Billy Bishop - A Complete Fake Or Canada's Most Celebrated WW1 Hero?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 сер 2024
- If, like me, you grew up fascinated by the Great War and the men who fought each other in the air, you will have heard of William Avery 'Billy' Bishop. He is credited with 72 aerial victories and is known as Canada's leading aerial ace. What you might not know is that some people say he was a complete fake and a fraud. This is what we discuss in this video.
💰 Want to start an online business with UA-cam?
This UA-cam channel is no accident and the success I've had so far was no mere fluke, it's all been planned out and executed in a very meaningful way. However, I can't take credit for knowing how to do all that, I had to learn and I learned from the best!
Listen to my advice for building a successful UA-cam channel: • How Does Phil From Cal...
Follow me on my other channel, / passiveincomephil
3D print your own gaming controls
Get an Enders 3 Pro like me: amzn.to/3dFXts3
Go over to authentikit.org/
🕹️ My gaming equipment:
Joystick: amzn.to/2TP6h40
Rudder Pedals: amzn.to/38c3YAx
Elevator Trim: amzn.to/3oQWNn8
Head Tracking: amzn.to/34Qpvwd
Wishlist: amzn.to/385dXHD
Welcome to my channel where I share my love of history and aviation. I first fell in love with military aviation when reading Biggles books as a boy, then I studied history at university. I like finding interesting stories and sharing them with others.
I also followed this passion into the real world and managed to get a Private Pilot's Licence on 10th May 2014.
I'll share my gameplay from the IL2 Sturmovik Great Battles series as well as the Cliffs of Dover series and DCS series too, to give my stories drama. Feel free to subscribe, like and comment!
System Specs:
Intel(R) Core(TM) i-7 10700K CPU @ 3.80GHz 3.79 GHz
Ram: 32.0 GB
GPU: Geforce RTX 2070 SUPER
VR: Pimax 5k plus
Screen resolution (capture): 1920*1080
64-bit OS - Windows 10
⏱️ Timestamp:
0:00 William Bishop - The man before the legend
3:49 William Bishop joins 60 Squadron in France
6:08 The accusations against William Bishop
8:49 Airfield raid - 2nd June 1917 - Did it happen?
10:59 Controversial Victoria Cross nomination
12:12 Logical conclusions.
⭐ Some recommended other channels are:
/ @tj3
/ @militaryaviationhistory
/ @montemayorchannel
/ @thearmchairhistorian
/ theimperatorknight
#IL2sturmovikGreatbattles, #DCS, #CliffsofDover, #CombatFlightSimulators - Ігри
🧥 Have you always wanted a distinctive and authentic leather flying jacket? Check out the fantastic range from Legendary USA here: calibanrising.com/flying-jacket/
It's not really the case that the Nieuport was "badly damaged" when Bishop returned to Filescamp Farm after his alleged attack, as he flew it to make a social visit that same afternoon. Two separate eyewitnesses remembered close groupings (within a few inches) of bullet holes that appeared to have been inflicted from a range of just a few feet and William Fry said there were actually powder burns round the holes in the elevator, indicating that the gun from which the bullets were fired had practically been touching the aircraft. Bishop himself claimed that he'd landed behind the British lines "to ask for directions", then taken off again and flown back to his aerodrome. There's not a shred of evidence that the VC action ever took place and plenty of circumstantial evidence that it didn't. Bishop was a brave man, like anyone who flew in combat in WW1, but that doesn't preclude him from being a dishonest one.
Bishop's commanding officer, Major Jack Scott, was well connected with his military superiors and could influence victory claim approval at higher levels.. Under Scott, 60 Squadron policy was to allow solo patrols by both Ball and Bishop; Scott would approve unwitnessed victories scored on these solo patrols.
Re. the June solo raid on a German airfield. Several years ago, I saw a YT video on Billy Bishop where a french farmer is interviewed, and the farmer confirms his grandfather witnessed a dawn raid by a solo machine on a nearby German airfield that resulted in the destruction of several aircraft.
A childhood hero to me, he remains so in my retirement.
Wow, I'd love to find that source.
@@CalibanRising I am quite certain it was a YT vid, and a billy bishop history/ biography. It may have been aimed at debunking the 1982 NFB (National Film Board of Canada) doc.,"The Kid Who Couldn't Miss". YT only lists 3 +20min docs, 1 being "The Kid...". I'm pretty sure it's one of the 2 remaining.
