Billy Bishop and the great airfield raid

[shredward 12]

Here is a link to a good pdf book on the subject...

 

http://www.journal.d...c/61-64-eng.pdf

 

As a Canadian I have this innate desire to believe that Bishop was the hero he made himself out to be, but reading this certainly makes it look otherwise. The book makes a strong case that he was a brave man, poor leader, lone wolf, and a patheological liar.

 

So that is not completely one-sided, I will point out that there is scholarly research supporting Bishop's career. One can make a very strong case that his claim records are no more nor less optimistic than those of almost any other ace. It has become a fashionable parlour game to bash Bishop, and to a neutral observer, looks very much like 'piling on'. I am not going to go further, as I am too busy working on OFF to get into it further, but if you are curious, seek out all the Bishop literature, not just that which supports the fashionable side of the argument.

Cheers,

shredward

[Dej 17]

As I said earlier, I adhere to the thought that most folks are pretty decent. So, if the VC story was a fabrication, maybe it was initially not intended to go so far. I bet there's nary a one of us hasn't got got caught up in a little lie gone too far. It happened, many times I'd hazard. As a lauded hero what would it have profitted anyone for Bishop to have said 'Actually guys, I was having you on. Sorry'?

 

For example (waving my limited knowledge like a red rag) I don't believe Roy Brown ever actually denied shooting down MvR, did he? He just kept his mouth shut.

[JFM 18]

I've looked at all sides and stand by my earlier stated opinion.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

This is beginning to remind me of a 1950's TV commercial...

 

Wife: "Look Honey, it's Billy Bishop the war hero."

Husband: "No Dear, that's Billy Bishop the jackass."

Wife: "War hero."

Husband: "Jackass."

Wife: "War hero!"

Husband: "Jackass!"

Mr. Announcer: "Stop! You're both right. He's a war hero AND a jackass. It's Billy Bishop - TWIT N' SHINE!"

 

.

[von Baur 54]

A wise man once said, "The only difference between a Fairy Tale and a War Story is that the former begins 'Once upon a time...' and the latter begins 'No s**t, guys, this really happened...". The fact is that if a person will lie about anything he will lie about anything. And therefore anything he says must be suspect.

 

While official records may have been destroyed memories would not have been. And even if it wasn't Jasta 5 someone somewhere would have remembered and told the story sometime about a lone British plane chewing up his airfield on or about that time. And amid all the controversy that person or his child or grandchild (or great-grandchild) likely would have stepped forward to share the fringes of that spotlight and claim his '15 minutes'. Thus is human nature.

 

Jealousy may be the cause of a naysayer or two, but it will not put a majority of people against someone. And even jealousy or personal dislike will not cause people to belittle or doubt someone's abilities or accomplishments. Many people disliked Mohammed Ali and Mike Tyson, but none would deny what they could do in their respective primes. If so many of his squadmates, men who lived and ate and risked their lives with him, felt he was not to be taken at his word who are we to say they were just jealous.

 

Lies (deliberate malicious fabrications),stories (innocent tales meant to entertain) and pranks (let's yank the new guy's chain) often times grow to be monsters that, if not corrected early, can become absolutely uncontrollable. A night of drunken "There I was..." at the bar overheard by some hero-worshipping newbie and followed by a rousing round of "My CO can beat up your CO" can turn into "Paul McCartney is dead, Hitler is alive, and there was a gunman on the grassy knoll" before you know it. And a chain of events can reach a point in which high-ranking people may feel their reputations or even careers are in jeopardy if the truth comes out.

 

While I agree that the VC is not awarded lightly it must be pointed out that most of the people making and endorsing medal recommendations are not present for the action in question and rely on the word of others. If presented properly (single-handed attack deep behind enemy lines, just for an off-the-wall example) the circle of conspirators might be kept small enough to ensure its security. Thus, whether the whole thing was a deliberate hoax for purposes of morale or self-aggrandizement (or a combination of the two) or simply a story that got out of hand, it is possible for medals, even the highest ones, to be awarded when not deserved. For that matter, most medal-winners don't feel they deserved them, with the possible exception of wound medals.

 

From what I've read (and JFM would likely be the best authority on the matter here) Brown did not officially claim von Richtofen and neither admitted nor denied shooting him down, only shooting at him. Nonetheless, the same British air service which confirmed Bishop's exploits awarded him the victory. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

[GMU 0]

To all of you guys I suggest reading the seminal article written by Philip Markham " The Early Morning Of 2 June 1917 / Summary of an Unsuccessful Research Project", which appeared on Over The Front Journal, Vol 3, Issue No 5, 1995, p 240.

 

What a stir it created at that time. ..........

 

BTW I agree completely with its findings.

 

Cheers,