Talk:Henry Ford/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Wonderful 2 Henry Ford added to category of Anti-Semitics 3 Do not remove "cite needed" tags 4 Nazi Award 5 Please do not delete the Max Wallace materials 6 Rooney 7 washing away Hitler's guilt 8 Source query 9 alleged anti-semitism 10 Cultural depictions of Henry Ford 11 Ford origins 12 Minor Addition 13 Neo-Nazi history 13.1 More Ford-Hitler sources 14 request edit 15 Assembly line 16 Henry's beliefs 17 Henry Ford Hospital 18 Henry Ford and the Nzi concentration camps movie 19 Any customer can have a car painted any... 20 Page introduction 21 Fair use rationale for Image:Timehenryford.jpg 22 German Ford

[edit] Wonderful

This article is wonderful. I'm currently doing research on German views on the US in the interwar period, and this article has impeccable research that accords with what I'm finding. That Nolan book is indeed excellent. I'm quite surprised that the authors of this article had the erudition to look in such a detailed way at Ford's influence overseas. Admittedly, it may have been Germans, but that is neither here nor there. Good work.

[edit] Henry Ford added to category of Anti-Semitics

Adding Henry Ford by Mantanmoreland to the Anti-Semitic category is wholly inappropriate. The claim: (category is amply supported by historical record cited in article; do not use inaccurate edit summaries WP:NPA) is not correct. Here are some excerpts from the article regarding "The International Jew" and other writings supposedly attributed to or approved by Ford. These strongly refute your claim that Ford should be categorized as an Anti-Semitic:

• None of this work was actually written by Ford--who wrote almost nothing. Other people told him about the contents, although Ford probably never read them (He claimed he only read headlines.)

• (The) articles nevertheless explicitly condemned pogroms (sic) and violence against Jews

• News reports at the time quoted him as being shocked by the content and having been unaware of its nature.

• Ford had nothing to do with the editorials even though they were under his byline.

• Ford publicly retracted the International Jew and the Protocols. In January 1942, he wrote a public letter to the ADL denouncing hatred against the Jews and expressing his hope that anti-Jewish hatred would cease for all time.

I think this proves that Mr. Ford should not be included in the category with Anti-Semitics, and your statement that the article supports such categorization is simply false. As to "inaccurate edit summaries", your original categorization post did not even have an edit summary - and since the category is both inappropriate and inaccurate for application to Henry Ford, and had all the appearance of an agenda-driven drive-by vandalism done by an internet troll, done in spite of and in clear disregard of the discussions on the discussion page, and the approved material posted in the article. Thank you in advance for your re-consideration --T-dot 14:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the word "vandalism" within Wikipedia has a specific meaning. See WP:VANDAL. Ditto for "trolling." Please don't use words like that inappropriately or to describe a content dispute. See WP:NPA.

Secondly, your uncited and unsubstantiated original research does not "prove" anything. What are your sources? Where are the citations in the article? Your one-sided and selective discussion represents a minority view among historians, who are quite unanimous that Ford was anti-Semitic. His claim that he was "too busy" to notice the seven years of anti-Semitism at the Dearborn Independent was derided at the time, and he later repudiated his apology. There is no "other side" that Wiki can listen to. Rjensen 15:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

However, you have highlighted a serious problem with this article, which is that it totally whitewashes Ford's anti-Semitism and provides a minority POV rejected by historians.

Additionally, and just as important, the article does not cite within the body of this lengthy article any of its sources, not the least of which are sources for its one-sided discussion of Ford's anti-Semtiistm. There is an omnibus list of sources at the bottom but none are linked to specific passages within the article. I have put the appropriate tag on the top of the section, since we are focusing on that that, but as a matter of fact the entire article contains no citations and the tag really belongs at the top of the article itself. --Mantanmoreland 15:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

All the material in the article is based on the sources listed. I recomend starting with Steven Watts, The People's Tycoon: Henry Ford and the American Century (2005), which covers all tha main topics (including the Jews). Many people reported to Ford what his magazines were saying, and he kept going until the lawsuit.Rjensen 15:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I just find it highly irregular that you would first use the Henry Ford article to defend your POV claim that Ford was Anti-Semitic, and then when challenged on that point by another User, who points out that the article does not say that (and you eventually read it and discover that it does not in fact defend your POV) you immediately dismiss the article as being uncited, and contrary to neutral POV. Very odd indeed. Nevertheless, I am not going to argue the issue further. --T-dot 15:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please direct your comments to the edit not the editor. Didn't I say that already? Anyway, it is indeed "irregular" to have a long article, one that whitewashes a major historical figure, to have not a single citation for any of its dubious "facts." Hopefully that can now be rectified. The fact that there is a bibliography does not obviate the need for citations. Who said what and where? See WP:CITE and WP:RS.--Mantanmoreland 15:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not remove "cite needed" tags

