Talk:Henry Ford/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Activism against WWI

Ford's activism against WWI should be mentioned, I know he had something called the Ford ASS Ship or something like that. Anyone know more about that? Of course he was still a complete jerk (ie nazis and anti-semitism). I think his anti-semitism should be mentioned in the intro, but I don't want to put it in because there has been a lot of arguing over the label. Do people think it should be put in? (July 1, 05)

[edit] Peace Ship

Henry Ford used this ship to attempt to sell tractors to the Russians uder the guise of a goodwill mision to end the war.

[edit] 1904 land speed record

Who know something about Henry Ford's Land speed record with the Ford 999 in 1904. It lacks in my source for Land speed record. Ericd

[edit] removal of "(and false)"

I don't understand why "(and false)" (about the Zion thing) keeps being removed, without any discussion, so I'll keep putting it back, OK? :) It would be nice if the person who is so keen to remove it could advance a case for this. 194.117.133.118 00:00 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

I don't understand why it's removed without any comment on the talk page. Ericd

[edit] Ford's financial backing of Hitler

The whole section on Nazism is a joke. This is obviously a controversy and subject to a lot of discusion here. Ford did a lot of things and was an anti-Semite but not a Nazi. If someone didn't know anything about Ford they'd be badly served reading Wikipedia. This might even improve the imagine of Nazism to say someone from Asia without much knowledge of western history. It seems like some Europeans are using Ford to blame America for their own war, which was entirely their own fault.

Can we have some historical backing for the following statements, please? References to scholarly works of history, etc? --Clutch this is very interesting:

Detractors often point out that Henry Ford gave Adolf Hitler financial backing when Hitler was first starting out in politics, and prohibited Jews from working in the Ford company's European factories. In July of 1938, Ford became the first American awarded the Grand Cross of the Order of the German Eagle by the Nazi regime, the highest award that could be given to a civilian. He was praised in Hitler's Mein Kampf as "the only man in America free from Jewish control."
The last sentence is a paraphrase; I'll quote the passage in full here:
...It is Jews who govern the stock exchange forces of the American Union. Every year makes them more and more the controlling masters of the producers in a nation of one hundred and twenty millions; only a single great man, Ford, to their fury, still maintains full independence."
– Mein Kampf, first edition, page 639.
A footnote in my translation states that in the second edition Hitler changed "a single great man, Ford" to "only a very few". This might be a source of confusion.
The rest should be fairly easy to confirm or deny; I'll work on it a bit today. Hephaestos 16:11 Jan 30, 2003 (UTC)
(Here is a photograph of him recieving the Grand Cross; that wasn't very difficult. In light of this, I think I'll let others play class librarian on the rest if they wish. Hephaestos 16:25 Jan 30, 2003 (UTC))

[edit] Repudiation

The formal repudiation, while perhaps forced by public opinion (one cannot, after all, read Ford's mind) was dated June 30, 1927. These two sources, [1] and [2], agree. It's fairly obvious what when two independent sources with widely different agendas agree on something, it can be taken as truth.

Furthermore, I'd be interested in knowing the rationale behind demanding sources for statements and then deleting the reference to said sources when they are presented. To put it in the mildest terms I am able to muster, such behavior shows a distinct lack of scholarship. Until such time as you are motivated to do your own research, I would advise you to leave the products of others' research alone.

Hephaestos 00:43 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

You put a link to the Aryan Nations website as a reference. When I followed the link, the very top of the page talked about a) Henry Ford's confession that he didn't sign the document, and him and his family were suprised to hear about it and b) Ford's personal secretary wrote a book at his time at Ford, where he confirmed Ford's statement that he was the one that signed the apology, which had actually been written by the Anti-Defamation Committee. --Clutch 00:53 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)
I do not consider the Aryan Nations website to be an unbiased source (nor do I consider the ADL website an unbiased source). The fact that they agree the apology document was issued, regardless of their respective spins on the circumstances, is very telling.
The link was there as an illustration of how "The International Jew" remains currently-read and influential more than fifty years after Ford's death. While one can in no way say that every site with a copy of the book is a hate site, it's fairly clear that a competently-done hate site would not be without it (I could have just as easily pointed to the KKK site, for example).
Hephaestos 01:07 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Clutch's editing

I'm distressed by the character this page is taking under Clutch's hands. Ford "published a series of articles on Judaism"??!? He's hardly Menachem Mendel Schneerson, here. I don't think Clutch should be editing this page, or other pages about anti-semites, if he can't bring himself to be anything other than apologetic. Graft

Some facts:

  1. Henry Ford, while a major industrialist, was no genius (yeah, yeah, it's POV--keep reading). In a recorded converation he stated: "All the world needs for the guidance of its life could be written on two pages of a child's copybook."
  2. He also hated cities (he was an avid back-to-the soil supporter), bankers, etc.
  3. He believed that a consortium of "international Jews were behind" World War I and all other wars for that matter.
  4. He hated what he called the "Jewish international capitalist," while he himself owned a financial empire with branches and factories (plantations and mines) around the world.
  5. He justified this with word play. He was "industrialist" while Jews were "capitalist."
  6. He did not write his own columns in the Dearborn Independent. They were written by Ernest Liebold (a close friend of Von Pappen, the vice-fuehrer and a Nazi propagandist); William Cameron (a Bristish Israelism supporter, who believed that the English people were the true Israel of the Bible and that the Jews were spawn of the devil--a precursor of Christian Identity); and Boris Brasol (a former member of the Black Hundred in Russia, which organized the pogroms of the late 19th century and one of the groups suspected of writing the Protocols).
  7. On two occassions, 1922 and 1927, Ford retracted his anti-Semitism. Several reasons are given for this, including law suits, presidential aspirations, and a decline in sales in Jewish areas (all assumptions).
  8. Hitler quoted Ford frequently and may even have plagiarized sections of Mein Kampf from the Independent.
  9. While Ford later denounced this episode, his publications continued (and even now continue) to be quoted and reprinted by anti-Semitic organizations, including Nazis and neo-Nazis.
  10. Whether he actually changed his mind about Jews is open to debate. My reading of the evidence is that he did not (but again, that is my personal POV).

Cheers. Danny 16:51 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Ford was antisemite

Henry Ford was antisemite this is obvious instead of reffering to some neo-nazi site to deny it read Henryés prose at : http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/FordJew/00000001.htm

I suggest you read the Wikipedia NPOV policy. Although Ford was anti-Semitic in some sense of the word, the word carries emotional baggage in the minds of most people which is libellous to apply to Henry Ford. For instance, he never supported pogroms, bigotry, or violence toward Jews. He spoke out against such things. Yet, the commonly understood implication of the word anti-Semite is that the target of the epithet would have supported the gas chambers and death camps of Nazi Germany.
Secondus, anti-Semitic implies racially based hatred. Again, Ford and many others branded as anti-Semites had no racially based hatred. They had a dislike of Talmudism, based on their informed adherence to Christianity. In an academic sense, that may be "anti-Semitic", but in the popular mind, religious differences are NOT anti-Semitism. If being a Christian is sufficient cause to be called anti-Semite, then you are alienating a large percentage of the worlds population. This encyclopedia is for everyone, remember? You can't exclude Christians just because you want the liberal, atheist, and Jewish biases to compromise this encyclopedias neutrality.
By calling Henry Ford an anti-Semite, you are violating NPOV by making a moral judgement about someone, instead of providing information so that the reader can make their own informed decision about the matter. But far worse, you are using a word in an academic way in a popular context where the words meaning has emotional baggage and innuendos that paint a dramatically false and misleading picture of the man under discussion.
If this were a scholarly publication in a field where anti-Semitic had a clear, well defined meaning, I would support your use of the word anti-Semite to describe Henry Ford. But it isn't. The Wikipedia is an international project to provide an encyclopedia to the public at large. That means using language that they can understand, instead of deceptive terms that only make sense to academics.
If you are pissed off because Henry Ford didn't hire Talmudists at his factories, put that in. That is factual and neutral. But keep it NPOV; don't call him an anti-Semite unless you can show clear evidence that he hated the Jewish race, and wanted it harmed or exterminated. Don't confuse race with religion. Don't confuse dislike with hatred.
--Clutch 00:49 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

"That means using language that they can understand, instead of deceptive terms that only make sense to academics." Well wikipedia is not for dummies.