One other point, Albert Ball flew with 56 squadron, not 60, but I believe you are correct that they did discuss the raid plans.
Ok, I'll have a look for that video.
I personally believe that a man can achieve "Super Human Efforts" given singular circumstances. My own great uncle, my grandfather's twin brother achieved just such and whilst his own personal memories were disjointed due to injuries, all, ALL his comrades including his platoon officer witnessed these, even though they themselves could hardly believe their own eyes. Michael O'Leary, VC, Belgium, 1915.
Rather than putting the boot into someone who's no longer around to defend himself; I'd like to know how it was that a Victoria Cross came to be awarded without any form of corroboration or supporting evidence. The whole affair sounds utterly improbable. That said, whatever happened out there, no one can deny that Bishop was a very brave fellow.
I would suspect it was connected to boosting morale at that time in the war.
@@CalibanRising "Boosting morale" was/is still NEVER part of the conditions meriting the award of a VC.
I must say that it is quite possible that many today have spent a lot of time and effort in questioning Bishop’s veracity and integrity. It is very possible that his superiors had plenty of faith in his strength of character to accept his account of the event. It must be remembered, they were there, they knew him, we were not.
It’s a complex and interesting controversy. David Bashow writes a pretty compelling piecing refuting the assertion that Billy Bishop’s victories were fraudulent. I won’t detail the arguments here but he does make a case that Bishop’s corroboration rate, ie victories witnessed and supported by others is higher than many if not most British airmen of the time, including the much loved Albert Ball. I’m inclined to believe that much of the controversy around Billy Bishop is unfortunate revisionism. I’m glad it didn’t arise in his lifetime.
"I’m glad it didn’t arise in his lifetime" yeah, we don't want a fraud to suffer an indignity of being exposed, eh? Best to let them get away with it, even when their laughable claims are literally better than achieved by best pilot of the war (in much better plane) who faced far more enemies and this had way more opportunities for aerial victories...
Counting victories was always difficult. The lone mission might have been suspect but many of his kills WERE confirmed. Let’s not forget the Brown-Richthofen dogfight. A single bullet wound in the Red Baron has led to a lot of dispute.
Yeah there would have been no way for him to know whether he destroyed any aircraft on the ground with one overwing Lewis gun.
But other than that, I agree, people also have to remember that Entente pilots had to get kills confirmed over enemy territory, whereas German pilots got their kills confirmed over their own territory.
In other words, a lot of Entente aces probably exceeded amounts of confirmed kills.
As for Brown, a lot of people give him flak when he likely didn't even give a hoot who got the Baron so long as he got gotten, he said he opened fire on the Baron, who lived long enough to put his aircraft down, that's 2/3rd the way there.
Of course a shooter on the ground got the kill, but even the claim that Brown got the kill can be corroborated slightly, imagine looking behind you in a dogfight, especially with those WW1 pilot goggles restricting vision out of the corners of your eyes, you have to twist your body around quite a bit to get a good view, which puts Brown into a position where he could have got that one bullet in.
So that's 2.5/3rds the way there, of course, no bullet entered the Baron's aircraft from the angle Brown was supposedly shooting from, but he may have been at a different angle, and as I said "Can be corroborated slightly" not "Brown killed him, 100%".
I live in Owen sound, canada...there is a museum devoted to him downtown said to be where he grew up...he's a local hero
Iirc many of Bishop's squadron peers did not believe nor accept his claims at the time and afterwards. That's pretty telling as they were in a much better position to judge than us.
These include Keith 'grid' Caldwell.
However, they were all undoubtedly brave and courageous men.
Yes, I came across much the same sentiment when I was researching the topic. I think Bishop was a natural self-publisher when the RFC at large hadn't been publishing the names of individuals when reporting successes. Of course that changed around the time he made it to France.
I think he suffers from much of the same stigma as Bernard Montgomery in North American writing. He was self absorbed and prone to exaggeration but much of that exaggeration was in his popular memoir and writings not in his official after action reports. He admitted in later years that his popular writing esp his wartime memoir, was exaggerated often at the behest of the wartime propaganda machine.
Billy Bishop survived over a year of combat. That alone, should indicate that he was more skilled than other pilots. My guess was that he was an exceptional pilot and his record was probably correct as much as it could be given the times.
