Talk:William George Barker/Archives/2013/September

William Barker

 * A possible explanation of what happened on William Barker's last flight in October 1918. See [#23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * Just a bunch of guys talking. None of the so-called "theories" is credible since there were approximately 150,000 witnesses to the action. This was one VC action that is completely unchallengeable. FWIW Bzuk 19:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC).


 * No "theories" involved at all. Descriptions of the details of Barker's last action seem to be not entirely reliable. There are some, like McNaughton, whose memories seemed to get clearer with the passage of time. Wayne Ralph suggests that, due the the altitude at which it happened, it would simply have been impossible for observers on the ground to determine exactly what was going on even if they could see it. The notion of it being "unchallengeable" is, in itself, very challengable. None of this impugns or seeks to impugn Barker's courage, skill or worthiness of the Victoria Cross but it should be mentioned that he never spoke of the incident himself and yet there are plenty of florid descriptions of it. Whether this could be attributable to shock or amnesia doesn't seem to be recorded. What does seem to be known is that the aircraft which were claimed for him and the wounds he suffered tend to support a lot of what has been said in contemporary reports, including his medal citation. However, they don't necessarily fit with German losses and other allied claims for the day in that area.Flanker235 (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The aerodrome page that was being referenced is basically a blog, with various submitters simply offering their own explanations or theories of what happened. The figure that is often attributed is 60 German aircraft in the melée, but that number was never claimed by Barker and appears to be a media creation. As Wayne Ralph has documented, the action was difficult to describe but why it was considered "unchallengeable", was because witnesses confirmed the action had taken place. The air battle took place over front lines and there were appreciable losses that were suffered on the German side with aircraft downed, how many is still unclear. Barker was seriously wounded; he was brought down and rescued by Allied soldiers on the ground and even his shattered aircraft was eventually recovered. All these pieces of evidence were incontrovertible. There was a degree of controversy, however, over other VC citations, notably that of Billy Bishop, where there was no confirming witness. In the Second World War, a similar action that was only witnessed by one airman, did lead to a VC for Andrew Mynarski. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC).
 * My apologies. I have also read reports that the dogfight may have involved up to 60 machines but I have never seen any supporting evidence. I'm not sure that media was even involved in this, Certainly not in the manner in which it would be covered today. Most of the published stuff came not from reporters in the normal sense but from military figures, as Ralph points out.


 * I would go out on a limb and say that Barker was a freak and although he was running out of time, a VC would have been almost inevitable for a man like him anyway. Even among Canadians, who are grossly over-represented on the claims charts, Baker was exceptional. Remember also that of the 79 Allied pilots who claimed 20 or more, 21 of these are Canadian. Compared to the relative number in service, that is an amazing statistic.


 * By the by; one of the people in that discussion from the Aerodrome - "Barrett" - is in fact, Barrett Tillman. He knows his spuds.Flanker235 (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The number of aircraft may have been inflated but when the media picked up "60 enemy aircraft", it was reported as if it were fact, and then in inevitable nature of redigesting and revisiting the story, the initial reports have been transposed into later accounts, ad infinitum. Barker's Snipe still exists in the Canada War Museum and certainly shows signs of distress. Barrett Tillman is certainly a well-known figure amongst military aviation historians. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Trying to blame the media for reports of "60 enemy aircraft" is to perpetrate a myth which simply cannot be established in this case (the stereotypical media bogeyman). Do you have any evidence that they reported it as fact? And where did "the media" get this spurious information? Sources, that's where. In other words, what they were told, presumably by service personnel. Did they have any reason to believe that this was untrue? Who would deny it? Your comment that "in inevitable nature of redigesting and revisiting the story, the initial reports have been transposed into later accounts, ad infinitum" fails to take into account what you stated earlier: that "there were approximately 150,000 witnesses to the action". 150,000 witnesses equals 150,000 different versions of events, maybe including some who mentioned 60 EA. Even Barker's VC citation takes considerable licence. Ralph says as much.Flanker235 (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