"Henry Ford didn't hire Talmudists at his factories, put that in. That is factual and neutral. But keep it NPOV; don't call him an anti-Semite unless you can show clear evidence that he hated the Jewish race, and wanted it harmed or exterminated."

It's the evidence he was anti-semite. There's no evidence he was nazi. Anti-Semite fits perfectly with NPOV.

NPOV doesn't mean hiding some dissssturbing facts.

Another source : http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/sutton_wall_street/ read chapter 6

Ericd 01:20 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

The general public includes many dummies as you term them. If you want to make an elitist encyclopedia, I suggest that the Wikipedia isn't for you. The charter of the Wikipedia is that of a humanist project for the benefit of all mankind; not some tiny and specialized "elite".
To say that anti-Semite fits perfectly is to ignore it's emotional baggage. We are even careful with calling some religious groups "Arian", or using the word "alleged" because of the emotional content they convey to the casual reader; and these are minor words. Do we not have a duty to be even more careful when using such an extremely emotionally charged word as "anti-Semite"?
--Clutch 02:42 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

Without taking an opinion on Henry Ford's alleged anti-Semitism, I must disagree with Clutch. I don't think that advocating violence against Jews is necessary in order to be considered anti-Semitic. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn, but not there. Tokerboy

There is no dispute over whether Ford was anti-Semitic in some specialized, academic sense. He was. The dispute is over the appropriateness of giving one a label that in the popular mind has connotations that are untrue when applied to Henry Ford. --Clutch 02:42 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

Aryan Nation is of course a NPOV source ? I put the link everybody can make his opinion about the sources of Clutch. http://www.twelvearyannations.com/ Ericd

Hephaestos, a contributor to this article who views Ford as an anti-Semite, keeps putting in a link to the Aryan Nation; I have not used them as a source, nor am I responsible for the link to them that this indivudal keeps inserting. --Clutch 02:42 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

In the Dearborn Independent, Henry Ford called Jews "parasites, sloths and lunatics. He said they were "apostles of murder." Is that not anti-Semitic? Talmudist, by the way, a word frequently used in the Independent, was another term for Jews. Did Ford discuss gas chambers? No. Neither did Hitler in Mein Kampf--or was that another Jew-friendly text? My suggestion is go read Henry Ford and the Jews by Neil Baldwin. Danny 01:30 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

Talmudist has a considerably narrower meaning than Jew. Jew implies a racial and ethnic group as well as a religious group. Talmudist refers to participants in rabbinical Judaism, and their associated culture. A majority of modern Jews are not Talmudists, nor do they belong to a common race, which should tell you that even the word Jew itself is not very well defined today; whereas Talmudist is clear and unambiguous. --Clutch 02:42 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

"the articles explicitly condemned pogroms, violence, and bigotry against Jews." I can't find any serious reference. But Ford used violence against the trade union isn't. Ericd 01:40 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

For serious references, read what Ford himself wrote in the International Jew. It is all there. I'll take a mans own word over what someone else SAYS he said anyday. --Clutch 02:42 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

"There is no such thing as anti-Semitism. There is only a very little and a very mild anti-Jewism" Henry Ford "Ford was very little and very mild anti-Jewish" is NPOV I believe ? Ericd 01:40 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

Ford wrote about the dangers of anti-Semitism, and encouraged all readers of the Dearborn Independant to not get involved without anyone who promoted anti-Semitism. It is there in the book linked to at the bottom of the main article. As it is straight from the horses mouth, I recommend reading it. --Clutch 02:42 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)
Is that why Ford kept sending Hitler 50,000 DM as a 'birthday present' every year? I take it Hitler only suffered from "mild anti-Jewism", just like Ford did?

Clutch, you have decided on a particular definition of anti-Semitism, which you seem to define as "killing Jews or committing acts of violence against Jews." You then go on to say that this while there may be other definitions of anti-Semitism, your definition represents the vox populi, though you give no basis for that, and you add that any other definition is elitist. Of course, by extension of your argument, if I were to say that Blacks are lazy and stupid, homosexuals are perverts and sexual predators, women are weak and emotionally unstable, or Jehovah's Witnesses are a bunch of brain-dead cult members, I would not be racist, homophobic, sexist, or biased. On the basis of what you say, if I were to deny any of these people jobs because of what they are, I still would not be racist, homophobic, sexist, or biased. If I were to deny them rights, I would not either. That just doesn't work. Rhetoric aside, your distinction of Talmudist applies to virtually every Jew today, from hassidic Jews to Chomsky. You keep repeating that the articles explicitly condemn pogroms, etc. Sources please. As for cautioning people about associating with anti-Semites, he himself associated with Hitler. He handed out swastika pins to employees who excelled at their work. By the way, some history. Ford did not write the International Jew bits in the Independent. He had three others write the pieces. Read my piece on that in the archived section. Oh, and I happen to have a copy of The International Jew on my desk at work. I don't remember the exact place or wording off hand, but there is a little piece in there about disposing of the Jews. I will find it tomorrow. Danny 03:25 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

You haven't paid attention to my comments. I said that by academic definitions of anti-Semitism, there is no dispute. You are ignoring the connotations and emotional element in the use of word. Worse, you are ignoring the NPOV position that it is not up to us to make moral judgements about other people. Are you afraid that the facts don't speak strongly enough for themselves?
You are wrong to equate Talmudists with Jews in general. There are many half-breeds who self-identify as Jews, but who whose mothers were Gentile. There are many atheist Jews. There are many homosexual Jews. There are Jewish converts to Christianity, Bahai, Scientology, and the Unification Church. None of these are Talmudists.
Hitherto you seemed relatively unbiased and reasonable. Unfortunately you have just blown that out of the water. You took my position of neutrality then said that it implies I would support a lot of positions that I do not. This shows a deplorable lack of logic and sound reasoning in your comments.
Before doing more edits, I suggest you actually read the International Jew, instead of leaping in and making edits, as you have done tonight. Also, the fact that you have a copy on your desk implies a single volume; the International Jew is a four volume work. Quotes taken out of context from the abridged one volume reprint isn't acceptable.
--Clutch 04:36 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism is not a moral judgment. There is a person who wrote anti-Semitic materials (actually, once again, he did not write them--he had other people write them). I am not ignoring anything. You have decided that certain meanings of the word make you uncomfortable, so you have unilaterally done away with those meanings. If anything, you have yet to answer my points. What is the source of your definition of anti-Semitism. Furthermore, your use of the term "half-breeds" (michling) in German is very telling. Talmudist is also a term that you introduced into the dialogue. In general, it is usually used as an anti-Semitic moniker too. Another euphemism, which has very little to actually do with the Talmud. As for being unbiased and reasonable, does that mean agreeing with you? Does biased an unreasonable mean disagreeing with you? I haven't implied anything about positions you may or may not hold. I am simply stating that they are the logical extension of your opinions. Meanwhile, you have assumed that I am not familiar with the four volume edition or that I have not read it. Sorry, buddy, but I have. The way you discuss it though, I'm beginning to wonder if you have. Danny 04:53 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)