Not to diminish the medal or the courage of the soldier, sailor, etc., but it seems that sometimes medals are awarded because of a soldier's influence or by the instigation of a politician. The shame is that some soldiers, who are just as brave or even braver, are not awarded their due recognition because they lack influence in high places, or the support of a politician.
In WW1 the German air force only credited a victory, when his opponent was be killed, taken prisoner or the plane wreckage was accounted for.
The British air force allowed moral victories, for example, forcing the enemy aircraft to land within enemy lines, driving it down “out of control”, or driving it down in damaged condition, yet not destroyed. In addition British Air Force fully credited their pilots for shared victories. That is if e.g. three British airplanes shot one German airplane - all three were credited with a victory. In WW2 the RAF had adopted the German system of crediting victories.
I think this is why it's so hard to get firm numbers on these victories.
Regardless of the controversy surrounding his record and the nature of his solo raid, I still appreciate Bishop’s example of skill and daring, what his son Arthur referred to as “the Courage of the Early Morning.” Thanks for another great fact vid! Keep it up!
📢 If you've enjoyed this video, Why not watch another one. Or even better, support this channel through Patreon, giving a virtual tip or making a usual purchase through one of my affiliate links (at no extra cost to you).
👍Find more details here: calibanrising.com/support/
I appreciate your help and together we can make this channel even better!
That Nieuport is a beautiful aircraft.
That is such a stretch lol. They are saying he took his lewis gun off his aircraft, came up with some random ass story that is backed up by a fellow ace and then while on the ground shot up his own kite, yet there are no records of any of that, and you would think that anyone within a mile of that airfield would hear a lewis gun or see billy firing upon his own aeroplane. ridiculous
It seems that higher ups in most cases on all sides were more interested in having pilots with high kill numbers than possibly the pilots themselves. Was it not the pilots superiors who had the final say. If someone like Rickenbacker said he saw a enemy plane descend trailing smoke and he is given a kill by higher ups, does that make him a fraud?
An interesting point. There was definitely a propaganda benefit from having these Aces paraded in front of the public.
And your evidence for this is . . . ?
I believe that he certainly overclaimed - as almost all of them with a few exeptions (Felix Madon perhaps) did. Therefor it might be possible that his action of the day actually took place but not in all details according to his report. Most possibly he did attack an airfield and managed to shake the enemy out of their sleep. Maybe he even hit an airplane that tried to take off. But dogfighting over an enemy airfield with three Albatrosses over the enemy airfield and then getting away from them in a Nieuport? Not very likely exept if it was really misty.
A little correction by the way: the french army mutiny wasn't because of the losses suffered during the fights around Verdun but more because of Nivelles "great" offensives of 1917 and the repeated frontal attacks that resulted in horrendous casualties for the french before anything else. Many French units simply refused to carry on attacks in those circumstances.
Thanks for the feedback!
Why not both? Bishop was a shameless self promoter. The only man that I am aware of awarded a VC for an uncorroborated action. He was also very brave and a very aggressive pilot. Both can fit quite nicely in a single person.
Actually, the complexity of an ambitious pilot is nicely addressed in the movie (and book) of The Blue Max. A wallflower would not have made a successful ace.
WW1 pilots who were criticized as self serving, they didn't have a choice. Notable pilots were vital to the propaganda efforts back home. Their own governments embellished their feats (not saying that happened with Bishop's VC). Notable pilots like Richtophen and Bishop were national celebrities. They even had trading cards of these pilots for kids.
Even if one grants that all his claims were valid, the lack of any witnesses should have disqualified him for the VC. That award was not presented for his actions in combat, but for the morale-boost it would give Canadians.
There were many VCs awarded in WW1 that would never have been awarded for similar actions in later conflicts. I don't think that Bishop's case is that special.
Where did Bishop's detractors fly in combat? The same issues can be made against any other Allied flyer.
That is a lazy argument. Because someone did not experience in this case active combat doesn’t mean they cannot comment on it. History would be a dead subject.
Different rules back then and nobody is left to defend him. The fact he survived so many days is pretty incredible. It a lot guts to go up in a plane back then.
