Flying Tigers VS Christopher Shores?

[Ruy Horta]

The claim that Ford and Shores wrote without any evidence is painfully ludicrous, since they built their case on available documentation from BOTH sides, instead of Allied (read AVG) only. This reverse reasoning can only be a weak attempt to lower the credibility of Ford and Shores.

The AVG were special men, although Ford shows them more as well paid mercenaries than idealists, similar of the type that later flew for the CIA in South East Asia, but they were the darlings of the American public and a source of good news during a dark period. However wartime claims are not always the best benchmark and public myth not the easiest foundation to shake.

Unfortunately for the AVG, not all their claims have stood the scrutiny of objective historical research. If thorough research based on available documents from both sides show a different story, it is time to revise our take of events. If that process is called revisionism, there is nothing to be ashamed about...

If we look at the writings of Shores and his team regarding the air war in the Netherlands East Indies, it is nothing but thorough and objective. It shows inflated claims on both sides, but events seem to match pretty accurately. At least no Dutch historian has disputed their findings, far from it, they form the basis of current publications.

Finally IMHO the truth wouldn't hurt the AVG as much as this controversy.

Overclaiming isn't unique, it doesn't change the special circumstances under which these men fought.

It doesn't change their flamboyant, even "Hollywood-esque" image, as Flying Tigers. It doesn't even influence their role in History: they were there when the United States needed them and they fought a hard battle that was in many ways unique (be that as a publicity tool or a military unit).