I placed an "unreferenced section" msg at the top of the "Allegations of anti-Semitism and The Dearborn Independent" section, which was removed. Now I see that another editor has added "cite needed" tags which directly indicate where cites are needed. This entire section contains controversial statements that require proper citations. Please do not remove these tags until proper citations are in place.--Mantanmoreland 15:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen, when people ask for citations, you must provide proper citations, as per WP:V. You cannot tell people "go look it up". Please give the book name, the page, and quote the source, or I will have to remove all of the dubious material. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen, this is getting tiresome. Could you please provide proper citations. When a claim is made, it is found on a specific page of a specific work, not in a broad list of over a dozen pages in multiple works. Moreover, it is a specific work - Lewis, for example, has two works listed here. Unfortunately, you've used up your quota of good faith on this article; please quote the exact statements from the exact pages you are using. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if I did not make it clearly known that the reference was to Lewis Public Image book. There's lots of wonderful material in the books and articles cited in the refrence section. Rjensen 17:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be even more wonderful if that material was utilized in the article. The discussion of Ford's anti-Semitism was absurdly skewed. It took five seconds on the Internet to find a scholarly article that contradicted the whitewashing in that section. Also please 86 inflammatory edit summaries.--Mantanmoreland 17:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That's great Rjensen. Please cite them specifically, and accurately, quoting them - that's what WP:V and WP:NOR require. You know, stuff like According to Lewis "Ford was completely unaware of the contents of the Dearborn Independent, and, in fact, never once read the paper". Otherwise the dubious original research will have to go. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That's Lewis (1976) p 144. People have to read the whole chapter to undertstand the issues. Rjensen 17:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote him. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Likewise the opposing point of view, which is far more dominant particularly in recent research, needs to be represented. At the moment, even with the added quote, this section is still a whitewash of Ford that is woefully unbalanced and overemphasizes a minority POV.--Mantanmoreland 18:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is """the opposing view --citations please??? Rjensen 18:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In article now,properly cited and linked. Read it. Suggest you also read the underlying article and footnotes.--Mantanmoreland 18:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I see you found it! That is, the properly cited article from Hanover Historic Review that you just used your fourth revert of the day to remove, along with an inaccurate edit summary that Longsdon is an "undergraduate" and a "mystery person." I agree -- the wellspring of assumption that these edits are in good faith is rapidly being depleted.--Mantanmoreland 18:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think quoting the opinions of an old undergraduate student paper in lieu of the many excellent sources that are listed degrades the quality of Wiki. Rjensen 18:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am adding quotes from other books so you don't have to use your fifth revert of the day.--Mantanmoreland 19:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you should stick to the work of scholars. There is no shortage on this topic. Investigative journalists aren't exactly noted for their impartiality or accuracy. The rank right up there with undergraduates. They are also not subject to academic peer review. The Amazon link to this book highlights a rather unfavorable review of this work [1]. This is article is a scholarly work, and edits that detract from that should not be permitted to remain. Rklawton 19:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That has got to be the lamest reason for a blatant POV edit and page blanking that I have ever seen on Wiki. And I have seen some doozies.--Mantanmoreland 19:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What, that a scholar carries more credibility than a crackpot journalist? I doubt it. Rklawton 19:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Cite a specific reason under Wikipedia policies for removal all references to the Wallace book. Is the book a forgery? Does it make stuff up? Be specific. What's your problem with it, aside from the fact that it got a bad review in Publishers Weekly? I'm asking because I am assuming this is a good faith edit. If you just give another "he's a crackpot," that assumption is gone.--Mantanmoreland 20:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

One suspects that POV-oriented editors go searching for sources to support their POV--hence the use of an undergraduate termpaper in preference to numerous scholarly studies. Note that "The Hanover Historical Review is a student-edited publication. The journal accepts papers written by Hanover students on topics of an historical nature from any discipline."[2] When a topic attracts crackpots it's best for Wiki editors to be especially cautious; please refer to the official guidelines on what are considered to be reputable sources: Wikipedia:Reliable sources Rjensen 20:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The Max Wallace book is certainly anything but a student publication, and was written by a reputable journalist. I'm frankly a bit perplexed at the venom being advanced in the direction of this author, accompanying as it does blatant POV-pushing and skewing of this article. Incidentally, Wallace was already in the "bibliography" that you were anxious to cite several minutes ago. The article is now back to being a whitewash of Henry Ford on the subject of the Dearborn Independent, and no satisfactory reason has been provided for removal of every single reference to Wallace's book other than childish name-calling. --Mantanmoreland 20:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent question. It boils down to this. Wallace is an investigative journalist as noted before. There is a huge difference between an investigative journalist and an academic scholar. Scholars (typically) publish in peer-reviewed journals. This means that other folks with Ph.D.s review their work for errors in fact and method. "Investigative journalists" are not held accountable for their work other than in terms of how many books they sell. Since this is an encyclopedia, and since we're interested in verifiable facts, we'd like to see the best possible sources used for citations. This is especially important when addressing such serious topics as an historical figure's alleged anti-Semitism as is the case now. I suspect there exist plenty of well researched works that detail this aspect of Ford's life. Find those academic sources, read them, and add what you learn to this article. You might not find them on line, but most university libraries will have them. Whatever else you do, please don't settle for less. Rklawton 20:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting policy -- but yours, not Wikipedia's. You can't cite the Wikipedia policy that supports removal of the Wallace material, because there is no such policy. However, there is a policy requiring a neutral point of view, and it was violated by your edit. Also, I would caution you not to remove content from this talk page, as you did in this edit. [3]--Mantanmoreland 21:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there something about my observations that you do not agree with? Or is it your point to simply comment that my reasoning doesn't constitute policy but concede the logic? I also see you accuse me of an NPOV violation, but you fail to point out how my removal of non-scholarly work violates POV. You will find this assertion especially difficult to maintain since I have a long-standing preference for scholarly sources regardless of the topic or position. However, feel free to try. Rklawton 21:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I've been perfectly clear. You must cite, I repeat, Wikipedia policy when you remove factual material from Wikipedia (in this case well-sourced content from a book by investigative journalist Max Wallace). This is valid content under WP:V and WP:RS. You had absolutely no valid basis under Wikipedia policy for removal of that material. You just simply keep repeating that this book is not "scholarly" or say flippantly that Wallace is a "crackpot" but you have yet to give us a single valid reason under Wikipedia policy for removing the material cited.