I specialise in first hand accounts of WW, will accept that first hand accounts are often garbled, don't see the big picture. I came across an account by a journalist of the first world war. He visited Bishops squadron wanting a story. He was surprised that the pilots didn't want to talk to him. Journalist he pushed and pushed. "Hey you must be proud flying with Billy Bishop he's shooting down so many planes" No answer, he try again and again. Finally a sulky pilot answers "WHY DOES HE NOT DO THAT WHEN HE IS FLYING WITH US?". Now I am a Civil Pilot, but I8 have flown with Ex Military Pilotss, they tell me the stories, there waas a loçt of joking, drinking, exagerating however? THE SQUADRON PROTECTS THEIR MATES; Here none of the squadron said a word to defend Bishop. If you don't believe me look at Bishop's combat reports from 1918. He was VC Squadron commander. He wrote his own combat reports, no witnesses, stamped them sent them, another kill. Believe on or pathological liar.
I don't know if Billy Bishop was a fraud or a hero, or both. I do believe that Bishop was an incredibly lucky fellow to survive over a year of combat missions and to receive the Victory Cross for an uncorroborated action witnessed by no other sources. I suspect the military authorities and powers that be had their reasons for promoting Bishop as the new hero, which had little to do with Bishop's combat prowess. I enjoyed your video; you summed up the saga and controversy around Billy Bishop very well.
Thanks for watching. I have to admit that Billy Bishop was one of my heroes growing up. A brave man without a doubt.
I think it's impossible to shoot up his own Aircraft in view of it would be not possible to take off nor control it on the ground , getting out and shooting up his own aircraft, then starting it , or even finding a place good enough to land and take of seem very unlikely, add you cannot get out and leave it running on it's own, or start it alone , then the Aircraft damage is more likely ground fire of other aircraft, so more likely its combat damage.
@@paulbeer404 Those rotary engines ran at full throttle and power was regulated by cutting the spark to 3 or 6 of the 9 cylinders. So the idea of landing and starting the engine up and taking off without help is just stupid.
@@kellybreen5526 if it was a Se5a then it had no rotary engine
@Madhukar Jonathan Minj Agreed, but the first 47 claims by Bishop and the disputed sortie were flown when he was with 60 Squadron flying Nieuports. He flew the SE5 in 1918 with 85 Squadron, and his tenure there was only something like 2 months.
His is the ONLY Victoia Cross EVER to be awarded WITHOUT the necessary corroborating witnesses but purely upon his OWN "combat report!! Despite exhaustive research over the last 100yrs, NO official evidence or private diaries from the German side has corroborated his actions!! This is highly unusual as an early morning raid upon an airfield, causing the destruction of 3 aircraft would have been reported. On balance of the facts, lack of ANY evidence except Bishops' own combat report, I consider him as anything but a hero. It's also telling that for all his subsequent service, he was not given further honours as one might have expected.
I agree, very strange. What stock do you put in the idea he had friends in high places?
@Caliban Rising - Aviation History: LOTS!! In the UK, he had the patronage of a very influential dowager in The Establishment. I've read quite extensively of the research done over the years into Bishops' VC, and IMHO, it had absolutely no material basis for its award!!
Some of Bishops' squadron mates raised concerns about his claims of this exploit. A few were posted away because of their opinins on Bishop and his exploit. To explain the "battle" damage, some ground crew theorised that he must have landed, threw out his Vickers gun, and shot holes in the fuselage with his revolver before flying back to base. Also, I find it extraordinary for someone so experienced as Bishop (attaining 47 victories), who:
A) knew intimately the section of frontline in range of his Nieuport, and,
B) had pinpointed the German airfield PRIOR to his attack, in order to plan his dawn raid,
- that in the post-attack analysis, he could not locate the position of the base he had attacked on any maps!!
I can't wait to see you break 100k subs.
Your films are amazing.
lol, well that would be quite an achievement. Thanks for your vote of confidence. Appreciate it mate!😀
Well, ..... I know I would be hard pressed to strap my ass into a structure of basically paper and wood, with a primitive engine; and a machine gun ,and go dogfight. So, yes he is a brave man and a hero......as were they all.
No seat belt...no chute.
@@RPMZ11 Seat belts were a standard piece of equipment in WWI aircraft.
@@heneagedundas
Danke..no chute.
The controversy just makes WWI, all the more enthralling subject
Well, when in doubt of Bishop, go to William Barker or Raymond Collishaw
As a Canadian/colonial on one hand I know that there would have been more than a few British who were likely aghast to see him as a hero. Canadian aces outscored the Brits as did some of the other Commonwealth aces as well as the French. I doubt many of the establishment over there would have been thrilled with that. However the lone raid is fishy. B.B. they say have a bit of a record of bad behavior. To be fair though as you mentioned there were likely more than a few inflated scores for various reasons. For me he was certainly up there with the highest scoring aces anyway. The very idea that any man should feel a need crow about killing another may call into question his character to some degree.
