Billy Bishop and the "Fake" VC

Billy Bishop is credited with the most kills of any British Empire pilot in the First World War, winning the Victoria Cross in 1917. But the circumstances behind this event are murky. Did he lie about the events which led to the award of the highest British military honour? How does this impact our view of First World War aviation as a whole?
With special thanks to Michael Terry, who is a PhD student at The Open University researching First World War aviation.

[@nickgooderham2389]

Then there was Canada's other Billy, William George Barker VC who was known to be a team player willing to share victories with others when more than one attacking aircraft was involved. One of the highest decorated pilots of the war, but not nearly as well remembered as Bishop.

[@billestew7535]

I always admired Wilfred [Wop] May who was almost Richtofen's 81st kill, he was an ace but went on to do so much more for Canadian Aviation after the war, flying through a blizzard in frigid temperatures lost and in an open cockpit Jenny he was able to deliver a life-saving vaccine to a native village, surely saving dozens of lives, a bush pilots bush pilot and true Canadian hero.

[@keithagn]

Damn right!

[@danlefou]

I was working as a Research Assistant at the RAF Museum when the aforementioned first day cover was issued. The covers were the project of PR Officer Group Captain Bill Randle, and we in the Aircraft Department, well aware of the Bishop controversy, advised him against publication - too late, as it happened. One of the pilots invited to sign the cover was Josef Mai, who had been a member of Jagdstaffel 5 at the time of Bishop's supposed attack.(Jasta 5 was the German squadron commonly assumed to have been Bishop's target.) Herr Mai, a very successful ace, was highly amused, saying categorically that no such raid on that unit ever took place, and he never heard of any other unit in the area being thus attacked on that day. Needless to say, he did not sign the cover. Bill went ahead anyway, as he had a schedule to keep, and much work had already been done. Overclaiming due to an honest misinterpretation of events was indeed quite common. A case in point is that of Josef Raesch, a pilot with Jasta 43, whose manure fork-marked Fokker D.VII was shot down by an S.E.5a, forcing him to bail out. He stated that an S.E. had then fired at him in his parachute, considered very bad form in all air forces of the time. Research at the Public Record Office, now the National Archives, revealed the British unit involved to have been 40 Squadron, which claimed two D.VIIs in that combat. The action took place above and between two layers of cloud. A squadron mate of Raesch spun down to avoid fire from an S.E., whose pilot claimed a victory. Both British pilots seem to have seen Raesch's aircraft crash through a gap in the cloud, and assumed it was their own victim. No mention, naturally, of anyone shooting at a parachuting airman!

[@SillyMoustache]

Congratulations Catherine, on your channel. I love the detailed backcloth for this video, and I find your way of investigative and analytical storytelling most compelling. I look forward to seeing you on BBC Channel 4 and National Geographic channels in the near future! Subscribed.

[@whbrown1862]

Awesome video, Very well done and kudos for including a bibliography at the end. "The Blue Max" is one of my favorite movies. Well done!

[@RobertTaylor-vo4rz]

Bixhop was the only person to receive a VC based on his own uncorroborated report, It is interesting to note the men refused awards or had awards downgraded because they were not witnessed or nominated by an approprate ranking officer. In Australiia this was bought to a head recently over awards for Teddy Sheahan in WW 2 and the men involved in the Long Tan battle in Vietnam.

[@britishamerican4321]

Even without Bishop (if he is indeed to be disqualified), we've (Canada's) still got 3 of the top 12 WWI aces, 7 of the top 50, 13 of the top 100, so we'll be okay.

[@CatherineWarr]

Yes, there's a hole other topic of why so many of the top aces were Canadian/Australian etc. Largely because a lot of the top British ones kept dying - e.g. Albert Ball died in May 1917, which lost morale and left a space for someone else to enter the headlines...

[@Pseudonym-aka-alias]

Let's hope that they're bona fida.

[@britishamerican4321]

@@Pseudonym-aka-alias And while we're at it we can subject Richthofen's record to the ol' rubber-gloved prostate-exam treatment too.

[@James-kk8dw]

Very well done video. You should narrate over all of the unbearable AI videos which are well done with the exception of the audio. Love the background!

[@harryspeakup8452]

Funny you should say that. I've just been noting narration quality on some really quite big aviation and war history channels today and have found quite a few hard to listen to. Some of them sound like AI when they're people! The quality of narration is, I agree, one of Cath's distinguishing features and a huge asset to the channel

[@OTDMilitaryHistory]

A fantastic video! Thank you for covering this topic. In my opinion the lack of evidence supporting Bishop's VC is the problem. Normally to be awarded a VC, a witness, and a officer at that, was needed. There was no witness for Bishop's VC flight. Without evidence I can't say Bishop did what he said he did.

[@Ushgarak0]

It's the sharp end of an issue around many of the decorations awarded to First World War aces. Those going to, say, Ball, McCudden and Mannock were not for specific incidents at all, and so technically were also unwitnessed. The rules were different there.

[@gorillachinchilla1668]

A fascinating video, which has earned an immediate subscription from me. Thank you!

[@peterturnham5134]

Bishop was a complete fake. Most of his claims were made by him, NO witnesse's, and were accepted because he was famous. I have read extensively about WW1 and WW2 aviation, I am a pilot but not military. I came across an article written by a correspondent later in the war who was interviewing pilots in Bishop's squadron. They deiden't want to talk to him. He kept pushing, saying "arent you proud t-o be flying with Bishop, he is shooting down so many planes" No answer... then finally one of the pilots cracked and said "Well why does he never shyoot down any planes when he is flying with us? " he would go out with a flight in the morning, do nothing. Then in the afternoon go out on his own having shot down 2 planes no witnesses, according to him, no witnesses. He was the squadron leader so he wrote the claim, validated and stamped the claim himself. I fly civil but some't-imes fly with my military friends who flew F16, A10 and stealth. From what t-hey tell me a squadron is very tight, they will drink, fight, exaggerate, tell tall stories BUT will always protect their mates against anyone. Bishops squadron hated and feared him. They knew he was a LIAR.

