Billy Bishop: 'Liar and Cheat'

[Craig]

This is well and truly amazing. I haven't stopped and had a look around this 'hood in awhile, but Lowe and behold, not much has changed.

I'll repeat that . . . .

Speaking of questions that have gone unanswered, some that were posed in Post No.259 and repeated in Post No.280 have still not been answered. They arise from Stephen Dieter's published review of THE MAKING OF BILLY BISHOP. To repeat:

(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 ?

In a review I wrote for the periodical Canadian Military History, I elaborate on the mis-quoted section. To borrow from my own words:

"Greenhous identifies Bishop's squadron commander during his last days of service in 1917 as Major W.J.C. Kennedy-Cochran-Patrick. The periodical in question, Cross and Cockade, identifies the Commanding Officer of 60 Squadron succeeding Major Jack Scott as Captain "Pat" Cochrane-Patrick, subsequently promoted to Major as a result of his posting and appointment. The periodical's version is confirmed in Above the Trenches."

This addressed the first two inquiries of Mr. Halliday - whose name I shall neither deliberately nor unintentionally mis-spell.

Further..

Speaking of questions that have gone unanswered, some that were posed in Post No.259 and repeated in Post No.280 have still not been answered. They arise from Stephen Dieter's published review of THE MAKING OF BILLY BISHOP. To repeat:

© 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 ?

I felt that the footnotes in The Making of Billy Bishop were lacking. I understand that not every single word, thought or impression can be notated. In reading the work, and reviewing the footnotes as I read it I found occasions where I wondered where text had been sourced. I know of at least one other person who, after reading this work, shared similar thoughts.

As for the level of scholarship, I'll brave this one although I'm not entirely comfortable with it. The one advantage Mr. Greenhous has over others is that he is a professional historian. He has trained in, and to the best of my knowledge has worked in, this field his adult life. Mr. MaCaffery is a journalist and I must concede that his profession can cause one to view his work differently. I do not know LCol Bashow's educational credentials so I shall not comment on that, except to say that he is a professor of History at RMC.

I think that Mr. Greenhous and his work do provide a counter-point argument to the accepted history as it exists. If this work allows people to view something from a different perspective, then I as a hopeful historian applaud it. Where the problem comes about is when people pick up this work and carry the grudge going into page one.

As I wrote to you off-line, Mr. Halliday, when I received the bound galleys of this work, I placed it on my desk for over a week to allow me to make sure that, in my mind, I was going to be fair to this work. I believe that I asked you in that same e-mail if you thought that was fair. You never replied.

I have only been studying this field for 13 years now (including an Honours degree upgrade and an incomplete Master of Arts degree part-time), and I will be the first to admit I have a lot to learn.

I have retrieved Mr. Dieter's message of 16 April. I sent no reply because none was required (unless he felt for some reason that he needed my blessing for his decision to wait a week).

Now let me get this straight. Mr. Dieter's review of THE MAKING OF BILLY BISHOP (Globe and Mail, 25 May 2002) says, in part: "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". (I have added the emphasis).

The "severe misquotation" turns out not to be a quotation at all. Greenhouse cites (not quotes) a particular article which identifies the new CO of No.60 Squadron (the only words quoted are Trenchard's assessment of this man). To be precise, the passage as written by Greenhous that Mr.Dieter deems so reprehensible reads:

"His [Scott's] replacement was a newly-promoted twenty-one year old, Major W.J.C. Kennedy-Cochrane-Patrick, MC, considered by Trenchard to be ‘the most brilliant pilot at the front.'"

The Greenhous "sin" is that CROSS AND COCKADE identifies the CO as "Pat" Cochrane-Patrick, whereas Greenhous identifies him as W.J.C. Kennedy-Cochrane-Patrick.

This is a "severe misquotation" ?

Rather it is simply to give to the CO his proper name, which is William John Charles Kennedy-Cochrane-Patrick, as given in the LONDON GAZETTE of 16 April 1916 (gazetting of MC), 6 August 1917 (gazetting of Bar to MC), and 17 September 1917 (gazetting of DSO). I believe this is also the rendering as given in the obituary published in AEROPLANE, 4 October 1933.

"Severely misquoted" indeed !

For a reviewer who wrote piously of being "fair" and was critical of those who "pick up this work and carry the grudge going into page one", Mr. Dieter exhibits qualities quite the reverse of those he espouses. Although he expresses an ambition to be a historian ("hopeful historian"), his resort to misrepresentation of Greenhous in the review demonstrates that he is still rooted in his former role as "Historian of the Billy Bishop Heritage Museum." Wayne Ralph (another reviewer) at least had nothing personal at stake when he wrote about THE MAKING OF BILLY BISHOP.