_You can tell a fighter pilot but you cannot tell him much._
They can be egotistical braggarts who may intentionally or unintentionally exaggerated their own ability and actions. I imagine the stress and battle fatigue could cause the mind to play tricks on one.
Who knows what actually happened because *none* of us were there and we didn't fly those death traps without a parachute to escape a burning machine. (Hell I was apprehensive when I flew a load of skydivers once when my parachute was one the way to the dropzone. Never did it again)
Bishop seems to have avoided ptsd and real combat .
This is typical how Canada and Canadian treat there Hero's .Weather it is him or other like General Arthur Currie one of the best general of WW1 or the Falcon of Malta George Buzz Beurling So sad
Leaving aside the VC award incident, which obviously was wrong, since the precedent of a VC for uncorroborated heroism is completely unworkable; my impression from the various WWI memoirs is not that Bishop was a fraud, but that he Was dishonest - and his word could not be trusted.
Plenty of other pilots, in a position to know, seem to have formed this view about Bishop - whereas the other major allied aces were seemingly regarded as honest men (eg Hawker, Ball, Mannock, McCudden - all widely respected as decent and honourable).
Surely this is plausible? We all know of some people whose word we would trust, and some who we do not trust? I think that is the issue, rather than whether Bishop was a great pilot - he clearly was.
So the most likely answer is that Bishop was both a great pilot And also untruthful. This naturally means that his kill number claims are less likely to be valid, more likely to be inflated, than those of some other great aces.
I would add,there was another Canadian who went after 'dots' in the sky who was reprimanded & later they found this pilot had truly exceptional eyesight! & was killing german pilots with little ammo! I myself was poor in training but was able to be a good soldier when it was for real! I have a severe learning disability!
The Falcon of Malta. George "Buzz"Beurling .
Bishop and Ball were not members of 60 Squadron at the same time.
Ball sought out Bishop because Bishop had attacked a gas balloon after it had been winched to the ground. He flew through a lot of "Archy" to do this, and nearly became a POW because his engine oiled up and only caught back to life at the last minute.
Bishop was impressed by Ball who was commanding 56 Squadron. 56 was trying to get the new SE5 operational but the SE had a lot of bugs and Ball had made design proposals.
Bishop mentioned this in his book Winged Warfare published in 1917.
The day of the attack Bishop had intended to take a fellow Squadron member along but the pilot was hung over from the party the night before and he stayed in bed.
Bishop lead his flight over the airfield a few days later and they saw the wrecked planes on the ground.
What I do know from one of the courses I took when I was getting my degree from Waterloo back in the late 80s was that if you want to make money as an historian you have to publish.
The term was "Publish or perish".
So what that leads to is that in order to publish you have to sell books or periodicals and nothing sells like controversy.
I remember this incident caused a senate inquiry, and Arthur Bishop spent the rest of his life defending his father's reputation.
The down side to this need to publish means that the only books that seem to get published have to contain some controversy, just like current journalism.
Max Hastings is a good example of this.
Max has criticised the bomber offensive as a failure and the 1944 western front as superfluous.
Thanks for the feedback.
Absolute...Cheer's from Guelph History.
@@RPMZ11 Hey Guelph, while I was getting an education at UW I was also getting an education from your 11th Field on Wyndham Street. Ended up staying there 9 years.
Heroic deeds should always be doubted, especially in war. The first thing that falls victim to war is the truth. But the possibility remains in these early days. Which also means that it could be used. I used to admire and believe in every heroic deed. Ever since I saw research proving that Richthofen was shot down not by Brown but by a ground gunner, I've had doubts about many stories. Sometimes when you want something that doesn't work that easily, you help out. When you know heroes are being sought and you see an opportunity, you seize it. Or you're damn lucky.
Ball trusted Bishop. That's good enough for me . . .
Ball was under suspicion.
@@anthonyeaton5153 that's a suspicious statement . . .
Chalice! It is a great video.