"Arian nation" is an extremely emotionally charged expression for me. Anti-semite is the accurate term it implies less moral judgment than any other will. Anti-semites generally deny to be anti-antisemite. As Henry Ford did. In France, the phrase "I am not anti-semite but..." is generaly considered as the standard start for an anti-semite remark. Ford accretited a "jewish conspiracy" in his writings. This is one of the major themes of anti-semitism and thus of nazism. You wrote : "Though labelled anti-Semitic today..." This phrase suggest the articles were misunderstood. I can just tell you one thing Henry Ford writings are obviously anti-semite denying the fact is not a POV, it's lying. Ericd 16:09 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

Clutch wrote :

For serious references, read what Ford himself wrote in the International Jew. It is all there. I'll take a mans own word over what someone else SAYS he said anyday. --Clutch 02:42 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

Please paste some text samples, you can. The book is PD. Ericd 16:15 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

Today I'll be NPOV-ing this article bit-by-bit to make it easier for Clutch to tell us which part it is, exactly, that so offends his sensibilities.—Hephaestos 17:27 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

"Barney Oldfield, who named this new Ford model "999" in honor of a racing locomotive" Are you sure ? I believe it was Henry Ford himself who named this caar the "999" ?
I got that from here [3], which of course isn't the best source in the world. On the other hand I can find nothing that says Ford named it. I can see where that'd be important, because it would imply it was either unnamed or named something else at the time of the speed record. I'll look some more and see if I can come up with anything. Hephaestos 15:37 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

Your source seems seriously documented but a lot of sources writes that Ford set record with the "999". Honestly I don't know who's right. BTW this record is controversial and is generally ommited by official sources like the FIA. At the time they were no official rule for the LSR and it was mainly a competition between French and Belgian. All previous record where set in Europe and speed was measured on the km even William K. Vanderbilt who the first american to hold the record (it lasted less than one day) was timed on the km. Henry Ford was timed on a miles thus he never hold the record of the km. Later international rule where sets and previous records became official "ex-post". Henry Ford record wasn't validated by the FIA. Ericd 20:38 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

Re: the award, I removed two sentences that claimed that Ford received it because his management techniques etc. were so valuable; I'd like to see a source for that. What I'd most like to see is the letter or script accompanying the award. --Eloquence 20:53 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

IMO you revoved to much : "Along with the management techniques of Frederick Taylor, the assembly line production and worker relation techniques developed by Henry Ford were used extensively in Germany's military buildup prior to World War II. " is valuable content. Ericd 23:46 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Not in this context. We are talking about the reasons for the award. As I said, I'd like to see a source for whatever claim is made about the reasons for the award -- my impression is that after countless edits, everyone is writing what they want here. --Eloquence 23:51 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Ford and Stalin

After Henry Ford & Hitler we will have to deal with Henry Ford & Stalin :

http://www.pbs.org/redfiles/rao/catalogues/trans/yfs/yanks_kotk_7.html

http://clubs.hemmings.com/clubsites/nomac/allpage.pdf Ericd 00:38 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Ericd that it is important content, but Eloquence is quite right -- not here. I just mentioned "Fordism" in the first paragraph. I do think it is true, and noteworthy, that one of the things that characterized both Hitler's and Stalin's modernization programs was Fordism; some have argued that the distinguishing (and most shocking) element of the death camps and Hitler's genocide of the Jews was that it applied Fordism to murder. This is significant -- but it would have happened no matter what Ford's politics were; it would have happened even if he were a Jewish anarchist (well, if you can imagine an anarchist opening up a car factory). So I do not think it bears discussion in this article. I DO think Ericd or others whould go to the articles on Hitler, Stalin, the holocaust, and put it in or something like it... Slrubenstein

See my edit. I've changed the figure the Nazi used only 30% Ford trucks the 30% lacking where Opel Blitz (GM). Ericd 01:02 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Did Ford publish "The Protocols" knowing they were a forgery?

Query: Ford published the Protocols in his paper from 1920 to 1927. We now know they were a forgery. According to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion they were first exposed as a forgery in 1920. I think a key question would have to be - did Ford knowingly publish a forgery, or did he wrongly believe them to be the truth? Obviously both acts are wrong, but one would be worse than the other. At what time was it settled, historically, that the protocols were forged? Also, did Ford ever retract/apologise for his publication of the protocols, as he did the International Jew? Martin

Actually, now I'm confused: "Ford published an American version of the Protocols between May and September of 1920 in a series called ?The International Jew: the World?s Foremost Problem" [4] - is it correct to say that the protocols are seperate from the International Jew? Seems like both were part of the same crime... :-/ Martin
Two different works. International Jew was written contemporary to Ford and was originally published as an exclusive for the Independent, later in a four-volume set of books. Protocols dates much earlier, originating in Europe; Ford reprinted it in the Independent. (As to whether Ford knew the Protocols were a hoax, I don't think there's really any way to tell one way or the other.)Hephaestos
Does that mean that the ADL is wrong? Or was the republishing of the protocols done as part of the international jew? Martin

[edit] Ford-built trucks used by SS

In 1942 according to US intelligence thirty percent of the trucks used by the SS and the army were build by German and French subsidiaries of Ford.

I fail to see the point of this statement. Did Henry Ford have any control over this? Is this somehow different to the behaviour of other internationals in WW2? Did the Ford company refuse to build trucks for the Allied side? Seems to me that that statistic is a simple consequence of Ford having a number of factories in Axis-occupied Europe, and isn't evidence of any link between Henry Ford and Nazism. Martin

That was the defense of the FoCoMo : the Nazi took the control of the factories. But it's also strange that the nazis continued to pay the dividends (even after 1942)... It seems that Ford managed to supply parts to the german in exchange...

Ericd 20:49 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear what you're saying here - "the nazis continued to pay the dividends" - Didn't governments of all countries allow companies to continue making money and paying dividends? I still don't see why Ford is a special case. Was it that it had a public relations backlash after the war? Martin
This was normal as long the USA were neutral, not after. Generally when there's a war between to countries, properties of one country or his citizens in the other are confiscated or frozen... Do you believe the nazis payed anything to the British ?

Ericd 21:37 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

So, the German division of the Ford company paid (and was allowed to pay) dividends to its USA shareholders during the war, and this was unusual? Well, that's an interesting fact, but I still don't see what the connection is with the person Henry Ford. Was the German division allowed to pay dividends because Henry Ford was sympathetic to Nazism? Martin
Between 1943 and 1945 The FoMoCo was presided by Henry Ford himself isn'it  ?