[@martinsaunders2942]

In my mind the cordite stains around the bullet holes in his aircraft are very damning..The weapon discharging the rounds would have to have been within five meters or less to leave clear staining around the holes…and that would have been very difficult in air combat

[@Davlavi]

Informative as always.

[@The_Laughing_Cavalier]

"And then the Kaiser personally flew out of the clouds riding a Zeppelin, but I took him down with my sabre!"- Billy Bishop, probably

[@OTDMilitaryHistory]

Hahaha!!!

[@PaulScott_]

Are you questioning the Zeppelin, the Sabre or both? LOL :)

[@AA-69]

Never mind Bishop... WHO THE HELL KNITTED THAT JERSEY 🤮

[@CatherineWarr]

My mum 😭

[@beachcomber1able]

​@@CatherineWarrWe thought you were wearing it for a bet.

[@Zebred2001]

What an ill-mannered comment!

[@WW2TV]

Again, super stuff. Great objective analysis

[@harryspeakup8452]

Great story, and hats off to everyone responsible for everything on camera, including the creator of the presenter's tank top

[@lllordllloyd]

The German air service required third party corroboration for a claim. And as they usually fought over their own lines, they in general had the smashed enemy plane as evidence. So German pilots' victory tallies are quite reliable. Good video.

[@benwilson6145]

If you say so!

[@michaelwright2986]

Thank you for that. I guess one way to come to terms with the possibility of fabrication is to realise that Bishop was a hero, and then to think about what makes a hero. I'm currently re-reading Homer's Iliad, which is all about heroes; and Homer, who wrote in an era of individual combat, is quite clear that heroes can be very flawed people indeed. Especially, they are very touchy about their own reputation and standing within their own group. And we can recognise that, without denying the heroism. What would make a WW 1 hero in the air? Ruthlessness and a willingness to kill; a huge competitiveness; very probably a need to curate very carefully ones self-image. And, of course, massive amounts courage. He flew in combat for something like a year in total, at a time when simply committing aviation was pretty risky, even without people trying to kill you. There seems to be no suggestion that he habitually avoided combat. So, a hero, and also a liar (probably). There's a chapter in Len Deighton's intriguing _Declarations of War_, which are well-researched short stories which are both declarations of the truth of war (as Deighton saw it), and, because of their twists, declarations of war on the reader. One of them is about a very successful veteran fighter pilot, who has worked out that the way to fight successfully is to find an enemy pilot who seems not to be very careful about keeping a lookout; flying up unobtrusively behind them; shooting them in the back. The word "murder" is used, IIRC, fairly often in recollections of WW 1 flying. Not the knights in shining armour of romance, but then real medieval knights weren't like that, either. A society that needs military heroes is probably in a bad situation. One reason for honest overclaiming is that if there were two or more pilots in combat, and they both fired at an enemy aircraft that crashed, both would claim. Sometimes the credit was shared, sometimes they both got it. BTW, IIRC, in the propaganda war of the Battle of Britain, the Germans were really very scrupulous in claiming victories, but lied about their own losses; whereas the British were pretty honest about their own losses, but made inflated claims about German losses.

[@PatGilliland]

Oh Catherine - venturing where angels fear to tread. Expect a flock of angry Canada Geese to arrive shortly. My take is that the Allies needed a hero and Bishop was there to fill the role. Did he inflate his actions? Almost certainly. Still he had the courage to get into a primitive machine and risk his life just taking off, so I can't be too hard on the man.

[@CatherineWarr]

That's a good point - Albert Ball had died in July 1917, so with one top ace gone, everyone was pretty miserable and was looking for someone to boost their spirits.

[@PaulScott_]

They are already pooping on the Buckingham Palace grounds as I write this! LOL They have been for decades!!!!! :) Don't misunderstand luv the content!

[@jameswade4097]

This is a very good, and fare account of Billy Bishop. Much of the time in ww1 the air combat would take place over, or behind the German lines so those allied aircraft shot down could be verified by the Germans on the ground. Manfred von Richthofen was known to visit the site of his victims crashed planes and take souvenirs. Subscribed.

[@scottlewisparsons9551]

Thank you for an interesting video. About 1979 or 1980 when I was working in London I read a book which I think must have been Billy Bishop’s autobiography. I didn’t know anything about the fellow. However, I thought at the time what I was reading was rather “far fetched”. I believe that the average life expectancy of a ww1 pilot was measured in weeks. Watching your video sort of confirms what I thought about the man at that time. All the best from Sydney Australia 🇦🇺

[@CAP198462]

Been a subscriber since the channel was Yorkshire’s hidden history. Got a bit confused by the sudden change and thought KZbin messed up. Still, I could listen to you for hours.

[@CatherineWarr]

I had a rebrand as I didn't want to just do Yorkshire history - it felt a bit restrictive and so now I do whatever I find interesting

[@michaeldenesyk3195]

There was at least one witnessed VC action, William Barker, VC. His epic dogfight against 50-plus German fighters. This action was witnessed by General officers on the ground, and Barkers Sopwith Snipe crash-landed in front of Canadian lines. BIshiop and Barker were close friends

[@Ushgarak0]

I am afraid not- there are no reliable witnesses to Barker's fight, and 50-plus was a press exaggeration. His Victoria Cross is also dodgy, though much of that is down to his CO, seeing as Barker was far too injured to make a proper report.