A case of either misreporting or simply wanting to believe the mythology of a massive air battle with a David and Goliath outcome may be at the heart of the Barker saga. The 150,000 front line troops did witness a melee and could confirm that the battle actually took place which is in contrast to the situation wherein other VC commendations were made without corroborating evidence from impartial witnesses. In the original VC citation, the statement made was "... a large formation of Fokkers". The "60 versus one" story has a curious origin as Barker himself never publicly asserted or confirmed the figure. The only mention he ever made was in the 1920s when the details of the action which was still a matter of interest, was to refer journalists to the public record. "It's all down in the Gazette" which accurately stated the VC action. However, the phrase "60-against-1" or "1-against-60" (now quoting from Ralph's definitive biography), "was part of the lead in most of the newspapers." The London Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Mail all led with the story. Ralph also reveals that Lieutenant General Sir Richard Turner, himself a VC recipient, had included the newspaper phrase "60-against-1" on his memorandum requesting Barker's promotion to lieutenant colonel. The siren song of Barker valiantly fighting against 60 foes was repeated, and is found in numerous later publications including, Great Aircraft and their Pilots by Roy Cross (1971) where the description of "a whole German 'circus' of about 60 enemy machines" is found, and in Aces and Aircraft of World War I by Christopher Campbell (1981), with the statement is "... a stepped formation of over 60 Fokker DVIIs" is noted. In contrast, no contemporary or recent accounts continue this mythology, including works by Canadian aviation historian Larry Milberry who defers to the research of Wayne Ralph. A playwright whose Barker's Battles was recently staged in Manitoba, dealt with the issue of legend versus fact as a key element in the stage play. When the legend is so powerful and alluring, it can overwhelm the actual story; "Billy the Kid" was not left-handed, nor a "Billy" but as in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (John Ford's 1962 paean to the American "wild" west), "when the legend becomes fact, print the legend." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes but my point is that the media did not invent it. Despite the usual paradigm about the media, they don't invent stories as a rule. Occasionally they get it wrong. For so many outlets to report it the way they did, it had to come from a source or sources. Some would call this sensationalism. If it was accurate then it was in fact a sensational story. However, since there were few reporters near the front in those days, the information must have come from somewhere and given that everyone was reporting the same thing, it would be safe to assume that they were all using basically the same source.


 * Norman Franks, in his book "Who Downed the Aces in WWI?", says this of Barker's action: "There are a number of air actions that seem so well reported that it is difficult to admit little is really known of what went on. A certain Canadian's VC action in June 1917 is a case in point, and another Canadian won his VC in an action which is well reported but lacking in many details. Unlike the June 1917 action, we at least know Captain William George Barker was in combat, if for no other reason than his multiple wounds."


 * He goes on to say "It would not be uncharitable to say there were probably not as many German fighters as Barker himself thought, for he probably imagined that each time he came round, he was fighting other Germans, and of course soldiers often exaggerated what they saw or didn't totally understand what they were seeing." Since you seem to have a copy of Ralph's book, I would refer you to pages 165-66 where you will find the combat report which was not written by Barker himself but by his squadron commander, Major Leman. Some quick arithmetic, using figures gleaned from that report, will get you a figure of 45+ aircraft. We're not at 60 yet but we're close.


 * There is, of course, nothing more than information from Barker - who would have still been very much in a state of shock and quite probably confused about the number of aircraft he was fighting. Throw in the glowing tribute from McNaughton, which Ralph suggests has been somewhat embellished and it is easy to see how a figure of 60 might have been arrived at. And who would question the credibility of any of those sources, especially a general? Ralph also suggests that it was possible Leman wrote the report while Barker was still unconscious or incapacitated, a not uncommon practice of that era. Perhaps this is a possible reason why Barker never spoke of it. Maybe he didn't know himself (but I don't want to reduce this to speculation on my part).


