Billy Bishop: 'Liar and Cheat'

[MilesC]

Has anybody ever looked into another potential explanation for the lack of German confirmation for Bishop's raid: the possibility that he was lost and mistakenly attacked some French SPAD VIIs on the Allied side of the lines? He reported attacking Albatros DI/DII types, whose wings are similar to the SPAD when viewed from above.

Hmmmm, hmph! Well now there's an interesting hypothesis that I haven't seen before. Everyone focusses on the issues assuming that he did find German aerodromes (which German aerodrome was it, the Germans didn't record it, how could they possibly ignore it, etc.). Could he have flown in the wrong direction? Certainly the personal accounts of WWI British fliers are replete with accounts of trying to fly in clouds via dead-reckoning(?) and either getting it bang on or being woefully lost.

The front in that area (Arras to Cambrai) runs due N and S so Bishop would have had to fly SSE towards French positions. He did mention that he killed his engine and drifted over the front so as not to arouse suspicion. Even if he was lost and confused, no one would mistake the front for anything else. Of course he could have passed over it in cloud, descended and repassed over it towards the French side thinking he was heading into Germany.

An interesting hypothesis, but it would be very difficult to show this. Are there any reported French losses S of Arras that day? Has anyone ever checked?

Miles

[sfabert]

I only mention the possibility of a mistaken attack on a friendly airfield because it is not premised upon any sort of conspiracy theory. It relies solely on human fallibility rather than any devious plan to manufacture evidence or conceal embarrassing shortcomings. Thus it has greater inherent plausibility than many other suggestions I have seen.

I understand that there is now some sort of published list of daily French casualty reports to review. Has anyone looked through it yet?

Unfortunately the absence of any reported French losses would not resolve the matter. Lack of evidence of a mistaken attack on friendlies would be no different than the present lack of evidence of an attack on a hostile airfield. But if there is some evidence of friendly losses that could explain the absence of any recorded German losses, we would have a different story.

[Russell]

I think Al's last posting is very good from the view point he takes on this. I also believe that Alex is quite right in what he is saying and he expresses the issues very well. Two other comments. The 38 victims mentioned in the thread earlier. If you got a map and some decent sources and analysed them, they don't stack up at all. Lastly, I too thought about whether he hit the French, but if Bailey/Cony are correct, the French lost nothing on that date any where relevant, mostly accidents, see p127..

Personally, those who defend Bishop need not bother with the aerodrome raid, as we dont know enough either way to be CERTAIN. Look at the claims Bishop made in 1918, after he was told he was being posted to HE. All without witnesses, none verifiable from the records of the other side. Change of tack but same subject aerodrome strafes.

I must try to track it down, but I have read a report at the time of the Cambrai battle, by a pilot of 2 AFC, 68 RFC at the time, conducting a lone assault against a German aerodrome etc. It has never surfaced anywhere, which makes me think it did not happen, and the pilot who made the claims, left the unit soon after. Anyone else seen this???

[pspiranha]

>>Some years ago now I suggested to Mr Chadderton(?) that an independent researcher of repute be commissioned to look into the whole Bishop affair. He replied that this had already been actioned and that an Australian researcher had been so commissioned. Nothing has been seen of this research. Does anyone know what, if any, was the result.
Regards
Alex<<

Dear Mr. Revell,

Perhaps you can clarify something here. I have re-read Phil Markham’s work that appeared in Over the Front several times. It certainly appears to be a very in-depth piece of work. Am I wrong in that conclusion? The reason I ask is that I seldom see it quoted here. Or were you just suggesting that someone else take another look at it?

While some may say that anyone who attacks Bishop’s claims and the Drome Raid as being someone with “an axe to grind”, a “personal agenda”, or simply “biased” I am unable to attribute any of those to Mr. Markham’s work in this respect.

Mr. Markham claimed that he began the research project in order to verify Bishop’s aerodrome raid and after extensive research was completely unable to find anything at all to substantiate it, thereby causing him to come away concluding that it didn’t happen.

By all accounts I have seen, Mr. Markham was a good researcher and presented his material well. Is there any reason to believe that he was “ less than truthful” about his stated reasons for beginning the project? Are there any glaring holes in his research that you are aware of?

Please understand that I am not disparaging Mr. Markham here. I believe that you would be much more familiar with him and his work and could give us an informed opinion.

To others:

As for Willy Fry, Grid Caldwell, et al: I fail to see what their personal “agendas” might be. They were, after all, the men who knew and flew with Bishop. Willy Fry even lived in the same hut with WB. I can’t help but believe that they were in a much better position to make a judgment concerning WB than we, sitting here reading books 80 years later.

Oh, I can hear Al loading up his Lewis gun now- time to dive into that cloudbank up ahead.

V/R.

Dave Johnson

[Billy_Bishop]

(part 1 of 2)

As for Willy Fry, Grid Caldwell, et al: I fail to see what their personal “agendas” might be. *They were, after all, the men who knew and flew with Bishop. Willy Fry even lived in the same hut with WB. *I can’t help but believe that they were in a much better position to make a judgment concerning WB than we, sitting here reading books 80 years later.

Oh, I can hear Al loading up his Lewis gun now- time to dive into that cloudbank up ahead.

Actually, I replaced the Lewis with a 7.62mm mini-gun.

The only thing I can say about what some of his contemporaries have said about him is this:

While I personally, do not think they had an axe to grind, I don't think we can totally dismiss jealousy as a POSSIBLE factor.

Now, first, before everyone blows a gasket, I don't subscribe to this theory...not completely.

But, I have to ask myself this. WHY did they wait until Bishop was dead before coming out? Yeah, I know, they didn't want to embarass him to his family. Sorry, I don't buy it. Or, maybe they didn't want the ridicule they knew they'd face attacking a hero in public. That makes more sense.