[@roderickmacdonald2397]

Thank you for your story regarding Billy Bishop's VC. I think many stories out of both world conflicts could be questioned. Billy Bishops story whether etrict true or not became a national propaganda hero to bolster a population to continue sending their sons, brothers, fathers y husband's to the war. Another part of this story that is not mentioned. It apparently a plan devised between himself and the leading British ace of 52 squadron who had been recently killed. So Bishop followed up with their plan. In the second war it I common knowledge that the claims from both sides during the battle of Britain were very inflated. The problems were solved with the advent of the gun camera. Take care y happy new year, Rod Madonald

[@Redhand1949]

Very well done. I have just subscribed.

[@laurabailey6414]

I can't believe I met you today, I was a bit star-struck! Another fascinating video from you. Thank you

[@APartOfHistory]

Loving your content! You are a great historical presenter.

[@TheDungeonMinister]

Good stuff, as always!

[@Swaggerlot]

The issue of awards has always been a contentious one. It remains one to this day.

[@andrewscoley]

"Better to die sitting down in the crisp clean air in an aeroplane than die standing up in the squalor of the trenches". I thought that was a great line I read in a book a few years ago about WW1 air combat.

[@ThePsiclone]

"Chivalry of the air"? What, that sort of chivalry where your prime objective is to come up unseen behind your adversary and shoot him in the back?

[@Sim0nTrains]

Vert interesting story, great video

[@jamesfairmind2247]

The problem of exaggeration of kills led directly to the gun cameras mounted on WW2 fighters.

[@dudeonyoutube]

So whatever happened to those tens of thousands of hours of footage? Did the dog eat them?

[@jamesfairmind2247]

@@dudeonyoutube Plenty of footage has been used in war documentaries and even films like The Battle of Britain. As for the rest what has survived in good condition is held in places like the Imperial War Museum. Surprising that any survives really because once it had verified kills it was usually recycled, remember materials were scare in WW2.

[@Duececoupe]

Excellent video! Watched, liked and subscribed! 👍🏻👌🏼👏🏻

[@JohnDoe-tx8lq]

Great video. 👍 It's similar to what happened with the stories of British and Australian Special Forces in Afghanistan. Most where incredibly brave and effective, but it was recently widely reported that some individuals deliberately killed captured and unarmed prisoners, as well as innocent civilians. These where not in the 'heat of battle'. The whistle blowers - fellow soldiers - where actively prevented from speaking, even in private to thier own superiors, and even feared for thier own lives for talking to reporters. And all because of 'bad PR'. (I'm obviously not suggestion the WW1 pilots who may have lied committed war crimes!) Afghanistan Nations who fought for years along side British SF on the front line have been denied entry into the UK (and escape from Taliban as 'traitors') because they could then be called (forced) to testify infront of the ongoing British investigations - despite having the strongest recommendations from the honest soldiers, some even owned thier own lives to thier contributions. Everyone loses in War.

[@neilthomas9244]

Anyone in the air in WW1 is a hero. embellishments are a personality condition. Anyone prepared to take to the skies in a kite with no parashute is a hero,

[@jameswebb4593]

You bring up a number of interesting points . Firstly lets start with Bishop . Awarding him the VC was a public relations exercise . Conscription had met resistance in Canada , especially from the French section . This was also used in WW2 , national heroism ferments more voluntary recruitment . The other issue is kill claims . During WW1 forced down out of control is very common , it usual means the victim going down in a spin , no crash seen and in a multi aircraft engagement damn silly not to watch your own tail. Lone Wolf aces like James McCudden targetted PR two seaters and his victims had been identified. The Battle of Britain has highlighted topics that will be controversial for years . Bader's Big Wing and how successful were the Poles in reality. Unfortunately camera guns weren't fitted to each fighter , saving historians the problems . When Fighter Command went on the offensive 41/2 the RAF claimed 2/1 when in fact the opposite was true. Embarrassed by the overclaiming , Paddy Finucane's squadron the highest scoring during that period , was earmarked by those up high to use cameras. One engagement against FW 190's they returned putting in claims for three destroyed a couple of probables a some damaged . Study of the gun films reduced that to one destroyed and a couple damaged. Keep up the good work , in an age of lies and BS , its important that truth doesn't get swept under the carpet.

[@keithnoneya]

I agree, Mr. Bishop did serve his country, did go into combat and did get some kills, however "It doesn't make him immune from criticism either". The truth about wild claims with zero credible evidence, points to grandstanding. Question is was he ordered to do this or was it all made up by himself over his arrogance to be the top, no matter if it was earned or not. Thanks for such a great video and exposing a possible fraud! So with that said, is there a real Canadian Airman who deserves the place Bishop hold? Thanks for sharing. Best Wishes & Blessings. Keith Noneya

[@andrewcarter7503]

Excellent video, a good summary of a strange episode from WWI. Given your obvious interest in the period, I'd thoroughly recommend (if you've not already read it) Goshawk Squadron by Derek Robinson. A funny, tragic, brutal novel about WWI fighter pilots.

[@williamkennedy5492]

We needed heroes in a war weary country its as simple as that. Bishop racked up 72 victories. .We should not denigrate him or his achievements.

[@thegreatdominion949]

Not to mention the fact that he survived the war, which was a major achievement in its own right.

[@beachcomber1able]

​@@thegreatdominion949 It's easy to get top marks when you're marking your own papers. 😄

[@captaincrash9286]

Fun fact.. Snoopy creator Charles Schultz had Bishop's book on the shelf in his studio. I think the 'world war one flying ace' was probably inspired by Bishop. One fantasist inspired by another perhaps?