He may have been more than sympathetic he may well have made trade with the Nazi. Here is a reference : http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_06.htm Ericd 22:02 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Ford was a rabid anti-Semite

Henry Ford was a rabid anti-Semite; his International Jew series was a big influence on the Nazis and Adolf Hitler; he had a personal friendship with Adolf Hitler; without fail, he would send Adolf Hitler a "gift" of 50,000 DM on the Fuhrer's birthday; Hitler kept a framed picture of Ford on his desk; the Ford company continued doing business with Nazis, before and after Pearl Harbour; Ford factories in Germany and occupied France were among the few American businesses that weren't seized by the Nazis; Ford factories in Germany and occupied France built and repaired Nazi war vehicles and even built engines for German war planes; the Ford corporation knowingly and willingly used slave labor in their factories in Germany and German-occupied territories; etc, etc. Make no mistake about it: Henry Ford was a huge supporter of the Nazis and his company wasn't about to let a little thing like 'ethics' interfere with the bottom line. Others who rather liked the Nazis and made 'a killing' under the Nazi regime were the Rockefellers (Standard Oil; Chase Bank) and the DuPonts (General Motors). With 'friends' like these, who needs enemies?

[edit] Translation to German

I'm trying to translate the text to de: and i've got a question about a certain sentence:

Denounced by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the articles nevertheless explicitly condemned pogroms and violence against Jews (Volume 4, Chapter 80), preferring rather to blame incidents of mass violence on the Jews themselves

What does that mean? Ford condemned violence against Jews but preferred to say, that it was their own fault? -- 212.95.107.248 13:54, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That the articles (not penned by Ford himself, note) explicitly condemned violence against Jews BUT claimed that many such incidents were started by the Jews themselves. So you have it more or less correct. --Morven 17:27, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Ok, i got it. Thanks a lot! -- 212.95.105.101 20:22, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Place of birth?

Q:Where was he born? If anyone knows, it ought to be in the article. Wondering simply, -- IFrog A:Dearborn, Michigan

[edit] More external links

A few extra external links, too many for article.

My understanding for many years was that Mr Ford went to Europe for his 'Peace Ship' effort and came back complaining that it failed because of the Jews and that the Jews were also responsible for WW-I. I think it's an important era and event, remember people like Adolf would first have heard of Ford and his Peace Ship effort; and for Ford it was the time he changed from business to 'social' concerns. So it's also important to try and be certin of the events before adding them to the page. That's why I added the above links as some starting points; I leave it to others to study and consider what should be in the article.:)

[edit] The International Jew

http://www.anti-semitism.net/jew-references-gentile-ford-the_international_jew.html I am surprised that there is not content in the article concerning his own miso-Judaic full-length book.

"Wherever you read of the Jewish Question being resolutely approached in the history of countries which have ever tackled it, wherever you go in the world today, in any country where the Jewish Question has come to the forefront as a vital issue, you will discover that the principal cause is the outworking of the Jewish genius to achieve the power of control. Here in the United States is the fact of this remarkable minority attaining in 50 years a degree of control that would be impossible to a ten times larger group of any other race. That creates the Jewish Question here." Chapter 13 (do a text search if you're curious)--Mymunkee 08:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I posted a 100% complete version of this book and people claimed copyright non-sense on a book that ranks in the top 10 books most read in the the last 100 years! Indeed! But you made one mistake it wasn't 50 years it was 40 years and in 40 years they changed the nation so swiftly with the power of perception is reality in media dominance it looks like a nation nothing of its former self, only a eugenically bred people could achieve something as so ugly and yet so beautifully orchistrated that the universe reveals it is ultimately indifferent. The book belongs on the article and not censored! That's "The International Jew" in a nutshell.

Lokison 08:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heirs attempt to wrest control?

I found an unattributed story on Henry Ford at http://www.success.org/re/3.shtml. Can anyone confirm or refute this? 69.22.126.93 19:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Almost certainly apocryphal. Ford WAS sued by his shareholders in 1917, but he lost in court. His heirs wouldn't have any legal right to the company or his stock before he was dead. Anyway, you should stop reading that self-empowerment shit, it'll rot your mind. Graft 23:16, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There was no such suit by heirs. However, the family did arrange for the release of Henry Ford II, his grandson, to be released early from the US Navy to assume control of the company because of Ford's failing mental faculties. HFII quickly realized he was somewhat inexperienced for the job and hired experienced executives from other companies to help him run Ford. The lawsuit tale is extracted and modified from a true libel lawsuit with a similar exchange, which Ford won but got token damages. This story is recounted in many Ford histories.Pmeisel 10:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some Ford personality idiosyncracies

Much of the commentary on Ford's political and social views presented here seem to give him a credibility on such matters that is not warranted.

Ford was known in the 1920s and thereafter as an "eccentric", someone who was perhaps very talented in his own way but a little bit off mentally. He had many strongly held personal beliefs about the morality of alcohol, smoking, modern finance, and music and dancing. Because of his wealth and power he was tolerated but not necessarily admired.

All of his newspapers and the vast majority of content in his books were ghost-written by a few individuals. Read closely, much of the content is ranting and would not be taken seriously by any publisher today. A few of his books still in print, although focused on manufacturing, a subject he was conversant with, are primarily historical oddities and would not be followed as a blueprint for business today.

Although Henry Ford was still in control of the Ford Motor Company, it was largely run after 1928 by Edsel and a few trusted professional managers. The decisions Henry Ford was involved in, such as the long dispute with the UAW, did not show him in a good light.

The point of my comments here is that his public writings should not be taken as those of an evil genius with a social agenda; they were the rantings of a somewhat mentally disturbed man who happened to be the founder of a large enterprise.Pmeisel 10:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lets face it

The man was insane. Read "Ford, the Men and the Machine", while telling little about the machine. Like all English Authors, Lacey should stay away from American Autos. But the book tells alot about Fords' deranged mentality. He insisted his grandchildren drink unpasturized milk directly from the cows udder (teet, as Henry called it) He presented his homely, fat wife with an industrial air filter and demand she wear it as a hat. He conducted an affair which produced his bastard son, John Dhalinger. He was double jointed in the back, enabling him to entertain three woman at once. He hated everyone, except white, Anglo Saxon Protestants.

  • "He hated everyone, except white, Anglo Saxon Protestants." That's funny considering he wasn't even an Anglo-Saxon himself, he was of Irish decent. He also had a personal friendship with Adolf Hitler, who was himself a Austrian (non-Anglo) Catholic. A lot of Americans love throw around the "WASP elitist" label all the time without even understanding what it means. Research history a little bit yourself before taking every dubious claim, you read in one book, as fact.

[edit] NPOV

Hello, I would like to see a more balanced article regarding Henry Ford. I myself am Jewish, and I own and have read the book Henry Ford and the Jews. There is no question that Ford was, at best, an eccentric knee-jerk Jew-baiter, and possibly even a cunning anti-Semite. However, Ford did some amazing things for the US, such as producing LIberator bombers during WWII at a very high rate. Ford also was friends with a prominent Detroit area Rabbi, who received a free car from Ford (until Ford published the Protocols). Ford was paternalistic, towards his workers, which was arguably for their betterment--but he certainly did want to improve their lives.MF1911 07:11, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So which parts of the article do you think are POV? Jayjg (talk) 07:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. If you have specific problems with value judgments made in the article or inaccurate statements, please go ahead and mention them. Rhobite 07:05, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
I think the article dwells too much on Ford's Anti-Semitism (which I do not dispute) and weak ties with Nazi Germany. I would like to see more fleshing out of his odd personality. Did you know that Ford grew soybeans on Ford Motor Co. property, and made some of the first synthetic car parts out of soy? He also fed soybeans to his workers, or tried to, anyway, insisting that they were a more healthy food. Crackpot! MF1911 07:11, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You have not described any issues which violate the NPOV rule. Instead, you have stated that it has too much content in some areas, and not enough content in others. If you think some of the information is superfluous, please list it. If you think more information is needed, please add it. However, what you describe is not a NPOV issue. Jayjg (talk) 07:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OK, I will come back later, and add more information. I believe the article violates NPOV because it is unbalanced, offering too narrow a view of a complex and controversial subject. I do not want to remove any information that is there. I am not clutch!