In your edits you skewed the POV of the article by falsely implying that Ford did not know the contents of the Dearborn Independent. Among other things, you removed a reference to sworn testimony that he did know what was going to appear in the newspaper. I caution you against further edits of that kind.--Mantanmoreland 21:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki's policy is to use the best sources, especially as validated by the scholars who study the subject most intently. In this regard I note that Watts (p 575) strongly recommends two sources (Ribuffo and Baldwin), along with primary sources--solid scholarship rather than flimsy popular writing, Baldwin is online at questia.com. (Watts of course doesn't even mention Wallace.) Rjensen 21:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Wiki policy says to use reliable sources, verified sources. WP:RS, WP:V. The Wallace book meets both criteria, was amply footnoted and cited primary sources. It was published by a major publisher. Hell, it was already in the article's bibliography, for Pete's sake! You seem to be confirming my suspicion that somebody just threw in a lot of books on the subject but had absolutely no idea what was in them. You can't just take an axe and hack away at an article for no good reason or because you don't think the article meets your personal "standards." That's vandalism.

Also I find it no end ironic to be reading sanctimonious lectures on "best sources" and on how "this article is a scholarly work" when this article didn't even have a single citation until I and another editor pressed the issue today.--Mantanmoreland 22:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi Award

review it. Rjensen 22:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny how you were talking up all the fine books in the "bibliography" until it materialized that one such book didn't support your POV.--Mantanmoreland 22:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Calling debate "nonsense" is a violation of WP:CIVIL and it's POV. Next, perhaps you should refute the logic already presented above - how is a journalist somehow equal to a scholar? Lastly, show us in the policy where it says we can not. Rklawton 22:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Not" what? Remove material without good reason? You can't. At best it's POV-pushing and at worst its page blanking and vandalism. I've asked you to provide your justification under Wikipedia policy for your edits. You have none. There is nothing further to discuss.--Mantanmoreland 22:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Crap is crap. We're allowed to remove crap when we see it. The funny thing is, your position can probably be fully supported through academic sources, and all several editors here have done is encourage you to find and use them. The only POV I'm pushing is that we should use academic sources, and we just don't have room for authors of conspiracy theories. If you wish, you may read up on the WP:V debates that cover this very matter. Now, why is it you can't find another editor to support your position that something here is amiss? Rklawton 23:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments like the above indicate nothing more than that you have no idea what the book contains and are not editing in good faith.--Mantanmoreland 03:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

from RJensen: the issue is whether Wallace meets the Wiki rules: to quote from Reliable Sources WP:RS, : Editors have to evaluate sources and decide which are the most reliable and authoritative. For academic topics, every field has an established system of reviews and evaluations that can be found in scholarly journals associated with that field. In history, for example, the American Historical Review reviews around 1,000 books each year. The American Historical Association's Guide to Historical Literature (1995) summarizes the evaluations of 27,000 books and articles in all fields of history. Editors should seek out and take advantage of these publications to help find authoritative sources. Disagreements between the authoritative sources should be indicated in the article.Also ask yourself: Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, .... Find out what other people say about your sources. Have they reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know.... [end quote] I suggest that Max Wallace does not make the cut--but that there are much better sources , so why use junk? Rjensen 23:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The above policy excerpt does not support your position. There is nothing in that guidele that prevents people from quoting books published by established publishers and containing reliable content. The Max Wallace book is not "junk," and such childish name-calling contributes nothing. Stop the edit warring and stop the POV-pushing.--Mantanmoreland 23:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The reviewers call the Wallace book unsatisfactory as history, so why use it? Baldwin has much better material and has been very well received. Rjensen 23:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I just explained why you can't just hack out a book you don't like because of a negative review in Publisher's Weekly. That is just utter nonsense. As for Baldwin -- his book is indeed a good one and in fact I quoted from it. But there is no reason on earth to remove the quotes from Wallace's book, and if there are further such cuts as far as I am concerned they are vandalism and will be dealt with as such.--Mantanmoreland 23:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no review for Wallace's book at all. Wallace is a non-scholar. He's a conspiracy theorist. Just find other sources instead. You really shouldn't make a big deal out of it. As far as Baldwin goes, I don't believe I've changed any of those edits. I haven't given that author edits due consideration yet. I've just focused on the obvious problem. As far as vandalism goes, keep in mind that it's two editors against one on this matter. Given your attitude and your edit history, we've got sufficient grounds to file an RfC against you if it should come down to that. That's not really the approach I'd care to take, but it will certainly clear up any misconceptions you might have about vandalism. Rklawton 00:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest you study WP:VANDAL, WP:NPOV and WP:RS before you contemplate any further cuts, particularly of the Max Wallace citations and quotes in this article. As for the "two against one" -- that is not accurate, as another editor added back in the Wallace materials, and a third was editing earlier in the day. Were it not for that editor and myself, this "scholarly article" as you put it would still not have a single source citation. Given the fact that this article had no citations for a long time, please don't lecture me about "edit histories."