I would say -- as at least one other commentor has mentioned -- do a _statistical analysis_ {for lack of a better term} of Mr. Bishop's _independently corroborated victories_ versus his non-corroborated ones. That should give at least some insight into how accurate his claims were.
there is a certain 'politics" involved with military awards and victory counts and there was no doubt those are in play in this case. my suspicion is that accounts are somewhat inflated --all though there is some truth in the exploits.
Not sure about the claims veracity one way or another considering the circumstances of confirmations in the Great War. However his "cheating" on exams in the academy and his willingness to play the self promotion game and pull strings within the establishment do throw some shade at his motives and do not help his case. I will choose to believe that the majority of his success was real and even accurate from what he witnessed and believed.
This short video raises a few issues that continued into WW2. The major one being that high command excepted over--claiming as a matter of course. Best example in my opinion is the Polish claims during the Battle of Britain , 124 in six weeks . This was hinted at in the classic film , when Stuffy Dowding is shown to say that it doesn't matter as we either shoot down more of them , then they of ours. The other issue is the awarding of the Victoria Cross. It can never be a cut and dried decision. Especially when awarded post humorously . Two occasions when its thought that it was politically motivated , Australian bomber captain Middleton , other pilots considered his action of that being required of any pilot . Later the award to Canadian carrier fighter pilot Gray , whom Lt/C Hanson described as a stupid pointless action and the mans death being used as an inspiration for recruitment. Some recipients are often mystified , Bomber pilot Scotsman Bill Reid said that that the action he took was the only one possible. Yes ! I know that I am just an armchair hero , but those men were the hero's that I grew up with , and they still are,
I attended a talk given by Peter Hart and he was convinced that Bishop was a fraud. He also said despite all the derring do real or imagined by those pilots, it mattered not one jot and did not enhance or advance the final victory on the Western Front.
Interesting. I would say that the recon boys did a lot for PBI as well as those on Art Obs. 1914 is a clear example of this at the Marne. Ultimately the scouts contributed in as much as they could stop the enemy doing the same and protect their own lads in their work.
I find it odd that he was awarded a VC based on his own testimony. There has to be witnesses surely.
I doubt very much Bishop was called a fake by anyone, but many of his victories were not properly confirmed, and his early morning aerodrome raid was a product of his imagination, according to many of the pilots who fought in the R.F.C.(Check out Horses Don't Fly (2000) /p.227, a memoir of Cap't.Frederick Libby, who was both an observer and a pilot on the Western Front .His opinion is a good example of one commonly held at the time, and long afterwards as well.
The Billy Bishop controversy is really interesting but not surprising,people think of WW1 pilots as people of some special breed,but many of them were liars,self promotors and men of questionable morality.This is in no way to say they were not brave or skilled,but that doesn't equal a good human being.
He can be both!
Hard to say whether he was hero or fraud but the fact remains he was there fighting so you have to lean towards hero regardless of some number fudging. The VC action is another thing altogether.
"the fact remains he was there fighting" ever heard of conscription? By your standards WW1 had 20 million "heroes", if anything, you had to have guts to be a pacifist (and suffer for it) to be a hero, not one of the mindlessly obedient cannon fodder, which if anything was the easy way...
@@KuK137 Give yourself an uppercut for lack of reading comprehension.
It was probably down to a big fib being taken a bit too far. It was a cool June morning and Billy Bishop was indeed out on patrol when he found a fault with his Lewis gun and so decides to land in a field and fix the problem himself. Having landed his air plane he then tries to fix his gun only for it to somehow come loose and having the choice of loosing his balance and falling arse over tit out of his plane or dropping the gun he chooses the latter. Unfortunately on hitting the ground said gun lets loose shooting up his own aircraft in the process. Billy Bishop sitting there now knows he can’t get out of his plane to retrieve the gun without his aircraft flipping nose first into the ground and to make matters worse he has damaged his own aircraft to boot. He decides to head back to the airfield but then realises if he explains what really happened he would become a laughing stock amongst the other pilots. And so he comes up with the excuse that he does thinking that will be an end to it only for his C.O, on the lookout for a hero and Canada being desperate for one too, decides to recommend him for the V.C. based on his own account alone. And so having dug himself into a very deep trench in the middle of no man’s land, he has no choice but to sheepishly accept the V.C. with his fingers very much crossed. Just a thought.
Who are we to dispute this Fine gentleman accomplishments!! Most likely it’s a Half and half tale!! No matter! Having survived that war! He is a hero!! Thanks
Noone "wins" a military medal for gallantry. They are awarded. Don't cheapen the history all those service people who served by comparing their achievements to an athletics trinket.