[edit] Dearborn Independent

I think there is enough material on this subject to make a decent independent article, and shorten this section a bit. I have more material to add than is proportionate to the rest of the Henry Ford article. Are there strong objections to this?--Pmeisel 15:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, so long as a summary of the key points are kept here, and a link provided. Jayjg (talk) 15:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

no, absolutly not, never, no, not on my watch. I object strongly.

[edit] Pop culture

Shouldn't there be something in this article about Henry Ford's status in Brave New World? That article even goes so far as to state that the Utopian society was founded on principles of Fordism. Brutannica 20:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. Can someone else write it? --JaymzSpyhunter 04:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Streptacoc B to Banbury T....

[edit] Paragraph from The Dearborn Independent

66.167.252.129 22:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC): The following parathetical remark is being moved here from The Dearborn Independent in case someone wants to incorporate it into the article.

Some sources credit his anti-Semitism to portions of the McGuffey Readers, a popular 19th century school text to which he was almost certainly exposed.

[edit] Use of hemp and biofuels?

I've been digging up information that suggests that Henry Ford's first car was built from plant fibers and plant derived plastics and was intended to run on biofuels, although I'm having problems finding information that doesn't come from a pro-Marijuana/pro-hemp site. Can anyone verify any of this? --Toquinha 22:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Not his first car, he used traditional materials and fuels. Plastic experimentation came later. The various biographies and histories cover this area. --Paulmeisel 13:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] High school dropout

I am removing the recently added category "High school dropout". It is quite irrelevant in an age when public school education in rural areas was not standardized, and few attended school for 12 or 13 years. --Paulmeisel 13:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article's Diction

This is minor, but is "test-drove" in the Early Life section a word? I think "test drove" or "tested" might be more appropriate.

wjtimmerman 5:30 PM 26 DEC 2005

[edit] Common misconceptions

By looking at the talk page, I know this was a controversy on this article a while back and there was a lot of dicussion, but I don't think the problems have yet been resolved. In particular, this section hsa some problems.

The second paragraph in this section is non-sequiturish at best. I can imagine that somehow this paragraph got stuck in as part of this Ford anti-semitic debate and was meant to be a bit of an apology for Ford's positions. This is maybe fine, if the facts stated in the article are true. And I'm not asserting that they are not, but they seem a little suspicious to my eyes. One example is the statement "Ford is beloved in the Black community". I'm not even sure what the original author meant when he wrote that, but I know of no evidence for (or against, FWIW) that statement and it seems vague enough that I don't know what evidence one would use to assert it. Then there is a statement about supporting communists, which again is not sourced, but even worse I don't see where or how this connects to the flow of the article. All in all, this stuff needs to be sourced, at best, and even if true it's not clear to me that it should be there at all or that it adds to the article.

Anyway, I went ahead deleted the particularly problematic sentence about his considering himself English: "Most of all he considered himself English (although his father came from Ireland), so the idea that he supported the Germans is exagerated." This statement is nonsense on its face, and is particularly badly placed coming right before a long, detailed, sourced section which shows that he did, in fact, support the Germans quite enthusiastically.

In short, I think the second paragraph in this section should be completely removed, but I didn't want to be that drastic since it had been discussed so much already. But even so I think it needs a ton of work if it is to stay.

--Deville 13:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I also think that leaving out the section abotu the Dearborn Independent is misguided. It seems that the person responsible for this section see himself as a Henry Ford apologist and want to understae Ford's contribution to Anti-Semitism in this country--Bud 06:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following section. It is clearly and demonstrable biased, misleading, and even counterfactual in many places:

Another misconception is that Ford was a generally racist person, but he is in fact beloved in the Black community. Ford promoted Black workers to supervisory positions over whites at a time when President Wilson (a Democrat and Princeton leader) praised the KKK. At the time when Ford began his expansion the population of Detroit was roughly 1% Black. So many Blacks came to work at his factories it became a center of the civil rights movement not long after he died. Ford was not only influential on Hitler, who planned for the Volkswagen Beetle to replace the Model T, but also on Communist leaders in the Soviet Union. Ford built a factory in Russia in the early 1920s and gave some early support to communists. Ford was also idolized in Latin America, particularly Mexico. He made his widely published statement regarding history being bunk after being called a traitor for criticizing Americans supporting war with Mexico. Ford dominated auto production in Japan prior to WW2 and was an inspiration to post war Japanese automotive leaders such as Honda. Of course, Ford also played a key role in arming US forces during the war.

BCorr|Брайен 19:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship of Henry Fords International Jew by Jayjg

A link to an online and complete PDF version of Henry Fords International Jew was added to the end of the article and Jayjg removed the link to the book stating that it was self-promotion. Jayjg is false, using that as an pseudo-excuse and is unfairly censoring the listing of the book due to Jayjg potential personal bias. Jayjg personal bias should not be allowed to interfere with the importance of this addition.

The link that I added which was removed is:

I ask that this book be relisted on the Henry Ford page.

All you've done on Wikipedia is add links to (possibly copyright violating) material on solargeneral.com, an anti-semitic, racist, white supremacist website. It's quite common for websites to try to promote themselves by inserting links into Wikipedia articles, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia has to go along with it. Jayjg (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You have spouted out a lot of childish canards, immature insults and infantile language to back up your position; however you have failed to achieve your goal. Your ad hominen attacks against the web site solargeneral.com only clarify your political position of Jewish ethnocentrism and your bias against web sites which speak honestly about Judaism, jewfish extremism and Jewish Supremacism. Unfortunately for you, insults have no value in an adult forum for discussing how we can improve the quality of entries in Wikipedia.

How could I possibly be promoting a web site if I am adding direct links to the web site files that serve as nothing else but to drain the web site of its precious bandwidth resources? I did not link to web pages where these books could be downloaded; instead I put direct download paths to these books which give no ability for the person who downloads these books to surf around the site in question.

Your Jewish anger and hate, Jewish ethnocentrism and Jewish extremism have no place in wikipedia and it is truly sad that such outdated and antiquated belief systems are allowed to corrupt the quality and integrity of wikipedia. Get over yourself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lokison (talk • contribs) .

The above comment was copy/pasted from Talk:David Duke#Censorship of david dukes My Awakening by Jayjg. Please see my response there. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The International Jew The Worlds Foremost Problem is absolutely 100% an open source, un-copyrighted book because of its profound notoriety. This book is de facto open source, un-copyrightable, fair use, free distribution as over 100 million people in the last century have read this book because the #1 super genius who pioneered a revolution sponsored this book. Does anyone else see what is going on here in Wikipedia? Is there anyone out there who is disgusted by this concerted effort of censorship? Does anyone see a pattern here regarding certain topics and censorship? Just Curious!