[@bladder1010]

As a Canadian and ethnic German, I am impressed by your analysis and fair depiction. Was Bishop a bullshitter? Probably. Did air combat turn the tide of WW? Probably not.

[@brucewalker5890]

Major Edward Mick Mannock was claimed to have shot down 73, possibly to have a RFC British pilot as top scorer but later investigation based on German records suggests his total score was actually 58. He may well have still been the RFC’s top scorer, but the award for absolute heroism must go to Billy Barker whose combat injuries laid him low for years after the war.

[@grogery1570]

In WWI planes had only existed for 20 years and were only purchased by the military for observation and the first aerial combat was pilots pulling out pistols and shooting at each other. When the costs of training and machines were considered early air forces had a hard time justifying their funding. This could be why it was important to protect Bishop from criticism. If he was lying about his victories, how many others were? That type of scandal could have ended military aviation before it had a chance to prove itself, which would explain why Bishops critics were shipped off in disgrace rather than just being transferred

[@Zebred2001]

There is a 1942 wartime Hollywood propaganda movie called Captains of The Clouds with James Cagney playing a Canadian bush pilot who joins the British Commonwealth Air Training Programme. Interestingly, there is a scene in which Billy Bishop, playing himself, is handing out wings to the new pilots.

[@harryspeakup8452]

That's a good film and I have it on DVD. Thanks for the reminder about Bishop appearing in it

[@pencilpauli9442]

There was one pilot who actually understated his victories in the war. James Bigglesworth, who often didn't report his "kills". Okay, the pilot may have been as fictious as some of Bishop's claims, but he was probably still unique in this regard!

[@garygill-harrison2261]

I'm interested to know how he was awarded the VC with no independent verification .

[@harryspeakup8452]

The Brereton Greenhous article in the Canadian Military Journal, Autumn 2002 is one source that goes into that. I can't post links here but if you google "BILLY BISHOP - BRAVE FLYER, BOLD LIAR" you will find it

[@patrickray2757]

Excellent video. Bishop was far from being the only one to be credited with spurious victories. I checked the claims of a minor German ace who I happen to share my surname with (easily done, as WW1 air combat was on a relatively small scale and other people have done the spadework by publishing exhaustive lists of Allied losses). He's credited with 17 victories, of which maybe 5 seem to have any plausibility at all. Only one is beyond doubt. I later discovered that someone else had done the same exercise and come to much the same conclusions. Did the man himself honestly believe his claims? Who knows? As others have remarked, though, at least he had the courage to put his life on the line. Have you looked into Alan Jerrard's VC award? Perhaps even more embarrassing than Bishop's, though in Jerrard's case through no fault of his own.

[@microy]

bishop and barker were notorious drinking buddies in Toronto after the war, and bishop himself said if it's heroes you're looking for, it's barker and not me...

[@andrewcarter7503]

The British army originally were reluctant to create heroes of their fighter aces in the way the Germans did. And for two understandable reasons. They thought elevating some might diminish the efforts of the others and.....the impact when the heroes created were, as was too often the case, killed. In the end it was political pressure that forced a rethink by the army.

[@thegreatdominion949]

If Bishop's VC raid was "fake", the damage goes far beyond the reputation of Bishop himself. No less than the King himself would also be implicated in the deception.

[@martinsaunders2942]

Nor really..The King would simply have been advised by a civil servant attached to the military that an individual will be awarded the medal..In no way would it have been the Kings decision.

[@thegreatdominion949]

@@martinsaunders2942 KGV was reported to have said that he had always wanted to give the three awards that Bishop received (namely the DSO, the MC and the VC) at the same time. If true, and the raid was fake, that at least makes the King an accessory to the act of deception.

[@harryspeakup8452]

@@thegreatdominion949 to be an accessory he would have had to be aware that Bishop's claim was false, and I am not aware of any evidence which demonstrates the King knew the claim to be false

[@thegreatdominion949]

@@harryspeakup8452 If what you say is true and the King with all his powers and the apparatus of the Crown and government behind him didn't have any evidence that Bishop's raid was fake, why are we doubting this?

[@Olleetheowl]

I hadn’t heard this one before. Very entertaining and informative. Well put together. 😊

[@bob_the_bomb4508]

Just don’t touch the reputation of Lord Flasheart…

[@annoyed707]

Woof!

[@thecitizen49]

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria moi" ... The old lie

[@charlieoscar09]

Catherine thankyou for the video.....most excellent. Really like the background effect you used for the shoot.....Wad it hand painted 😊

[@CatherineWarr]

It was!

[@harryspeakup8452]

It's marker and watercolours on tracing paper, backlit by the real world

[@charlieoscar09]

@@harryspeakup8452 Looks so effective well done

[@NoahSpurrier]

One reasons for the development of the gun camera.

[@jimbaird8976]

Very informative, thoughtful and well presented video. Thank you

[@sureshot8399]

I recently enjoyed the hospitality on Remembrance Day of the Billy Bishop Legion in Vancouver, Canada. It's a cozy and welcoming place with the usual memorabilia and pictures. Nice people there too, but like you Catherine, I suspect Bishop lied and that the Legion I enjoy so much is founded on the claims of a charlatan. I hope I am wrong.