I would also suggest that if this goes into arbitration etc., that remarks like "conspiracy theorist" and "crap" and other spurious reasons that have been advanced for removing the Wallace content will not go over well. Ditto for the inflammatory edit summaries. The removal of the Wallace material demonstrably harmed this article, and in my view bordered on vandalism. Some of the Wallace edits have been reverted by another editor and I very strongly suggest that you not remove that material, since you have no reason whatsoever to do so under Wikipedia policy.

It's a funny thing you should mention degrading the article. That is, it's funny what happens when you shine the light of truth into dark places. The fact that Wallace is a conspiracy theorist is supported by sources. Pointing out that Wallace is not an academician is hardly spurious. Actually stating this in the article places his quotes in there proper context. I agree that the article looks the worse for it - but that's not half as bad as misleading people into believing Wallac

[edit] Please do not delete the Max Wallace materials

Whether Wallace is a "scholar" or not is totally irrelevant and has no bearing on whether the factual statements in the book are correct. It so happens that I've read the Wallace book, and in no way, shape or form can that book be described as a "conspiracy theory" or Wallace described as a "conspiracy theorist." The book describes no "conspiracy," and even if it did that would not detract from the fact that this is a reliable verifiable source by a notable investigative reporter, publisher by a major publisher (St. Martin's Press). The book is detailed, factual and amply sourced and footnoted. You have not pointed out as much as one incorrect factual statement in that book but instead have slung mud. If the quoted sections (re the court testimony, for instance) are factually inaccurate and contradicted by other sources, say so. Don't just smear Wallace and throw around invective. That's irresponsible.

I repeat: do not remove the quoted sections from Wallace unless those sections are inaccurate and/are contradicted by another source. Don't just hack it out with a meat cleaver and put "crap" or some other nonsense in the edit summary. Doing that would be vandalism.--Mantanmoreland 02:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah and there's the point. I don't dispute the facts (one way or the other). The important thing is to include facts from scholarly sources. It helps maintain the credibility of the article. If you don't think credibility is an important issue here at Wikipedia, you're in for a surprise. There's a whole lot of us here who really don't want folks to say "you can't trust Wikipedia, their sources are a joke." Rklawton 02:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not you consider Wallace to be a conspiracy theorist isn't relevant (it's actually your POV, original research, and it doesn't belong here). What matters is what reliable sources have to say about the quality of his work. Rklawton 02:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not "original research" to have actually read a book cited in an article. That's known as "knowing what you talk about."--Mantanmoreland 02:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's original research to read a book and conclude for yourself from that book whether or not the author is a conspiracy theorist. It's not original research, on the other hand, to read and report what his reviewers have had to say. Rklawton 02:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, you're entitled to hold any opinions you wish on original research or whatever, and they can be as ridiculously at variance with Wikipeida policy as you wish, just don't trot them out to justify unwarranted deletions from the article. --Mantanmoreland 02:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, you haven't been able to show how any of my edits are at variance with policy whereas Rjensen was able to cite chapter and verse where your edits worked directly against the goals of this project. Rklawton 02:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've repeatedly pointed out to you how your edits border on vandalism and are utterly unjustified, how your edit summaries and characterizations of the book are inflammatory and inaccurate, and how you don't appear to have any knowledge of the book in question whose cites you have ham-handedly sought to suppress. My patience in trying to explain these basic policies is at an end. I am not going to continue this pointless discussion which I frankly don't think you take very seriously.--Mantanmoreland 03:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rooney

The German language version of the Nazi medal's article does not list Rooney as a recipient. It's my understanding he received a "similar" medal. To me, similar does not mean "same." On the other hand, the German article list of foreign recipients may not be complete. It makes no claim one way or the other. It might be interesting to clear this up - or at least check that the Post article says Rooney specifically received this medal. If verified, I'll go update the German language article. Rklawton 01:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Coolio, thanks. Rklawton 02:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] washing away Hitler's guilt