Athletics "trinket" 99% of the time has better value, because you need to win it on camera and can't lie about it. "Serve" BS is meaningless buzzword rammed into thick skulls by propaganda glorifying imperialist aggression, soldiers (especially WW1 conscripted ones) don't ""serve"", they are simple cannon fodder sent to die so the 1% can profit. Turn your brain on and read All Quiet on the Western Front, maybe then you will stop being puppet idiot and will get a clue what real soldiers think of ""serve"" inane shyte...
@@KuK137 Your have no idea what you are saying.
Don't judge the man, but the system
Hello
Re: kill scrutinization, let's all do the Red Baron next. Bishop might actually be the top-scoring ace of ww1.
LOLno, if anything he isn't even in top 20...
@@KuK137 Like I said, let's now give the Baron's record the RUBBER GLOVE treatment and see how he fares, ok??
Please kill the lift music 🙏🏻
Anybody can kick a dead Lion
And anybody can be brainless idiot looking at stuffed cat on which some liar glued a mop head to make a "mane" and think it's a "lion" instead of turning brain on and going 'wait a sec'...
It seem that his not the only Canadian pilot that got credit for something he didn’t do.
Oh, who else was credited for something they didn't do?
@@CalibanRising Roy Brown shooting down the red baron
@@Skipper.17 I've seen the seat from MvR's plane and the hole does not offer much indication as to angle of tragectory. The Aussies make a good case, but Roy Brown's pursuit and Wop May in his sights probably kept MvR fairly oblivious to the hazard of ground fire. It was a collective effort and if only one bullet found it's mark, it was obviously the lucky one, no matter who fired it. I'm no fan of stolen valour, nor a fan of calling dead men liars. War sucks.
@@willodious but the body did provide evidence that the bullet entered from the lower right and exerted upper left. Brown was above and to the left so there is no way brown could have shot him down if you look at the autopsy report.
@@Skipper.17 Brown was a very dedicated and modest combat leader. He did not claim that he had shot down Richtofen(sp). In his report, he said merely that he had (paraphrased) "fired upon an all-red triplane" and that the result was "inconclusive." It was his RAF superior(s) who changed his report from "inconclusive" to "conclusive." As to who actually made the kill, it is quite common knowledge now that it was an Australian gunner on the ground: Evans, Buie(sp), or Popkin, probably the latter.
I remember watching the film "The Kid Who Couldn't Miss" ... and it was easy to see through media manipulation ... I know of no one who took it seriously ... a few old World War I veterans [Chipman McCully, Ivan Johnson] at the Debert Legion treated it as a comedy ... I have an older cousin, Chipman Kerr, who won the VC in in the 1st World War ... they threw parades for him ... my father said Chipman had met Billy Bishop on several occasions ... considered Billy a friend ... and was in awe of the man ... Chipman believed Billy was one of Canada's two great heroes along with Gabriel Dumont ... this oral tradition is all I need to believe ... Billy Bishop is the real deal ... wela'lin ...
He has to be a hero I'm sorry he probably didn't see himself as one even with all his boisterous activities. The man survived much longer than anyone expected a pilot to survive so he had to be better and have skills that he just can't put on to a piece of paper during testing. If he changed the lives of one person then he is a hero just like parents teachers firefighters soldiers of today all of it may not be true but the truth is he lived to tell his tale. History is normally told by The Victors and not the losers
Most of the historical revisionists would not have had the competence or courage to climb into a WW1 aircraft or fly missions, let alone solo missions. The fact that the enemy recognized his blue nosed aircraft out of fear and respect is incontrovertible proof of his prowess.
Whether'revisionists' have persoal courage is irrelevant; just as the personal courage of Bishop is.
There is no evidence whatsoever that he was an "egotistical fraud", certainly not to a degree greater than any other WW1 pilot was allowed to be.
There is ample evidence that is why we are all talking about it.
@@anthonyeaton5153 Absence of evidence is not proof of anything. However, the evidence that Bishop could not have possibly landed his plane, got out, shot it up and took off again, all by himself, is overwhelming. It is known that a Nieuport 17 with its engine running on the ground will nose-over and wreck itself without the weight of the pilot holding the tail down. Similarly, said aircraft can not be shut down and then restarted by a single person. Bishop couldn't have shut the engine down and then started it again himself. That would have required someone on the ground to swing the prop for him. He'd have to have at least one accomplice to help his acheive this supposed deception. So who was it?