[@antonioiozzi9171]

I have written the biography of italian aces of WW1 and verified and crossing data between italian, austrian germsn british and french data. All british claims suffer from large exaggerations. If Barker was italian he probably had no more then 15, max 20 victory confirmed. The "out of control" claims exist only in the RFC / RAF. I hav compared the claims between itsljan ace Silvio Scaroni ( 30 vc, 26 confirmed) with that of Barker (they served in the same period) and while the claims if the first find almost always a corrisponding Austro/Hungarian or gernan loss, the sane xsnnot be said if Barker, that however remain the most serious amongst UK pilots of the Italian front. British Co accepted for true every stupidity written by their pilots in battle reports. More then this, when they shot one down each pilot claimed it as single victory instead as one in collaboration. In this way one enemy shot down, become three or four ones in battle reports. The OOC claims in most cases don't mean nothing more than an enemy pilot spinning down trying to evade enemy fire. OOC claims don't exist in gerrnan, french, italian or AH side and the battle report was, for them, not enough to credit a victory . Multiple ground observer confirnation was needed, abd even so there was overclaiming.

[@charlesfaure1189]

Not surprising that a cheat and a liar would be awarded the VC. Postwar budget cuts were inevitable, and public relations would influence who got what piece of the pie--and whose careers would thrive, or even survive, as a result. Note also the politics involved in the awarding of the Richtofen shootdown to Roy Brown while ignoring the claims of the Australian boys on the ground who actually got him.

[@ALA-uv7jq]

Generally pilots didn't lie, they just over claimed. It was the authorities of both sides that used claims as propaganda and handed out medals. Roy Brown is a classic example of a pilot being used for propaganda purposes.

[@ivanconnolly7332]

Brilliant work Catherine, he and Barker had such different outcomes post war , I think there is something narcissistic and fishy about him, or perhaps I am not seeing how a a Hero can also be a wanker.

[@chieftandriver703]

The Empire needed a hero The RFC needed a hero The war needed a hero So they made one

[@thegreenphantom4304]

It reminds me of the controversy over who shot down Richthofen, so many claims of who did it but little proof.

[@pissedoff-is1mt]

Its the nature of people to lie and push themselves forward. People do it about everything from their wages, to how well their kids are doing, to just about everything else so I'm not surprised by this fact at all. It's probably still done by pilots now.

[@alexrevell8114]

Michael. Please Don't waste your time on the Bishop affair. It's a dead end. Best of luck with your research. If you need any help, please be free to shout.🙂

[@microy]

if u like to do another similar, but opposite vid about a contriversial Canadian Pilot, I'll give a few hints... wwll, renegade and malta. See if u figure out who I mean, what he did to deserve such scorne and even WHY noone remembers him to this day?????????????????????

[@harryspeakup8452]

I do know who you mean. Not a bad idea, and worth bearing in mind

[@billestew7535]

A lot of Canadians know screwball

[@stevebishop4926]

I can not believe that you promote this fiction over 100 years after the event. The Victoria cross has never been awarded for self proclaimed actions. How can you base this on the word of Fry, who obviously had a problem with authority, and some movies. My maternal grandfather was in the Royal Flyng Corps, obviously his surname was not Bishop.

[@Ushgarak0]

I am afraid this Victoria Cross was awarded for a self-proclaimed action. There were no witnesses. It is effectively unique amongst VCs for that, as the only other unwitnessed one was for the Unknown Soldier, which doesn't really count. The absurdity of this VC award is very worthy of comment. I also feel it is unfair to say Catherine based this entirely on Fry, especially as she noted that his word is not to be taken as gospel. She presented quite a bit of evidence.

[@harryspeakup8452]

If you think you know better, please say who witnessed the actions cited in the Bishop VC citation?

[@microy]

guynamere, von rictofen and ball ALLsadly mistaken or simply liars as well? There is a saying "let sleeping dogs lie". I know many spelling errors but not all are on purpose....

[@kernicole]

Catherine, have you read “Tiger Squadron” by Ira “Taffy” Jones, who flew with Mick Mannock? If not, I can thoroughly recommend it. Much of the WW1 part is taken from his own diary, so written at the time. When he read Bishop’s report of his exploit, he obviously believed it, but does add this: - What we can’t understand is, first, what a formation of Huns were doing above the clouds-a thick layer, with no breaks in it-since they could not see the ground. Secondly, why didn’t we see the Huns below the clouds? Luck of the game, I suppose. Is there a shadow of doubt creeping in? He also says, later on: - Everyone says they much prefer Mick to Bishop as a C.O. Mick leads all the squadron patrols and produces the Hun on a plate. Bishop rarely did this. He was an individualist, and most of his victories were on lone patrols. If you can get hold of the book, read it, if you haven't already. I think you might enjoy it.

[@Ushgarak0]

Hi kernicole, I'm the guy whose research formed the basis for this video. Tiger Squadron is an excellent book, but considering the broader topic, I couldn't let an Ira Jones mention go without noting that he tried to peg Mannock's score at 73, suspiciously one higher than Bishop's, some would say specifically to knock Bishop off his perch. Many sources still put Mannock above Bishop. Of course, with all the doubts about Bishop's score as well, it all just makes the whole scoring system look rather nonsensical...

[@markhughes7273]

Taffy Jones didn’t like Canadians or Australians because has he put it they weren’t disciplined. If Bishop didn’t deserve the VC that’s on the Brits who gave him one .Canadian pilots take a back seat to no one in both world wars .Johnnie Johnson commanded a Canadian wing and Douglas Bader commanded a Canadian squadron.Both had high praise for Canadian pilots ! Taffy Jones also didn’t mention 74 squadron shooting down RAF hurricanes by accident early in the war and his hero Sailor Malan blaming his wingmen at the court marshal proceedings. If you want to bad mouth people who aren’t here to defend there selves why don’t you start with the many Brit squadron leaders who were given commands because of their class or social standing rather than there ability.