I ask for those of you out there who believe in freedom of speech to allow this URL http://www.solargeneral.com/pdf/TheInternationalJew.pdf

The International Jew

What do i have to do to bring arbitration to have this link added to this article without being deleted again ever? Am I wasting my time? is there a cabal here or is this just the bloody tooth and nail struggle to get additions on wikipedia? Someone please shine down on me with some illumination ;p

Lokison 08:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


It seems to me that a crucial bit of information we need in this debate is whether the text is copyrighted or not. While I'm sure it's possible that it is, the argument that it is "open-source because of its profound notoriety" doesn't hold much water. It seems to me that if it were established that: a] the book is non under copyright, and b] it was truly written by Henry Ford, then it seems that such a link might merit inclusion.
If there's already a link to a source, and an editor replaces it with a link to his own web page, then this is self-promotion. But if there is no link to specific source material, then it makes sense to put one. --Deville 16:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Providing a link to that book is a gift of freedom, truth and higher consciousnes to humanity. Wiki must become self-aware of it's own internal viral infection of censorship which is making wiki sick and instead wiki should become innoculated from the vectors of the censorship virus. Lokison 08:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References Now Include External Links that were removed

I'm not going to dispute the anti-semitic lean of this article - I don't know if it's true or not - but if you're going to have a pitched battle over this, make sure you keep the meat in there. The External Links were removed at some point in time, and are quite relevant to the article. They have returned under references. If you believe they belong under a separate title, that makes sense to me - I don't want to get involved in a war. But those links should be in the article somewhere. --TaranRampersad 06:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] he was good at his job

[edit] No proof that "International Jew" was not penned by Ford

There is no evidence to prove that Ford himself did not write the International Jew articles since his name was listed on all of the articles as the author. Also, this article implies that Ernst Liebold was the sole influence behind Ford's anti-Semitism. This is impossible. Ford's anti-Semitic articles were published around 1919-20. Liebold was a Nazi agent and the Nazis did not come into power until the 1930's (after the Dearborn Independent had already been shut down), which means Ford alone was responsible for his articles and views. Therefore, attempting to blame Liebold for Ford's hatred of Jews makes no sense at all. We must also remember that Hitler refered to Ford as his inspiration, not the other way around. It is then made obvious that Ford influenced Nazism rather than Nazism influencing Ford.

Most historians focus on Liebold, who was a loyal American citizen and never a Nazi or a spy. But he did dislike Jews and collected all the nasty material he could find on them. Ford was in charge of 1000 different operations at once, of which the magazine was only one. Rjensen 03:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Who do you mean by "most"? I've heard of ONE historical journalist, Wallace. In fact, I've heard Wallace's work characterized in peer-reviewed journals as "novel". Please justify with citations
I haven't yet found a reference bearing directly on this problem, but circumstantially I would direct you to the lawsuit by Aaron Sapiro against Henry Ford that occurred somewhere between 1924 and 1926. The Dearborn Independent had run a second series of anti-Semitic articles alleging an international Jewish conspiracy to control farm prices. Sapiro was a Jewish Agricultural Economist and named in the article. The suit was about libel. The articles were on "Henry Ford's Page" the same page on which the International Jew was serialized. In Ford's defense at the trial, secretary William Cameron testified that Ford had nothing to do with the editorials (under his byline no less) and that Cameron never discussed the content of the pages or sent them to Ford for his approval. [This information is from David Lewis, The Public Image of Henry Ford, pp. 140-156.] Now Cameron may be lying to protect his boss, but, I believe, other sources and biographers have generally corroborated that Cameron and Liebold were responsible for the writing and publication of the Dearborn Independent and its anti-Semitic content. This does not let Ford off the hook, though. For I do believe that Ford was anti-Semitic, knew that the articles were being published, and did nothing to stop them. Ford is responsible. And the WP article is commendable for going to the source (HF) and quoting him saying that the POZ fit with what he understood was happening. Furthermore, you have to understand Henry Ford. This man was a simpleton; to create an economic argument for an international conspiracy to control farm prices was beyond his ken. I do not believe that he had the mental ability to sit and craft a lengthy story about anything. He liked to quote nursery rhymes. This is why he always used ghost writers. --RedJ 17 22:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
My father was a regular witness to my grandfather's Saturday poker games, which included Cameron. It was clear from conversation he witnessed that Cameron did virtually all the writing based on little more that random comments from Ford. An earlier employee, Ed Pipp, later an editor of the Detroit News, quit when the inflammatory articles started. Paulmeisel 17:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


OK, THIS is actually a good explanation and actually quite a good story. I hope you will consider adding to the Ford article. I have no need to portray Ford as a genius mastermind or anything of the sort. A good, NPOV, well-explained and cited is all I'm trying to get here. Thank you.The kekon 01:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Kekon, but I doubt that I'll make the effort to include this in the article; I'm tired of spending my time working on a paragraph or two only to see it cut later. You are (or anyone else is) welcome to crib what I've written here for inclusion though.--RedJ 17 03:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop removing information about the Grand Cross

Namely the one about ford receiving the grand cross of the German eagle, that would be just dandy. You can spit and sputter and 'spin' but the fact is he accepted the award, and regularly railed against jews, bolshevism, jew-bolsheviks, and so forth, and it is fair to say that many of his views were in line with those of hitler, at least regarding the alleged jewish bankers conspiracy. Attempts to remove unpleasant facts are counter-productive and time wasting.