 * The source therefore, would seem to be Leman, backed up by McNaughton (sorry; speculating again). None of this invalidates in any way, Barker's worthiness of the award. What it does seem to highlight is that the recommendation was made before anyone really knew the full story. That a VC was to be conferred would have been of serious interest to the press and they would simply have sought out the combat report if it was available to them. If not, they would have found someone in the War Department with access to the relevant information, who would tell them.Flanker235 (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Ralph's 2007 10th Anniversary Edition is fairly straightforward in that newspaper accounts were the source of the myth (p. 147 and p. 167 in the earlier editions, relates the account of three leading British newspapers in 1918 that used the "60-against-1" figure) and the only official source they would be privy to would be the official VC Citation of 30 November 1918 printed in the London Gazette. No journalist of the period would have been able to access combat reports, including that of a front line officer such as Major Cyril Leman, who did write the combat report that was later cited in The War in the Air: Being the Story of the Part Played in the Great War by the Royal Air Force, (1922) by Sir Walter Raleigh and Henry Albert Jones.

The two witnesses that were widely known to have a first-hand account of the action were Brigadier General Andrew McNaughton (whose rather dramatic retelling has been questioned by modern historians as being improbable due to McNaughton's ground position being 15-mile distant of the aerial battle) and Lieutenant Frank Wooley Smith from the 29 Kite Balloonists Section who had led the recovery of Barker from his battered Snipe. His written testimony only appeared in 1969, and sheds no light on the actual events of the aerial battle just about the forced landing by Barker. Leman's combat report does not mention 60 aircraft but does fix the number of approximately 15 attackers (he describes three waves of attack which could conceivably be the same aircraft attacking then withdrawing to attack again), which is the now agreed upon figure of the enemy that Barker faced. That these German aircraft would have been able to withdraw and repeatedly attack is thought to be the more accurate picture of just what went on that morning.

The one period newspaper article I have been able to access is from The Daily News of 7 November 1918, entitled "One against 60. Greatest Individual Feat of the War. Epic Air Fight. Wounded Major Crashes Eight Enemy Machines." by H. Perry Robinson, stationed in France, and written on Wednesday, 6 November 1918. Even at this early juncture, the story must have been passed around, and the article is obviously based on hearsay, but charitably, perhaps on some legitimate research as the wounds mentioned are accurate, but that appears to be the only factual aspect of the dramatic tale that is told. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC).


 * This would have been a problem for anyone. With few official sources, nearly everything would be heresay to some degree. That's the nature of war reporting sometimes. If enough people are saying it, it's hard to write something else. It's a pity the myth was perpetuated for so long and clearly Barker had little to do with it. Robinson's article, written about 10 days after the incident, predates Barker's VC investiture by about 5 months so I guess the citation is not relevant but the story was repeated in more or less the same form in both official and unofficial documents.


 * The article says towards the end "Experts watching said it was the finest exhibition of brilliant manoeuvring ever witnessed, and two at least of the enemy were sent down helpless before, seeing his chance, the Major broke through the circle of enemies and dived for the ground." I would not expect him to say who these "experts" were but it's probably safe to assume that they are his source/sources. It's probably also safe to assume they were from the RAF/RFC. The story mirrors the combat report almost perfectly so someone must have known. A leak? You be the judge.


 * A reporter has to gauge what is being said and whether the information is trustworthy. That's not always easy but if he was convinced that the source believed the information, then it was reported in good faith, even though there seems to be some considerable dramatisation and licence taken with the story. Fact checking under those circumstances would have been very difficult. Barker's name is not reported which raises the question of whether it was known to Robinson.


 * Wayne Ralph points out that the 15 aircraft were probably the same ones but Barker, due to loss of faculties under extreme stress, may not have been sure and possibly believed that they were different ones. The combat report says as much. It refers to several formations. Flanker235 (talk) 04:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, according to Ralph, when Barker was asked about the action, he usually replied "It's all down in the Gazette". Does anyone know if this refers to the official documents or whether he was referring to a newspaper. I always assumed he mean the former. Flanker235 (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

All official VC Citations including Barker's, on 30 November 1918, were printed in the London Gazette. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC).

Where are the citations of sources?
This article is totally without citations. By WP standards, it could be totally blanked as containing unsubstantiated information.

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The major and groundbreaking work on Barker is by historian Wayne Ralph who has revised some of the article but is reluctant to quote extensively from his own work. I, however, have no such restrictions, and can provide authoritative reference sources, albeit many from Ralph's own work. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC).

Bzuk to the rescue...how extremely cool. I had hoped to jar somebody into doing this, and an expert on citations is just what's needed.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)