A title that appeals to revisionists. True historians know the revisionist trade is all about selling books, making money or finding fame by calling a hero' s life and contribution into question. Often the so called research behind revisionism is questionable and the so called historians wait until the hero's contemporaries are all dead. This is the act of a coward. Revisionism has cost historical figures their status in Canada and what is sad is it does not take into account the true context of the historical period, the era leaving the once honored name defenseless. Edward Cornwallis has been thrown to the wolves and legitimate historians are terrified to come to his defense. Why not leave statues in place and present both sides of a story letting the people decide? In the case of Cornwallis the context of his situation with his murdered soldiers is not taken into account. Also who put the first nations warriors up to attacking Cornwallis's soldiers. The French!
I for one do not believe the VC was ever awarded to anyone, including Billy Bishop, without supporting evidence or corroboration ... this implies to me that not all the documentation is accessible for the general public ... it is insulting to the very concept behind this honor to suggest a VC would ever be awarded based on only the recipients merit ... my cousin, Chipman Kerr, was a VC recipient ...
Except a ton of other VC were given based on lies and propaganda, sooo... The fact you're biased because your buddy has a stake in it doesn't change this simple fact.
@@KuK137 in Nova Scotia there are a lot who speak as you do ... I noticed they often were from privilaged families and spent most of the war years hiding up in the hills and woods ... nourished by their affluent families and comfortably hid deep in the gullies that cut through the Cobiquid ... Chipma believed Billy ... good enough for me ...
Citation Chipman Kerr
“For most conspicuous bravery. During a bombing attack he was acting as bayonet man, and, knowing that bombs were running short, he ran along the parados under heavy fire until he was in close contact with the enemy, when he opened fire on them at point-blank range, and inflicted heavy loss.
The enemy, thinking they were surrounded, surrendered. Sixty-two prisoners were taken and 250 yards of enemy trench captured.
Before carrying out this very plucky act one of Private Kerr’s fingers had been blown off by a bomb.
Later, with two other men, he escorted back the prisoners under fire, and then returned to report himself for duty before having his wound dressed.”
(London Gazette, no.29802, 26 October 1916)
Dat
Wela'li aq nmu'ltes
,
mick mannock was top brit....not bishop
Bishop was Canadian.
Hero most certainly!
Not a British Nieuport...French built aircraft flown by a Canadian...let's try to get these things right if you want credibility....
I admit I slipped up in my in my script when I referred to Billy as a "British Ace" alongside Ball (I meant he flew for the British Empire), but the British configuration of the Nieuport was quite distinctive, so I stand by "British" in this context.
You can't fake flying and fighting for 400+ days and survived. Where as your average airmen lasted less than a week.
Sounds too good to be true, so I doubt it.
he was good but even he said barker was better and had he met richtofen would have shot him down.
Not a day goes by without a famous Commonwealth hero, trashed by the WOKE !
What utter nonsense. People have been trashing Bishop since WWI, or do they all meet your definition of woke?
If we want to talk about kills being awarded due to political reasons you can't go past the Red Barron. While he was shot down by Australian gunners the kill was awarded to an American pilot. It was so much better to show how our pilots were now superior than just say he made rookie errors and died because of them.
Actually Roy Brown was a Canadian pilot, not American. Seems any time a Canadian achieves something of substance, others have to question it.
@@johnandrews3568 thanks for the correction. Canadians may have the same tall poppy syndrome Australians have, we can't stand to see some one standing above us so we cut them down to size. There is also not being able to over look certain misconduct that Americans love. Like when your WWI commander Currie(?) cooked army books to get himself out of financial hot water. He only kept his command thank to some victories. a case of how many people should die for our moral outrage?
It's pretty certain that an Australian gunner shot down Richthofen. Roy Brown--a Canadian, not an American--didn't even definitely claim that he had shot down the red Fokker Dr.I. He just reported that he fired at it. Forensic analysis and re-enactments support that thesis.
@@grogery1570
No syndrome...it's having to correct juvenile comments about basic history any year 9 history kid, that bothered would know...that the newly arrived Americans weren't even close...being down south with the French.
Currie's $10k....really?.....Ring your nurse grom.
All paid back a thousand fold....with....''some victories''?
Ta for dropping by.