--Irongaard 07:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ford accepted hundreds of awards---he was one of the most famous people in the world. The listing is here only for POV reasons. Rjensen 07:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
But his receiving the award, and the photo that accompanied it, are both factual and of historical interest. Removing mention of the award because it reflects poorly on Ford is not POV: he received it, and there is documented evidence that it occurred. Rjensen, do you seriously contend that his reception of the Grand Cross is as historically important as his commendations from the local Rotary Club, etc.?
We might exclude the Model T from his entry by your definition of POV, given the fact that he probably introduced a wide variety of products to market and it reflects poorly on Ford in the eyes of some group (perhaps neo-luddites, anti-industrialists, etc.). It happened, it's documented, it pertains to major world events that occurred in his lifetime (placing him within them), and it's historically significant.The kekon 12:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The fact is every major government in Europe honored him (and also General Motors). It's POV to suggest that made him a Nazi sympathizer--his tanks and planes killed an aweful lot of Nazis! Rjensen 18:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Who else honored Ford? Which other governments? Which other American captains of industry received the Cross, or an equivalent or greater honor from Nazi Germany? Your argument on Ford's manufacturing weaponry is non-sequitur. Furthermore, I find that your edits include excessive extraneous or marginally-relevant information, and much watering down, in all matters related to Ford and charges of anti-semitism and Nazi collaboration. I find your amendments very POV, with an intention to portray Ford positively, with non-factual or non-specific comments designed to minimize Ford's association with anti-semitism. Your edits on "Ford and anti-semitism" specifically have eliminated viurtually all discussion of Ford himself, as if you were burying the issue. Before getting into an edit war on this point, I would like to ask you outright: Was Ford an anti-semite? Do you believe he authored the International Jew? Do you believe that anti-semitism that went out in his name and through his companies had nothing to do with him? Do you believe the link between Ford and anti-semitism/Nazi Germany to be worth mentioning in his Wikipedia entry? Your edits seem to either be censoring this information, or burying it in mountains of irrelevant and extraneous text. The Ford entry is quickly approaching absurdity on this issue. I don't believe that the Ford entry should be all about anti-semitism, but I am against your whitewashing of his past.The kekon 21:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
It's a simplistic fallacy to say that if Hitler admired Ford then Ford liked Hitler. There is zero evidence of that. The main point is that Ford truly believed that international trade was the way to peace. A naive sentiment perhaps, but he insisted that Fords in every country would help global understanding. As for the nonsense about Bolsheviks--Ford was closer in fact to the Soviet Communists than to the Nazis. Look at the great Gorki plant. Wiki has to get the main point across, which I have tried to do. The ribbon was presented not by a senior German official or the ambassador but by a minor local diplomat (the consul at Cleveland). And yes, one also went to General Motors. Rjensen 22:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
To whom are you responding? I said nothing of Hitler's admiration for Ford. I also have nothing to say about the Bolsheviks. Given your evasiveness with my questions, I understand your agenda to basically be one in which you are determined to obfuscate any links between Ford and anti-semitism/Nazism.The kekon 02:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The antisemitism is already dealt with in a separate section in the article. How much of the antisemitic material did he write? He personally wrote almost nothing on any topic but had a whole team of ghostwriters. Did the Nazis learn antisemitism from him. No. Was Ford an anti-semite? Yes in the early 1920s. Where did Ford pick up his antisemitism?--nobody knows--there are no good guesses even. Were there important links between Ford and Germany? Not by the late 1930s, when Germany had taken over his plants and used all profits to expand the plant. Did Germany honor other auto leaders? yes they gave the same award the same year to the chairman of General Motors. The germans were indeed infactuated with autos--they still are-- and Ford introduced an idea about cheap cars for everyone that Hitler picked up when he promised the Volkswagen. So Ford strongly influenced all Germans, but not vice versa. Rjensen 02:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you please give me your sources? I am in the process of doing background research. Particularly, where did you find out that (a) Ford did not actually write his book and (b) that Hitler's conferring the Cross on Ford was actually for "making a car for the masses." Furthermore, I would like your sources on the complete innertness of Ford's anti-semitic writings in Germany, and the fact that Ford's popularity was, as you and your edits suggest, solely the result of his work in industry. The fact that Ford and Germany didn't collaborate during the actual war is not relevant to anything. I will go through your edits asking for more citations when I get back from a conference.The kekon 12:53, 21 March 2006 (

Anti-semitism seemed to have been the national pasttime in the US during the 1930's. Ford's comments probably were anti-semitic. but what has me mystified about this entire conversation is that no one seems to have picked up on the fact that the award Ford received from Hitler was given him by the German Consul General in Cleveland. If we still had diplomatic relations with Germany at the time Ford was given the medal(and I'm assuming we did given the fact the Consul General was still in the US) why are we talking about Ford instead of the behaviour of the US in maintaining ties with a nation clearly intent on institutionalizing anti semitism? Jmorello

[edit] Questions about gradual removal of information from the article

I was just checking the changes over the last few weeks, and have noticed that a lot of non-controversial info has been edited out over this period. Please see the difference between mid-February and mid-March. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 00:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I just compared to mid February. The current version has more information and I don't see any items of even middling importance that were lost along the way. Rjensen 01:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. However, I do think you have been working very hard to change the point of view in this article to be more sympathetic to Ford. I do hope to hear from some other editors as well. Cheers, BCorr|Брайен 13:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Rjensen's Edits

In my view, Rjensen is expunging the entry of Ford's links with Nazism. But he is not making his case openly and with adequate citations. For example:

  • On March 16 and 21, Rjensen deleted works in the bibliography related to Ford and Nazism/Anti-Semitism. Deleting works in the bibliography is something that should be done sparingly, in my view, and should definitely not be done without discussion. It appears that he did it under the pretense of removing non-scholarly works, but, as a professional scholar, it is difficult for me to see and understand the criteria he has used to define "scholarly". Frankly, most of the work presented in this page comes from journalists and non-scholarly publishing houses, so it is hard for me to see the difference between a bubbly celebration of Ford by a journalist (which he keeps in) and an "expose" of Ford's Nazi links by another.
  • Over several edits March 17, Rjensen re-worked a section discussing Ford's links with Nazism to "Ford Does Business with the World" He took a section of the Ford-Nazi links, inserted a load of useless information about the Ford Company's international dealings, and edited them down into a completely inert section on Ford and international business.
  • Some of these edits are uncited and, in some cases, laughably unscholarly without sourcing, like:
  • "Ford's Theory of World Peace" (which apparently had won over Herbert Hoover as an adherent -- I'd love to see the citation on that!),
  • How criticism of Ford's accepting the award was, in fact, an effort on the part of "Ford's enemies" (as opposed to reasonable criticism that could be given by a neutral observer)
  • (this was marked as a "minor" edit) "Communists and fascists, liberals and conservatives all over the world likewise admired Ford." This was put in as part of an effort to portray Ford's popularity in Germany as a worldwide popularity. I'd love to see the citation on that.
  • On March 14 & 17, Rjensen completely reworked the section on anti-semitism, removing any references to Ford. At present, and partly as a result of his edits, there is now no direct link between Ford and Anti-Semitism. Apparently, he is drawing from a single source: Max Wallace. I have only read reviews of Wallace's book, and will check it out soon. If Rjensen's edits are not misleading, the Wallace book will, in fact, present a case that Henry Ford had nothing to do with the Dearborn Independent and that it was, in fact, Max Liebold who orchestrated everything without Ford's knowledge.
  • He eliminated discussions about allegations that Ford funneled money to the Nazis. This may be a valid edit, however -- I will check the literature. In my view, however, it is unprofessional to completely edit allegations you feel are false. It is much better to present them AS ALLEGATIONS, and present refuting evidence.

The kekon 14:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Fored had a very complicated life and was involved in hundreds of projects, hence the long bibliography. As for the links to antisemitism and Nazis that is covered in one major scholarly book in depth, (Baldwin) as well as the Nevins, Lewis, Brinkley and Watts books. Is that not enough scholarship for the readers? Rjensen 20:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Who gives you the right to decide when readers have had "enough" references that tackle a particular aspect of Ford's life and history?The kekon 21:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, why do you keep deleting the Max Wallace book? Your own editions have used Max Wallace to eliminate discussions of Ford and anti-semitism...The kekon 21:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at it this way: if we have 5 biographies and 10 other references that have to cover all of Ford's career including his business operations in 100 countries, how many of the 10 should be focused on issues of antisemitism and Nazis? 10% 25% 50% I say 10-20% is about right (noting that all the biogs also cover the issue). Rjensen 21:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to improve the quality of this entry, you will not do it by eliminating entries from the bibliography. I personally find your idea of putting quotas in the bibliography is ridiculous. I will happily agree to standards of rigor -- creating a priori criteria of what constitutes "scholarly" work, for example. In addition, could you please be specific: which "biographies" in the biblio do you deem to be adequate sources on these topics? I want to check your sources.The kekon 21:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I added some more bibliography and divided it into categories that seem to make sense. The best biographies I used: Nevins-Hill, Watts, Brinkley, and Lewis.
On Hoover and Ford's cooperation. Discussed in Hoover's memoirs vol 2 p 80 where Hoover concludes they "greatly increased the foreign sales of both cars and tires. Our action helped to raise the American car to its dominant position in world trade." Rjensen 23:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Your reformatting the biblio is a good improvement. I think it actually renders a more useful entry, insofar as it can better direct the reader to topics that interest them. However, on what grounds did you choose to omit the citations you deleted? I'm especially curious about Max Wallace and Charles Higham. You actually used the former in some of your edits as grounds for deleting information about Ford and antisemitism).The kekon 00:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thanks for the comment. Higham I don't think ever discusses Henry Ford, and mentions Ford motor only in passing. Max Wallace is simply not judicious. His main character is not Ford but Ford's aide Liebold. Wallace looked at the Army (MID) intelligence dossier and found that someone had accused Liebold of being a German spy. Seems Liebold was overheard speaking German to a reporter (the reporter was an American from a Chicago German language newspaper). MID investigates and decides that Liebold is not a spy at all. Wallace then a dozen times in the book says Liebold was a German spy! That is incompetence aggravated by a drive to make a sensational book to sell. Rjensen 01:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] freemasonry