[@Ushgarak0]

@@markhughes7273 Hi Mark! Well, many are the holes I could pick in all of Ira Jones' books, though from a mythological point of view, 'King of Air Fighters' is absolutely fascinating. But I have to disagree a little. Certainly the system Bishop was working within carries much of the blame, but that doesn't excuse Bishop making it up (if he did), and nor can we discount the relevance of pressure from the Canadian authorities. Indeed though, there were many Canadian aces in the First World War- as Collishaw later pointed out, they made up about a quarter of the British aerial services by the later parts and a lot of talent emerged there. I would also be cautious about that line about people not here to defend themselves- historical figures can and must be open to scrutiny, and it would be a very bad road to say that they cannot be criticised especially if the evidence supports it. There are interesting discussions to be had about the extent to which the class system affected the RFC- not as much as you may think, especially later on- and plenty of topics around Second World War prejudice to discuss, but none of that detracts from the importance of the message and analysis of this video. Other topics can be handled at other times.

[@keithagn]

How dare you cast aspersions on our Glorious Brave Canadian Hero! He was as pure as the driven snow on our downtown Toronto streets! You have committed WRONGSPEAK! Regards from Canada 🇨🇦

[@user-gt2jh1eb4l]

Great vid read all the books about, Ball,maddox what men

[@burtmcreavy7695]

This is not accurate by any means, Air Marshal Bishop claimed to have attacked a certain aerodrome, chances are he was mistaken, a in fact attacked a different aerodrome by mistake. The fact that he had asked at least one other pilot to join him speaks volumes. Furthermore German War records in fact do indicate that a line British plane did attack an aerodrome, causing some damage and downing several planes! on take off. The Germans who witnessed the event firmly believed the lone plane was flown by a Canadian . German pilots actually put a bounty on Bishop. As far as his Bishop returning home with no gun is certainly not proof of any deceit. Bishop claimed to have been in close combat with an enemy which would explain the closeness of the built holes. Bishop claims to have thrown his gun after it became stuck in a downward position, it would have been difficult to do so but not impossible. Furthermore many years after the war Bishop visited Manfred Von Richthofen grave sight in Germany while in Germany he was invited to ww1airmans club by Herman Goring who would eventually lead the German Air men in ww 2. A statement of fact ... Goring in front of witnesses mentioned that Bishop's solo attack on an aerodrome was the talk of many Germans at the time and further stated that airmen were convinced that 8t was a Canadian responsible for such bravery. 8n closing I would like to point out that this attack was the idea of the great ace Albert Ball not Bishop. Ball had approached Bishop with the idea and asked him to join along to which agreed to do. Unfortunately Ball was killed before the plan took place. When people do research of Air Marshal Bishop they must look at all available information. It is to easy to come to a conclusion without studying in depth.

[@brianhind6149]

I personally believe in letting sleeping dogs lie. It matters not what anybody thinks more than 100 years ago. If Bishop lied only he knew for certain. Too many avenues exist for accurate analysis 100 years later. If we assume that Bishop did lie, the promotion of his non existed activities raised the spirits of his countrymen . If his story is true, 100 years after the fact changes nothing. I see no purpose in denigrating the man's history when "hard" evidence is unavailable.

[@Ushgarak0]

This isn't a sleeping dog. It is a matter of historical and mythological analysis. As Catherine noted, ultimately it's not rally about whether Bishop lied or not- it's about how the myth spread in defiance of the facts, and the extreme resistance to questioning a mythological narrative like that. But history absolutely must not be hampered by sentiment. The fact remains that Bishop received a VC for an action that was in blatant defiance of the rules of the VC- and examining the circumstances around this, and what it says about the mythology of the fighter pilot, is a very valid area for analysis.

[@kyleJohn1997]

I always regarded Aces like Ball, McCudden and Mannock but never Bishop

[@thegreatdominion949]

Odd that you compare Bishop with three British aces that were killed during the war. Bishop, like the rest of the top Canadian aces, survived the war which put him on an entirely different level in my opinion.

[@kyleJohn1997]

@@thegreatdominion949 Well I'm British so of cause I'll regard them over a Canadian

[@kyleJohn1997]

@@thegreatdominion949 So those that survived are automatically better than those that had fallen? if you say so

[@thegreatdominion949]

@@kyleJohn1997 I didn't say that exactly, though there is something to be said for the ability to survive in such circumstances when so many others did not.

[@robertbruce7686]

Beguns to sound like Black Adder...wooof 😂

[@dalesideroadclassiccarwork9038]

It's probably the origin of the moniker Billie Bullshit.

[@michaelwhite8031]

It would be hard to live with lies like that.

[@philhawley1219]

Not If the liar is also a narcissist.

[@detch01]

Trying to make a name for yourself by damaging someone else's. Seems to be the standard today for academic achievement.

[@alansmithee8831]

A'reyt Catherine. So, you reckon the RFC were sold a Pup? It would appear so from what that novice said to Bishop. Well, I assume you know why folk get nicknamed Billy?

[@jonpowell9011]

He was called Billy as his father was called William as well.

[@alansmithee8831]

​@@jonpowell9011. I am sure any allegations against Billy's family are planely untrue. No need for anyone to get cross.

[@timpedder6046]

A Sopwith Pup no doubt?

[@alansmithee8831]

@@timpedder6046 I could say "No, a Camel", but you might get the hump.

[@timpedder6046]

N@@alansmithee8831 No hump taken. I don't regard that as a Snipe....

