

Further reference to the combat reports submitted by Scott and Bishop shows that they refer to the hostile machines only as "4 Albatros scouts", and that Bishop fired "2 bursts of 5 rounds each at the leader" and "10 rounds at the rear man with no apparent result." No damage was reported to Bishop's aircraft and Major Scott's aircraft, Nieuport 17C1 B1575, was hit by only one bullet. There is no reference to the colour of the enemy aircraft or any suggestion as to their unit. Quite probably they were not from Jasta 11 at all; they could equally well have been from Jasta 3, 4 or 33!

Compounding these errors directly attributed to Bishop are a litany of others, both major and minor, added by his chroniclers. For example, one of von Richthofen's "best men" purported to have been present, Leut. Karl- Emil Schaefer, was no longer with Jasta 11 on 30 April 1917, having been posted to Jasta 28w as Staffelfuhrer on 27 April. Another example, Bishop's Nieuport, B1566, was fitted with a scarlet spinner on 30 April 1917, not blue as described in the various tales. (The cowling, spinner, wheel discs, undercarriage and centre section struts were painted royal blue while Bishop was on leave between 8 and 24 May 1917.) Anyone familiar with the aircraft, technology or geography of the First World War will discover many further examples.

AFTERWORD

Aside from his expressed ambition to be the top scoring British pilot, Bishop evidently had his own image of himself and set his own guidelines for it; his letters home are most revealing on this point. It is very doubtful that he wrote Winged Warfare personally, and it is equally unlikely that he wrote "Chivalry in the Air" for Popular Flying, but he seems to have attracted authors prepared to embellish his actions and to create fictional adventures for him, which he did not dispute. Of course, this is the way that legends are created.

Publication of these facts will not affect either Bishop's reputation or the general belief in "the most dramatic dogfight in history". However, the truth is recorded here for the benefit of anyone who may be more concerned with reality than with fabricated legends.

"Entrenched belief is never altered by the facts." Anonymous

What tends to clutter discussion of Bishop is the tendency of both sides to argue about unprovable irrelevancies - and "cherry pick" from what is, at best, second-hand evidence.

The damage to his Nieuport is described by contemporary documents - the story that several bullets were in a tight grouping does not appear until 1934. Willie Fry's recollections, from 1974 onwards, both support pro-Bishop proponents ("I was invited to go along but chose to sleep in") and the sceptical ("Damage was such that it could only be self-inflicted"). A plague on both their houses ! Either Fry's memory is reliable or its is not - and either way, you must either accept his statements entirely or reject them entirely.

The guts of the argument boil down to three issues:
(1) Did Bishop deliberately embellish his record ?
(2) Did he execute an attack on an enemy airfield as described in his Combat Report ? (3) Even if the answer to (2) is "Yes", should a VC have been awarded ?