glorifying or making heroes out of Nazis is a very poor policy and Wiki should not do that. I suggest that to link one of the most famous American heroes to Nazis helps to glorify the Nazi image. Rjensen 23:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's POV pushing, and you should know better. History is what it is. Rewriting history is a bad idea. Now, if you want a fake hero, that's a different story - one worthy of elementary school textbooks. The lesson to people today: "those who write history will not whitewash your life. You will be held accountable for the bad as well as the good." More people need to think about this as they make their choices in life. Ford helped America, and he also hurt a lot of people. The graphic image of the swasticas on his medal illustrate this point. I wish more policy makers would think about how their actions will be viewed in the future than about the votes they'll garner today. At any rate, the image needs to stay. The compromise size is fine. Rklawton 00:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No honestly, Ford is one of the most recognized and heroic figures of the 20th century. Saying (falsely) that he inspired Hitler's hatred of Jews takes the blame off Hitler. The article as it stands removes the guilt from Hitler and puts it on Ford. that is false and it is nasty. (The major biographies of Hitler do not say he got his antisemitism from Ford--how ridiculous--he grew up in two major centers of antisemitism (Vienna and Munich). It was Ford's autos that influenced him, as in Volkswagen, and that is why he gave Ford a medal. Might as well get history right--which is unlikely if editors rely on weak sources. For example the most important and detailed biography of Hitler (Ian Kershaw, vol 1 Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris (2000)) does not have "Ford" in the index. Rjensen 00:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As you said, the roots of Hitler's bigotry are well established and don't include Ford. But that has nothing to do with the image at hand. Hitler admired Ford; Ford admired Hitler and refused to return his medal. Ford made a serious mistake sticking up for the Nazis, and this must not be whitewashed. Delete all the alleged Ford-related roots of Hitler's bigotry you want, but keep the image as a true reminder and a warning to all. Ford spent years fighting his image as a bigot, yet he supported the Nazis. Please tell me that in the articles about America's western expansion you at least allow mention that the U.S. Government might have been a wee bit wrong in some of its actions. Rklawton 01:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source query

Rjensen, can you say exactly what Steven Watts says on p xi that supports your recent edit? (pasted below) Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Curcio however, did no research beyond one popular biography of Ford. The leading biography of Hitler by Ian Kershaw, which explores his anti-semitism in depth, makes no mention whatever of Ford. Hitler grew up in heavily anti-semitic cities, Vienna and Munich. Hitler did say that he drew inspiration from Ford's building an automobile for the people, an inspiration for the Volkswagen. (Watts, p. xi)

Watts page xi: after noting that Ford was a great hero in the Soviet Union (with which he had serious ties), Watts says: "Yet Adolph Hitler also revered Ford. he proclaimed, "I shall do my best to put his theories into practice in Germany," and modelled the Volkswagen, the people's car, on the model T." Rjensen 02:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. What is the source for the rest of the section i.e. "Curcio however, did no research beyond one popular biography of Ford. The leading biography of Hitler by Ian Kershaw, which explores his anti-semitism in depth, makes no mention whatever of Ford. Hitler grew up in heavily anti-semitic cities, Vienna and Munich." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Curcio says explictly on the page that he depended on the popular Lacey biography. He does not cite the major items in the Wiki list. The Kershaw bio of Hitler--over 1500 pages-- has no index entry for Ford at all. (you can search it on Amazon.com) But Kershaw spends many pages explaining Hitler's antisemitic roots in Vienna, Munich, etc. Likewise the major studies of antisemitism in Europe don't mention Ford. For example, Hostages of Modernization: Studies on Modern Antisemitism 1870-1933/39: Germany-Great Britain (1992) edited by Herbert A. Strauss has no mention of Ford.[4]; likewise zip in Hitler and the Final Solution By Gerald Fleming[5]; likewise The Holocaust and History: The Known, the Unknown, the Disputed, and the Reexamined edited by Michael Berenbaum, Abraham J Peck [6]. and so on. The European historians simply leave out Ford's supposed influence. (I think it's safe to say that every historian of the 20th century has heard of Ford and would not be afraid to mention his influence.) That suggests to me they don't find any influence. The Nolan book, on the other hand, shows the Germans (including Hitler) were heavily influenced by Ford's automobiles and factories, as was Stalin. Rjensen 03:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"That suggests to me they don't find any influence." That's the original research right there. You have to find a source who is saying what you say. Just because something isn't in an index doesn't mean it isn't in the book, for example. But even if it isn't, you'd have to find someone else who extrapolated something from that, and cite them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

All I did was look in the index of the most important biographies of Hitler (by Kershaw, Fest, Bullock)--that is "original research"??? Nonsense--it is appropriate use of the best secondary sources. If a Hitler biographer does not mention Ford in 1600 pages then the author does not think Ford was important enough to mention--I think that is common sense and not some new theory. (Try this: if a reliable biographer gives 1000 words to X, then Wiki can say X is important; if he gives 100 words then X is somewhat important. If he gives zero words then X is unimportant. That is evidence for the Wiki statement: "Biographers of Hitler do not consider X to be an important influence." ) (By the way I also did a full-text word search using both amazon.com and books.google.com --the word "Ford" is not anywhere in the Kershaw or Fest books according to the Amazon.com search engine.) Likewise the major books on German antisemitism do not mention Ford. The fact is not a single specialist on Hitler or German antisemitism has been found who says Ford was an influence. Wiki "Reliable sources" rule comes into play here: a biography of Chrysler is not the place to look for information of Hitler. Rjensen 16:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What is it about original research you find so difficult to understand? You can't do your own research, based on "looking at book indexes". Quote people, don't make stuff up. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. Max Wallace in The American Axis makes that point quite clearly. Ford is the only American mentioned by name in Mein Kampf (see Wallace, p.54):

"Jews are the regents of the stock exchange power of the American Union. Every year they become increasingly the controlling masters of the labor power of a people of 120,000,000 souls. Ford, to their exasperation, holds out independently there even now."