[@BruceGCharlton]

Good, fair and informative video. But I think you rather overgeneralize - in the sense that the WWI pilots really were an exceptionally varied group of individuals, so that generalizations are not very useful in this situation. What it means is that each pilot really ought to be evaluated in a way that takes account of his known character. Some famous aces were extremely honest; and cautious, conservative, under-claimers - as attested by those who knew them closely. Past behaviour tells us about a person's character - characters vary widely, and character is predictive (not 100%, but very significantly). The thing about Bishop was that he was an habitually dishonest and self seeking individual, as was attested over time by those who knew him. Therefore while one pilot - such as McCudden - might be scrupulously honest and should be regarded as trustworthy; another pilot was not trustworthy - and Bishop was not trustworthy. On these grounds Bishop should certainly not have been awarded the VC, and if another VC needed to be awarded for morale reasons, there were more worthy recipients. Plus, of course, it sets a ridiculous and impossible precedent to award VCs for uncorroborated acts of heroism. A carte blanche for psychopaths! Similarly with respect to the more general phenomenon of the "chivalry" of scout pilots - I think you are speaking to generally. This was a very real phenomenon, and stood is contrast to other branches of the military (and for understandable reasons) [see "Signed with their honour: The story of chivalry in air warfare" 1914-45 by Piet J Meirjering (1987) .] But chivalrous behaviour was not true of all individual pilots, in all circumstances - and was much less in the later years of the war (as the air service expanded hugely, and began to be used in massed formations.) So it is not accurate to "debunk" the idea of chivalrous scout pilots by citing the instances when it did Not happen; what is remarkable are the many examples - especially in the first half of the war and into earlier 1917, when extraordinary acts of chivalry Did happen.

[@Ushgarak0]

Hello Bruce- I'm the guy whose research formed the basis for this video. There are indeed a large number of complications once we start digging into the personalities of individual aces, although I'd be wary of just accepting the word of people who knew them, else we end up with situation like Ira Jones' weird deification of Mannock and an attempt to rig his score above Bishop's. But with chivalry, although tis is an area whose examination needs some nuance- not to mention definition of terms- I am afraid there was no point in the air war where chivalry had any significant presence. I'm afraid Meijering's book, as well as being excessively romantic, is riddled with errors and ill-checked facts, and he relies on accounts like that of Udet's supposed duel with Guynemer, which is fictional. The idea that there was early war chivalry that was lost as formation flying became the norm seems largely to have come from Arthur Gould Lee's declaration of such in No Parachute. But check out his own depiction of his first victory, a one-on-one fight which is as lacking in chivalry as you can get. Gould Lee was also a romantic. In fact, in the 1970s he wanted to write a book on aerial chivalry and went as far as sending out detailed questionnaires to many of his surviving comrades- but nearly all of them wrote back saying that the chivalric concept was nonsense. The whole mythology of aerial chivalry was slow to take off in Britain- much faster in France and the United States; it didn't really form here until the interwar years, looking back in retrospect.

[@washingtonradio]

Overclaiming in aerial warfare was a major problem in WWI and WWII.

[@roberthickerty390]

This is getting tiresome, the constant questioning of Bishop’s raid. French farmers in the area on the morning of the raid said they heard machine guns and aircraft from the direction of Bishop’s attack. The airfield was a transitory airfield that was a point for aircraft being sent to the front as replacements and so was not recorded as a an airfield. It was not the original site Bishop wanted to attack, and because of this no aircraft were reported lost at the airfield he thought he attacked. There were German records that showed that a certain number of aircraft that should have shown at front line airfields never arrived, the number being the same as Bishop claimed. Bishop’s mechanic stated that his aircraft showed more damage than a few bullet holes in the fusellage, a lie perpetrated by an envious pilot who did not like Bishop. Bishop also tried to wake the pilot who was to accompany him but he was too hungover. The morning was cold and rainy, a day that could easily be postponed but Bishop went anyway. He made the reasonable claim that he tossed out his machine gun as he was low on fuel and the winds were blowing out of the west, as they usually did causing to use more fuel than he expected. Bishop was his own best fan but most pilots are rather full of themselves. As well the aerial claims of victory were often over enemy territory (you could not go and grab a souvenir of the downed plane as Richtofen could do). Bishop was also not the first pilot to claim victories without definitive proof. Albert Ball, the beloved British fighter pilot, claimed a number of victories with only himself as witness but since he would never lie, being a proper Englishman, unlike those brash colonials. The shoot down totals often did not match any german records for a couple of reasons. First, propaganda. Even in the first world war the Germans, in fact all sides, understood the value of not letting the public know just how things were going. Second, the actual claims. In WW1 a plane did not have to be seen to crash, it could be claimed as “going down in a spin” or “shot down out of control”. In fact the German pilots were taught to use these tactics to escape a fight gone bad. Thus, an ally fighter could claim a victory while German records showed no loss. In WW2 this was tightened as gun cameras became available. Bishop wanted to be famous and this rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, especially the snobbish Brits. They were stuck supporting Bishop because he was on their side but at the same time a lot of bad press and stories were told of him. I prefer to believe Bishop did what he said.

[@landoremick7422]

Sounds suspicious

[@microy]

yours is a generation steeped in mis- guide and intentioned TRUTHS?? , sowing controvesy for the sake of such with little experience and much less understanding,; but I digress. At the beginning of the war in which allies were losing quite badly, there was a concerted effort NOT to spotlight the efforts of any particular individual as MANY people were sacrificing ALL in an attempt tp stem the tide. The opposite was true in Germany as the populace thrilled in the exploits of battle and lived on stories of past and present conquests. In Britain and to a greater degree in France war weariness was negativly affecting moral in both civillian and military circles and there was a need to give a focus oin any successes great or small, real or imagined.