I have removed the category to freemasonry as I have never come across any reference that Ford was a freemason. I think a lot of credible evidence needs to be presented to persuade a reader that a man who saw conspiracies in everything (Jews, labor unions, the US government, his underlings, bankers, even his own son) was a member of a society that has often been accused of perpetrating conspiracies. --RedJ 17 14:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I found 77,000 references to Ford as a Mason through Google. He's commonly listed as one of its more famous members. Rklawton 01:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

Sorry, can't figure out the footnote system.

Lucy Jo Palladino's book The Edison Trait gives a different account of Edison's 1902 separation from the company he was then working for:

The turning point came when Ford realized that he needed a business structure that would free him to work on hs own. He needed to be able to construct his own timetable and to account only to himself. He recalled this historic moment in his own words: "In March 1902, I resigned, determined never again to put myself under orders." Ford then built the "999", a remarkable race car. (page 11)

Can someone add this to the article as a footnote? --Uncle Ed 14:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. I agree, Ford resigned. But the situation at the Henry Ford Company had deteriotated dramatically from the days when it was formed. The investors wanted Ford to produce a high-end, luxury model that would give them great profits. At the time in the automobile industry, automakers had great difficulty profiting in the low end of the market. Ford, on the other hand, was still tinkering with his race car.

The whole thought was to make to order and get the largest possible price for each car. The main idea seemed to be to get the money. And being without authority other than my engineering position gave me, I found that the new company was not a vehicle for realizing my ideas but merely a money-making concern that did not make much money. In March, 1902, I resigned, determined never again to put myself under orders. --Henry Ford, My Life and Work, p. 36.

Because Ford was not doing what the investors wanted, they brought in Leland to do what they wanted. Ford, in disgust at this usurpation of his authority (and his namesake company), resigned. He was being forced to resign. See Nevins and Hill, Times, Man, Company, p. 211; Brinkley, Wheels, 41-43. I rewrote the section. What do you think? --RedJ 17 15:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead notes

I removed these dead notes from the "notes" section. I could not figure out to what they referred:--RedJ 17 16:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  1. Senator "Condemned" for Excessive Campaign Expenditures, United States Senate, Historical Minutes.
  2. Henry Ford, A Science Odyssey, People and Discoveries.
  3. Detroit News, July 31, 1938.


[edit] Ford's Racism and POV

Some say that this article dwells too much on Ford's anti-semitism. You have to understand the reason people feel the need to discuss it in detail. Most people never hear about Ford's anti-semitism or his ties to the Nazis (or the fascist nature of his paternalistic attitude towards his workers). People need to hear the truth. This is an encyclodpedia, one not bound to space limitations or other limitations of prtined versions, where more than passing remarks that some claim he was friendly to Nazis can and should be given. If having an agender to get out the truth that is hidden is POV, then I don't know what to say. This is precicely the place for the full discription of Ford to be told.

Mqduck 14:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)MQDuck

[edit] Horrible grammar

May be horrible grammer, but it is a quote from Time Magazine 1/8/1933. (Mpmartin 10:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC))

What is this paragraph supposed to mean? I suggest that the paragraph be deleted. The information makes clear that Henry Ford while retaining ultimate authority relies on a team to produce the automobile identified with his name. (Mpmartin 10:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC))

"While making one third of all the world’s automobiles in 1932, Henry Ford still rules Ford Motor Co. but no longer is Ford Motor Co. He says "Yes and "No" but Edsel Ford, Charles Sorensen, Peter E. Martin, William Cowling and others are an organization, and the organization makes Ford cars."

[edit] What is a 'fat favourite'?

This sentence makes no sense to me: During this period, he personally drove one of his cars to victory in a race against Alexander Winton, a well-known driver and the fat favorite on October 10, 1901. Could whoever put it in re-draft it. --Adam Brink 17:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why family tree?

Let's spin off the family tree to Ford Family Tree. Rjensen 11:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I just changed it to a graphical tree and I think its pretty good where it is. Adds to the article (though it was a bit useless before), and is not really enough for an article of its own. I am a bit concerned that it is too wide and will look bad on people browsing at low resolution. I usually maximize my browser (which uncovers some interesting formatting problems in some articles, though in this case it looks better full screen. If it is too wide I can make it more narrow by stacking some of the generations. Dalf | Talk 02:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article tainted by Political Correctness

It's absurd to use the values and mores of the present to judge Henry Ford. Dislike and distrust of Jewish finance-capital was the rule, not the exception in those days. Calling him an anti-Semite adds nothing to the article beyond demonizing him. By today's standards, he was almost certainly a racist, sexist, homophobe and anything else you can think of, but those WERE the standards of society in the past. It is feel-good, revisionist, PC history to claim otherwise and isolate Ford as a target for criticism.

No it is not absurd to say exactly what he did and believed. Warmongers for example will hate him for being a pacifist, and environmentalists will be angry at all the pollution created by Ford cars. But Wiki tells it like it is. Rjensen 11:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patents?

Anyone have a list of his patents? U.S. Patent 610040 is his, but if anyone could point out a list (on or off line) I'd appreciate it. 134.193.168.253 18:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Service Cross of the German Eagle

Does anyone know if Ford ever returned this medal? Charles Lindbergh didn't, and that caused him a bit of a scandal. Rklawton 01:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What allegations were reported false?

The section "Allegations of Anti-Semitism" says:

In 1998, following extensive research by Ford Historians, the company reported the allegations to be false. Further, no Ford executive or family member visited Germany or attended any executive meetings with Ford of Germany during the time.

I presume this refers to the allegations that Ford was an "anti-Semite", whatever that means. But this is not cleaer, because it is out of context. Also, the second sentence also does not follow from the first. And what time is "the time"? Given that the topic is so heated, please someone knowlegeable clarify. -Pgan002 08:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unclear sentence about condemning pogroms

From the subsection "Allegations of anti-Semitism":

Denounced by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the articles nevertheless explicitly condemned pogroms and violence against Jews (Volume 4, Chapter 80), preferring to blame incidents of mass violence on the Jews themselves.

Could someone please explain the meaning of this sentence? The first clause means that the articles were denounced by the ADL. The second clause means that the articles condemned pogroms and violence against Jews. But it is opposed to the first clause by "nevertheless", which does not make sense. The third clause has the form of a clarification of the second clause, but its meaning is actually almost the opposite. -Pgan002 08:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)