Why do it at all? Well, first, as I understand it, Fry didn't. Not until Joe Warne, then (1982) 60 Squadron Historian revealed what was supposed to remain quiet to Paul Cowan when he was conducting research for "The Kid Who Couldn't Miss." But I still have to wonder, WHY tell anyone else at all?

Personally, if I had a problem with someone, depending on the situation, I'd either tell the whole world, or I'd tell NO ONE. The reason for telling no one is this. If you Tell ANYONE, you have to realize that sooner or later, YOUR opinion is going to get out. So, for ANY of these people to say they didn't mean for this information to get out is pure poppycock. They wanted it to come out sometime, they just didn't want to actually control "when" themselves. Plausible deniability. (it's a theory, remember that)

(end part 1)

[Billy_Bishop]

(part 2 of 2)
Now, how many do we have that we KNOW of, who HAD problems with Bishop. *We have Willy Fry, we have Grid Caldwell. *Some would say we have Spencer Horn, but until I see something that came directly from him, I think we should count him out. *Does anyone know of ANYONE else, who flew with Bishop that had doubts about him either during the war, or anytime thereafter?

To be fair this should be from some writing or such that can be attributed directly to the person who is questioned.

As to those who did not question Bishop, we have, Jack Scott, his CO in 60 Squadron, we have W. E. Molesworth, MC, who wrote a post-war story of his experiences for Popular Flying. *And even those who doubted Bishop "say" they liked him, that he was an outgoing and friendly fellow. *

Some would also add Spencer Horn. *But again, while we have more than enough evidence that shows Horn liked Bishop, there's still the nay-sayers who would insiste he belongs on the opposite list. *I say, let them cancel each other out. *In other Words, Horn is in the middle.

And, just as there are those who didn't fly with him that said they have their doubts, there are also those who didn't fly with him, who did NOT have any doubts. *Mr. Cowan even got one of them, Cecil Knight on film. *

What I think we REALLY have here, is a personality war. *But, and I have emphasize the "BUT," this is ONLY my opinion. *I have no proof either way.

I have emails that I have saved from when I first published my Billy Bishop web site. *All of them talk about Bishop. *Some are from people who claim their relatives knew Bishop, some claim descendency from Bishop. *And at least 99% of them extoll his virtues and forget his vices. *Of all the emails and posts to a guest book I have there, MAYBE 1% tell about how this relative or that one disparaged (generally) him. *And they sometimes try to convince me, based on the disparaging remarks their long dead relative made, that I should give up my quest.

From all I have, all that I've read, and what I've been told, there is not enough against Bishop right now to convince me that he lied. *

You know, if some people were not so hot to tear him down. *And by "some" I am mostly referring to Brereton Greenhous now, I would probably see my site slowly vanish from the web. *But with this latest book, I've gotten the virtual shot in the arm that I needed to carry one. * *

I have made a concious decison to NOT attack any WWI pilot or airmen that might have attacked Bishop later in their lives. *And I will be going through my pages and making corrections to that effect. *However, I will have to point out that in EVERY case, the idea of jealousy HAS to be considered. *I'm not saying that is the case. *I don't know. *But I believe we must consider it as a possiblity.

Now, I have been (reliably I think) informed that jealousy was not the case with Willy Fry. *I'm willing to accept that as it comes from a person who knew him.

So, maybe Fry had legitimate doubts about Bishop. *I know he tells his story in a article published in C&C for him by Alex Revell. *Still, that is his opinion. *

In a court of law, I don't think that would be enough. *Now, if he had video tape, then maybe he'd have proof. *But it's too late for that now. *

I really wish I could have talked to him. *I might have gotten a better understanding. *But it's too late now.

I guess we'll just have to wait until someone invents the time machine.

VBR,

Al Lowe

[alex_revell]

Dave,
Phil Markham was an excellent researcher. Painstaking, meticulous, fair, technically able, erudite, truthful – you name it he had it. I, and many others held him – sadly he is no longer with us – in the very highest respect. He was Canadian by the way an ex-engineering officer in the RAF. I would back his findings anytime anywhere, even though he disagreed with me on some things - not about Bishop, I hasten to add, but technical points regarding SEs. The article you mention was extremely well and fairly researched and I find it a great pity that so many people seem not to have read it.
Alex

[Hugh_A._Halliday]

It was my privilege to know Phil Markham for many years. When anyone writes of the founding of the National Aviation Museum (now the Canada Air Museum) he is counted among the top five or six "founding fathers".

One of his most notable pieces of research concerned the VC action of R.H. "Hammy" Gray and his work in that field was intensive - no matter how many dead ends he struck (particularly in determining the markings of Gray's Corsair) he kept right on plugging ahead, looking for new or alternative sources.

You may be assured that his first goal, with respect to the Bishop matter, was to vindicate Bishop, and an early piece he wrote (for publication and distribution by the Canadian War Museum) leaned towards Bishop - even though he had begun to have doubts. The OVER THE FRONT article reflected his later conclusions, drawn (I might add) reluctantly but sincerely.

Phil was an avid skier, and died of a massive heart attack at the end of a day on the slopes trying out new equipment. The only man who ever had a "better" death may have been Bing Crosby, dying in Spain on a golf course at the conclusion of a good round.

[Billy_Bishop]

I find it a great pity that so many people seem not to have read it.
Alex

I read it. I just didn't agree with his conclusions. Neither might I add have some other people I know, including, but not limited to an assistant professor of history at RMC.

Doesn't mean I respect him any less, I just disagree with him. And as I like to tell people when we get on other, non-WWI subjects, if we all agreed, this would be a VERY boring world!!

VBR,

Al Lowe

[Ron_F]

Does anyone have that article in C and C or OTF they could scan and send me? id love to read it for myself.