100 years ago, 2 June, 1917

Billy_Bishop · 1 June 2017, 11:04 PM

One Hundred years ago today, Canadian pilot and ace, William A. "Billy" Bishop took off in the early morning hours, before dawn and set off on a flight that would become both historic and controversial.

This was the flight that would garner for him, the Victoria Cross. The highest award for bravery that the British Empire could bestow. The controversy centers around the fact that he had no known witnesses. His deputy flight commander turned down an offer to go with. This was likely due to a late night party from the previous evening, which undoubtedly left everyone else incapable of flying as well.

The interesting thing is, without witnesses, his VC recommendation was approved. Which begs the question, were there other sources that confirmed his attack?

Sadly, we'll never know. It seems the paperwork which was stored in government archives was destroyed as a space saving measure sometime between the two world wars.

However you like him or hate him, he was a hero to his countrymen for years afterward, and an invaluable recruiter during the next world war.

FYI, I have no intention of entering into any debates about whether he did or didn't do as he claimed. My health and other factors put limits on my time, so do us all a favor, and get over it.

Graham Broad · 2 June 2017, 04:10 AM

For interest's sake, I've attached a PDF front page of the Toronto Globe (now the Globe and Mail), August 13, 1917, announcing that Bishop won the Victoria Cross. It's at the bottom of the page in the middle column. So, it's front page news, though not headline news.

Thereafter, references to him become more frequent. I wonder how many young men he inspired to enlist in the flying services? I wonder how many he, and the other Canadian aces of note who became famous between the wars, inspired to join in the Second World War?

Did he do it? I dunno. I would tell my students two things: one, we construct history out of multiple, intersecting sources, not out of plausible reasons for a lack out of sources. And, two, maybe whether or not it happened is neither the most interesting nor most important thing about it.

Barry Hickson · 2 June 2017, 05:52 PM

Al just to put the record straight I don't think ANY of us Doubters
"HATE" Bishop we just do not believe all his claims.

rexee · 2 June 2017, 09:51 PM

Graham
I don't see any mention of Bishop in that article except "Bishop" was playing first base on a ball team. Am i missing something?

Rex

Graham Broad · 3 June 2017, 04:11 AM

My mistake! I uploaded the wrong article. Here's the correct one.

Graham Broad · 3 June 2017, 08:51 AM

Damn, guys. I bought all this popcorn, expected an epic show over this. Nothing? Really? Has the matter finally been put to rest?

MASTIFF · 3 June 2017, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham Broad

Damn, guys. I bought all this popcorn, expected an epic show over this. Nothing? Really? Has the matter finally been put to rest?

Wait for it ... The vultures are still circling. They will be landing shortly.

josquin · 3 June 2017, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham Broad

Damn, guys. I bought all this popcorn, expected an epic show over this. Nothing? Really? Has the matter finally been put to rest?

Not by any means. The issues have their own permanence and remain
open--efforts at provocation notwithstanding!

Regards,

Josquin

rexee · 3 June 2017, 09:28 PM

The official report and recommendation

Rex

Graham Broad · 4 June 2017, 03:47 AM

Speaking of the VC: it has been awarded 1538 times (according to Prof. Wikipedia) since its creation in 1856. I've read many times that Billy Bishop's award is the only case where it was awarded on the recipient's say-so only, without other corroborating evidence (apart from one awarded to the Unknown Soldier.) The natural skeptic in me asks:

1) Is this actually true? What is the source for this claim? Who has investigated all 1538 awards?
2) Is the evidentiary standard in Bishop's case really all that low? What does the corroborating evidence in other cases, especially those where the award was posthumous, consist of?

My guess is that many awards rest on a very flimsy evidentiary basis, given the chaos and confusion of war, and given the fact that states, especially in times of war,*regard lying and deception as a perfectly legitimate instrument of policy.

After all, decorations were instituted not simply to recognize valour and whatnot, but as instruments of war.