Wallace notes that entire passages of Mein Kampf are lifted from The International Jew.--Mantanmoreland 17:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Ford did not influence Hitler's ideas -- except regarding automobiles. (the one Mein Kampf reference is to the auto company being independent of New York bankers, which was a widely noted event at the time.) Rjensen 17:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Continuing to push your POV against all evidence to the contrary, and misreading the Mein Kampf quote that clearly referred to "Jews" and not "bankers," just weakens your case.--Mantanmoreland 18:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"all evidence" -- odd that none of the biographers of Hitler report any of this so-called evidence. To junp from Hitler commented on the finances of the Ford Motor Company (true) or the Model T (true) to saying that Ford influenced Hitler's ideas on race is against all the evidence reported by scholars. Rjensen 18:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not odd at all for some authors to not pick up on things later picked up by other authors. It happens all the time, particularly in the history of Hitler/World War II. Re "scholars" -- you're not going to start the demonizing of Wallace again, are you? --Mantanmoreland 18:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

the section minimizes Hitler's guilt, associates him with a famous American hero, and displays his glittering symbols. That's bad form. As for the leading scholars on Hitler, no they don't pay much attention to popular historians who don't even read German and have a very heavy POV and a strong tendency to sensationalism. Rjensen 18:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sadly Ford "upgraded" the Nazis for several years, and this article is about Ford. As for the "popular historians" - I agree with you on those points.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rklawton (talk • contribs)

[edit] alleged anti-semitism

There is simply no reason to remove that section! did henry ford get a medal from hitler? did he write bad things about jews? if yes then its a FACT, removing it would be like, removing anti-semitism from hitler's article. hitler is an anti-semite, so is ford, and if you are not happy about that, feel free to write warnings such as claims made by ford are not historical accurate. but removing it is censorship.

if ford spent enough time and effort to write a full book against jews, its obviously a very important part of his life.

i dont get why you people are so afraid of every little hint that some people in fact hate jews. it is not a moral problem of whether hating jews are wrong or right, it's just a plain fact that a good number of people, especially pre-WWII, hate jews.

It is almost bizzare how the same people who are offended by revisionist historians who try to say holocaust didn't happen are doing the same damn thing, i.e. revising history.[anon]

The problem is that neo-Nazis and anti-semites celebrate Ford as their hero and want even more attention given to him. Ford always used ghost-writers because he was almost illiterate and never wrote or dictated anything longer than a paragraph. (He could barely read.) Rjensen 15:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The length of discussion regarding the anti-Semitism section of this article is daunting, and as such my opinion may not be heard, but I'd like to give it. First of all I realize the need for diligence when it comes to maintaining the facts in such a controversial subject. However, a little perspective never hurts. Anti-Semitism comprises the largest single section in this article. Henry Ford disliked jews, he criticized jews, all of that is apparent from the facts. Those facts should certainly stay, but the fact of the matter is that the greatest automobile maker in American history is not best known for his role as an anti-Semitic personality. Nor should he be, it does not bear on his historical significance except to deprecate his character. There is a point where the facts stop being notable - the quantity of opinions regarding Ford's opinions, for example. The average reader can generally draw their own conclusions. Simply, the elements of any good article should be proportional to their importance to the subject. So if this article really contains all that is encyclopedic about Ford's contributions to engineering, business, and philanthropy, then it stands to reason that a lesser part of his person should not be outshadowing the rest. Otherwise, an article about such an important figure should contain more meat if it must have so much controversy. I hope that consideration of this will make discussion of the matter a little smoother. Thank you. Decatur 04:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