[@davidwheatcroft2797]

While there is doubt about his VC incident, on his last day he shot down 3 planes and 2 others crashed onto each other. Some doubt about this too. He was a lousy pilot, Court marshalled for breaking yet another undercarriage. His son crashed 2 Spitfires in WW2.

[@geoffreyheading3752]

Nice piece of character asasination on someone who can't come back at you!!!

[@Ushgarak0]

It's an evidenced piece of analysis on a historical situation. The idea that historical figures should be immune from criticism is an absurdity. The only justification needed is that there is good reason to believe this is true, which trumps any other consideration.

[@RandomCBRN]

the evidence is pretty stacked man

[@TrainmanDan]

So we have maybe a bs story about a raid and a maybe a bs story about what 'really' happened. No corroboration either way. Those guys were beyond courageous to just get into one of those crates. An example, the lauded Camel killed as many trainee pilots as it did German pilots in combat.

[@Ushgarak0]

The Camel was indeed a difficult aeroplane to fly and acquired quite the reputation in that respect- but the 1300 or so victories ascribed to it (difficult, as ever, to be sure how many of those actually resulted in German deaths) is far beyond its training casualties. You may want to check out the work of David Spruce, who is doing a lot of modern work on RFC training and in particular pointing out how Denis Winter badly exaggerated those casualties in the 1980s, something that has rather skewed the field ever since.

[@HO-bndk]

Sir Thomas Sopwith himself [in an interview with Raymond Baxter] said the Camel "definitely wasn't everyone's cup of tea"

[@ivanconnolly7332]

Bishops early exam cheating suggests sociopathy, post war his lack of any evident of .P.T.S.D type symptoms and an upward career arc reinforce this, especially when compared to the fate of Barker. Most combat veterans, have PTSD and fraught relationships with partners and children, in Barkers case it is as if he was never in combat, or was he a psychopath who does not experience fear but would have no pangs of conscience regarding a little exaggeration.

[@freeman8128]

What is most shameful is to slander a dead hero who can no longer defend himself.

[@Ushgarak0]

Evidenced fair comment is not slander.

[@RandomCBRN]

google "slander definition" please

[@57tricci]

ok, Ok you got your 15 minutes of fame. Now leave the dead alone. On the other hand, instead of criticizing the credits, lets look at the people that came up with the rules and the lack of or poor administration that "may" have been or not been available at the time. History and events at that time of war, may have not been documented at best, unlike today or even during WWII. So, leave and let live, leave the dead ones alone.

[@harryspeakup8452]

Your argument amounts to "don't study history at all"

[@ivanconnolly7332]

Catherine you referred to the "Blue max" Bishop has much in common with Bruno Stachel, a great fighter pilot but not a gentleman, capable of false kill claims.

[@snackweasle6516]

I'm sure he was a brave man, and was a WW1 ace, a feat in itself which stands out... however, several air historians have independently investigated Bishops claims, and the overarching view was that Bishop's tally could not be verified over and above 27 victories... Like some other aces, he wasn't above "shooting a line", but the VC claim was fairly obviously staged. German records in both wars were as accurate as they could be, and this aerodrome attack just never happened... Bishop himself was obviously a charismatic figure when he desired to be so, and was ensconced in high level British society via his patron Lady St Helier, even prior to his exploits. Canadian adoption of Bishop as a figurehead as his fame developed would not allow him to be seen "cheating" so even though there were rumours amongst his peers at the time, and so his place in history was assured.

[@throttlegalsmagazineaustra7361]

The Royal Flying Corps never officially recognised the notion of a pilot becoming an ace. By 1917 any romantic ideals of chivalry in the air were pretty much regarded as nonsense by pilots who were flying in vulnerable and outdated aircraft to be slaughtered by German pilots in far superior machines. Over-claiming was an issue throughout WW2, as well. Fry strikes me as a young, inexperienced pilot who appears to have crossed swords with someone, much to his detriment. I suspect he was somewhat disillusioned upon being sent back to England, and had an axe to grind. The fact remains that Bishop was awarded the VC for a lone attack on an enemy airfield and no-one, to the best of my knowledge, has been able to offer conclusive proof that he didn't. Excellent story as always Catherine!

[@sureshot8399]

Sometimes the absence of evidence supporting a claim is as damning as evidence refuting it. Unsurprisingly, the Germans were scrupulous record keepers in the First World War, and the fact that their records of that day, and days close to that day record nothing of Bishop's account happening are conclusive to me.

[@user-lt9py2pu6u]

Not all people who have been involved in combat seek to glorify their actions. My late father was awarded a DFC during his service as a gunner in a bomber command pathfinder squadron but never wore it or even talked about it. If you asked him what it was for he would just say we had a job to do and we all did it. On one mission a young Canadian pilot from his squadron was posthumously awarded a VC for pressing home an attack under heavy fire and then attempting to land his burning aircraft as two of the crew were in incapacitated and couldn't bail out. He actually landed the aircraft but it ended up in a ditch and exploded killing all three men. Given the amount of RAF bombers shot down in WW2 I often wonder how many heroic actions such as this happened but went unnoticed as there were no witnesses with the aircraft just being listed as failed to return.

[@throttlegalsmagazineaustra7361]

@@user-lt9py2pu6u An extremely valid point. Unfortunately those stories are far beyond our ability to recreate them.

[@brucewalker5890]

I understand that Bishop’s VC is the only VC ever awarded on the recipient’s say so with no corroboration. It doesn’t make him a liar but it does make grounds for suspicion especially in the light of other previously exhibited patterns. Wars need heroes to show to the home front. Did Bishop put himself forward for a VC? Probably not.

[@throttlegalsmagazineaustra7361]

@@brucewalker5890 l don't think you can put yourself in for a VC, or any decoration, truth be told?