"I do not know LCol Bashow's educational qualifications so I cannot comment on that, other than that he is a professor of History at RMC"

I am surprised Mr.Dieter is unfamiliar with Cololnel Bashow's educational qualifications, as I have been given to understand that he is enrolled in the RMC War Studies programme. They are, for the record, BA and MA.

Nevertheless, my question addressed NOT the FORMAL qualifications of Greenhous vs Bashow but the LEVEL OF SCHOLARSHIP exhibited. While both men use some common secondary sources (Fry.Scott, etc), does it not say something of the scholarship when Greenhous cites numerous primary sources (AIR 1 records, contemporary letters written by Bishop) whilst the relevant Bishop chapter in KNIGHTS OF THE AIR is based almost wholly on secondary sources, some of which (like Arch Whitehouse, cited twice) are truly laughable ? Indeed, Chapter 4 of KNIGHTS OF THE AIR, in 156 endnotes, acknowledges primary sources only twice (endnote 8 refers to RMC Standing Orders of 1911; endnote 80 refers to AIR 1/1555/204/79/75, itself already noted by Phil Markham).

Is it mandatory that a student know the qualifications of all professors of an institution, even if one does not take classes at that said institution?

For the record, I am a part-time graduate student of the Royal Military College of Canada. Any class work I am able to take occurs at the Canadian Forces College in Toronto.

Finally, Mr. Halliday, would it have hurt you to confirm the spelling of my Christian name prior to repeatedly mis-spelling it in messages on this forum?

I have spelled "Mr." correctly throughout this thread.

[Ron_F]

please gents, lets get back on topic.

bashing one another with qoutes, names etc will not accomplish what was asked about the review, nor prove squat for either side!

i am now curious as to what Greenhous wrote in that book, as well as the aformentioned Making of Billly Bishop. i didnt know Wayne Ralph did a book on him...

Wayne wrote a biography on WWI ace Billy Barker entitled Barker VC. I read it shortly after it came out and found it quite interesting.

[Tom_Cervo]

please gents, lets get back on topic.

bashing one another with qoutes, names etc will not accomplish what was asked about the review, nor prove squat for either side!

i am now curious as to what Greenhous wrote in that book, as well as the aformentioned Making of Billly Bishop. i didnt know Wayne Ralph did a book on him...

Read it. If it isn't at the library, try buying it--or hang out at the bookstore, reading it until they kick you out!
I may have helped start this thread up again when I responded to a request for opinions on Greenhaus' book. I agree with the accessment of, I think, Wayne Ralph, that however much you may disagree with his findings, Greenhaus lays out his reasons and brings you up to speed on the controversy. He is dealing with Bishop's entire WW1 career. The VC raid is treated with greater thoroughness by Philip Markham's article in Over the Front, previously referred to. Together they represent comprehensively the case against Bishop. They are both relatively short and well-written, make their case clearly and logically, and include their sources in footnotes--Markham's article is very well illustrated as well. Take note as well that Markham proves that Bishop's Nieuport had the range to make the raid, a clear indication that he is willing to provide facts not favorable to his thesis.
Bishop's supporters need only make a comprehensive refutation of the case in both works to remove any aspersions on his reputation.
When they do so I will gladly acknowledge their proof.
That proof has yet to appear.

Mr.Lowe seems to hold to a particular orthodoxy by which a person is NEVER allowed to change one's mind. *Saul en route to Damascus would not be permitted a conversion were this to be universally applied.

Phil Markham wrote a pamphlett for the Canadian War Museum in the early 1990s which did not question the Bishop story as proclaimed from the alters of orthodoxy. *However, his curiosity was sparked and he set out on a quest by which he hoped to prove the orthodox line to be true.

The reverse happened of course. *He first presented his research and conclusions at a meeting of the North-East Aero Historians held in Ottawa (1994, I think). *Those of us who attended remember most vividly the pained reluctance that he expressed as he produced his findings, and his anxiety to retrieve at least something favourable for Bishop. *Yet when one person attending confronted Phil ("You don't like Bishop, do you ?"), his reply was to the effect "Like or dislike has nothing to do with it - one looks for the facts and follows the trail, regardless of where it leads."

Phil wrote two subsequent articles on Bishop. "The Early Morning Hours of 2 June 1917" was published in OVER THE FRONT, Volume 10 No.3 (Fall 1995) and dealt with the purported VC action. *His second article, which was in the nature of a lawyer testing the credibility of a witness (Bishop) appeared in the JOURNAL OF THE CANADIAN AVIATION HISTORICAL SOCIETY, Volume 34 No.2 and is reproduced as posts 283 through 288 on this thread.

Those of us who knew Phil Markham also know that, had he lived, a book similar to THE MAKING OF BILLY BISHOP would have appeared under his authorship - although it would have been dragged out of him by those who respected his methodicalness, innovation, eloquence, and integrity. *He was, in all respects, a gentleman and a scholar - too big to be either semantic or doctrinaire.