David Lewis, Henry Ford's biographer doesn't call Ford an anti-semite. Henry Ford claimed to be "shocked" by the content in the Dearborn Independent. Ford historians thoroughly answered these claims. Ford also recanted alleged statements after the outbreak of the war. But for Henry Ford, the WWI and WW II would probably have been lost. It is not factual to list Henry Ford under categories of anti-semitic people. These are 'witch hunt' categories, the use of the term anti-semitic or anti-semite in context about Henry Ford himself is disputable, Ford historians dispute it. At mimimum, there needs to be a more acceptable medium. That one may find an author willing to make the accusation does not make it so. One may find an article of this or that slant to support virtually anything. Its simply ludicrous brouhaa to allege that the auto companies had anything to do with the Axis powers. But for the American auto companies, WWII would most probably have been lost. Although, there was concern of nationalization of American owned factories in Europe. American companies lost day to day control of their factories in the spring of 1939, and no Ford executive or member of the Ford family made a trip to Germany after that time. Many Americans, like Ford, were pacifist or anti-war for both WWI and WWII at first, but then supported the war after the fact. Thomas Paine1776 00:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above, I'm going to revert your edits removing his anti-semitism, and refer you to the LENGTHY above section Talk:Henry_Ford#Neo-Nazi_history. Ford's anti-semitism is well-deocumented, and the sections don't allege widespread anti-semitism throughout the auto companies of America, as you think they do. They instead the documented acts and views of Ford, who if he never held them, couldn't recant them, then redact his recusal. The sections also document his effect on Hitler, also documented. Nowhere does the article say 'detroit hates jews', nor does it say 'Detroit loves it the nazis'. It's clear and succinct in its documentation. ThuranX 00:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ford Historians dispute it. Ford's credible biographers don't go so far as to label Ford an anti-semite, interviewed on the History Channel. Ford didn't like war itself, it interrupted his auto business. The auto companies were concerned about nationalization of their factories though. There does seem to be this hearsay about the American auto companies, probably propagated by the foreign competition and those that profit from it, and the insinuation is complete hogwash. But for the American auto companies, the war would most probably have been lost. Ford heartily supported the War effort for WWI and WWII, after the outbreak of war. It seemed that Ford wanted to avoid yet another war. Why aren't the sensationalists expending energy writing about Benz, where there is documentation, or how about BMW, after the war broke out. Thomas Paine1776 02:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And like I said the first time. NO ONE HERE is saying that all the auto companies wanted jews dead. No one is saying Ford supported Hitler. Stop making up windmills to tilt at. NO one has said Ford wanted Hitler to succeed. NO one is saying Ford supported Hitler's wars. We are saying Ford was an anti-semite. this is supported by his essays, and his reprintings of the Protocols in the Dearborn Independent. This has been addressed over and over. The only people saying Ford was innocent are the same saying that in all other respects he was a really smart guy. A smart guy who never ever looked into his own publishing business. A man who never read his own essays, because he didn't write them, because he was an illiterate moron. Except for his engineering and business sense. Which he never used on his paper. But he apologized for these views he didn't have. Except then he UNapologized. For vies he never had, and never expressed, because he was illiterate. It doesn't make sense, and there's ample citation on the page to refute such a bizarre theory. This has been covered before, PLEASE see above already. Ford hated Jews. Ford influenced Hitler. NO one's saying htey were bosom buddies, but there's enough citation on the page to support his influence on Hitler. No one's saying the American Auto industry was complicit in the holocuast. No one's saying that America shouldn't recognize the contributions of Detriot an the Auto Industry to the Allied victory. but to accurately report on the man isn't wrong, just because it shows he was a human being, with human weaknesses. Further, your contributions list shows a whole lot of pro-Detroit interest, and your user name suggests a lot of patriotism. As such, I'll remind you that Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Expression, and Freedom of information are all rights guaranteed to Americans. To whitewash this article as you've done helps no one. ThuranX 04:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Bravo and well said. Rklawton 04:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This article does not have a 'neutral point of view. None of Ford's credible biographers have labeled him an anti-semite. The article is filled with hearsay quotes from non-credible or hostile sources and disgruntled 'former' employees. What persuades you? It is clearly published that Ford recanted. Its highly doubtful that Henry Ford 'hated' anyone. Ford was the first company to promote African Americans into management, Ford hired and trained female laborers, "Rosies." Ford built hospitals and schools and gave them away. Ford was a selfless individual who didn't count his companies money, he didn't have accountants at Ford Motor, he lacked greed, wow what a guy! And there appear to be other objections here too. These categories/labels amount to a witch hunt brouhaa, and the majority in the county doesn't agree with them. Again, why aren't the sensationalists adding Benz and BMW to such categories, where there is evidence, after the war broke out? But for the American auto companies, WWII would clearly, most probably, would have been lost, and Ford clearly supported and even led the war effort, yet there is not a single mention of it in this article. The auto companies had lost day to day control of there factories in Germany in the spring of 1939, therefore the citations you cite are irrelevant. Ford historians note, no member of the Ford family or exective made any trips to Germany during the period. Further, Henry Ford hired Jewish people, eg. Albert Kahn, Ford's chief architect. Kahn was the architect for the original Beth EL Temple (1903) in Detroit (now the Bonstelle Theatre). Albert Kahn's father was a Rabbi. The Detroit News reports, in 1916, Henry Ford hired Kahn to build the Rouge Complex to build submarine chaser boats for WWI. Kahn built more than 1000 buildings for Ford. Moreover, Albert Kahn finished building the Edsel & Eleanor Ford House in 1927 for Henry's son. Again, it lacks a neutral point of view. Thomas Paine1776 17:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he 'recanted'. Then, later in his life, as the article sourcedly (if that's a word) reports, he recanted he recantation. This is about Ford's anti-Semitism, not allegations of gender discrimination, and 'Rosies', the women workers during WW2, are hardly the best illustration of this anyway, as many American companies hired women. The men were in the army fighting. Ford being selfless and lacking greed is characterization, not fact. yet again, you conflate our desire to include anti-semitism with some sort of hate for America. None of us hate America. We report the facts. Ford published the Protocols in the DI, and funded individual reprinted volumes. As for Kahn, his article, Albert Kahn doesn't identify him as Ford's 'chief architect', but the architect of two Ford plants, BOTH designed BEFORE Ford began to publish the Protocols. Kahn also designed a GM plant two years after his second Ford plant. As for Kahn's designing of a shul, I say 'Good, a Jewish architect designing a synagogue? Oy, vas a Macher he is! His mother should be so proud! But he's no doctor!' That has no bearing. As you can see, your entire presentation of the Kahn argument isn't tenable in light of the dates of such activity, all of which predate the publications, except the Edsel Ford house, which is again irrelevant as that's not Henry. ThuranX 02:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Henry Ford hired Albert Kahn to build Willow Run in 1941 also, and 1000 other buildings. Albert Kahn was of course one of the most prominent Jewish Americans during those years. Kahn was the chief architect of the Ford Motor Company, he was often hearlded proudly as the "Architect of Ford." (The Ford Motor Company maintains close ties with Kahn Associates even in modern times. Henry Ford Hospitals built West Bloomfield Hospital with Kahn Associats). Albert Kahn built the magnificent Edsel & Eleanor Ford House, an American Castle, and the playhouse for Josephine Ford. The Ford family no doubt loved Albert Kahn and all his associates. Anyone who has never toured the Edsel & Eleanor Ford House, Kahn's masterpiece, should do so before they ever write anything about Henry Ford or the Ford Family. During WWII Albert Kahn and Henry Ford and Edsel teamed up to design and build the largest assembly plant in the world for the production of the B-24 Liberator Bomber, the most produced allied aircraft in history used by every branch of sercie in Pacific and Europe to devastate the Axis powers. Think of it, both Henry Ford would see the death of his most trusted architect Albert Kahn (1942) and then the death of Edsel Ford before the assembbly line was in full operation. Henry had to run the whole thing by himself, the burden of the allied war on his shoulders with thousands of pilots sleeping on cots waiting for their planes to be ready for take-off at Ford's Willow Run factory and airfield. Allied aipower and the B-24 was the key turning point in the war. But sensationalists and detractors fail to mention it. Once again, Prof. David Lewis, Henry Ford's biographer doesn't label him an anti-semite. Credible scholarship doesn't label Ford an anti-semite. It is well documented that Henry Ford's central motives for criticism were anti-war, not anti-semitism. Ford was quoted as being "shocked" over published content which he himself did not write and Ford recanted. Sensationalist hearsay about Ford from disgrunted former employees and other questionable figures are not documentation of anything. It is simply preposterous to assert Ford was some sort of enduring anti-semite. Ford lost a close Senate race in in which he ran as a Democrat. David Lewis even wrote a piece called "Ford and Kahn" Michigan History (1980). Dr. David Lewis is one of the most credible scholars on Henry Ford. Henry Ford was an American hero that saved the world from tyranny, no less. Probably the one of the top two most important figures of the 20th century depending on which US President one would consider the most important. A & E claimed he was the most important figure of the 20th century. Its probably not easy for some to sort though Henry Ford, but he was concerned about his company which he had brought out of WWI and then the Great Depression, he wanted a legacy for his family. Prior to WWII, so called meetings and encounters by US auto companies were in part to avoid nationalization of their factories in Germany, nothing more. Some sensationalists try to attribute things after the fact. But as anyone can see it was the American auto companies led by Henry Ford which brought allied victory and crushed the Axis powers. Who doesn't think the Axis powers would have done and said almost anything to keep the American auto companies from building up for the war. The Axis knew that the only power that stood between them and World domination was the American auto industry and especially Henry Ford. Most of article here about Henry Ford needs to be completely rewritten from top to bottom in order to have a neutral point of view Thomas Paine1776 18:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't seem to understand wikipedia, nor any of the editors on this page. You continue to approach this as though we are anti-american, or even Anti-henry ford. Neither is true. I'm not going to re-re-re-re-re-recover the henry ford was a well cited, well documented, anti-semite thing. You don't listen, you just assert that we hate America by not making th entire article into "Henry Ford and Detroit saved the universe from Hitler!" Until you can understand that we have good citation for the section, nothing will change here. ThuranX 18:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't get it do you? Let me give you an Example: Strom Thurmond Never actually wore a sheet and tied a noose, but he sure didn't like black people (black daughter aside). He voted against giving them rights, used slus against them his entire life, and so on. Doesn't mean he didnt' do good for his constituency and for the nation, it just means he was human and had some basic ideas that weren't really that kind to a large group of people with a single common factor (being black). Henry Ford never (that I've read of), Threw on a red armband and gave the stiffarm salute for Hitler, but he did knowningly publish and reprint the slanderous and false Protocols of the Elders of Zion and other anti-semitism through his Dearborn Independent, and espoused such bbeliefs through other means and methods. This doesn't mean he didn't do great things for industry and america both in peacetime and in war time. But he WAS an anti-semite. IT stays in as fact, not as 'allegations' which is a speculation-based weasel word and thus a stepping stone for full removal, because we avoid speculation in Wikipedia articles. As such, I'm NOT going to allow you to remove the entire anti-semitism section and information simply because you think we should whitewash it and make his article a shrine of hero-worship to the man. We cover his great contributions, we also cover his ideologies. We have sources. End of story. ThuranX 19:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing unusual about criticizing Henry Ford or Ford. People do it all the time. Ford and the company he founded has been both criticized and praised over the years. However, name calling, labeling, impuning a permenant sort of witch hunt brouhaaa upon it is not acceptable, as is the case throughout much of the article, as if his whole life was nothing but. Ford funded the Peace Ship. As pointed out, Henry Ford had close ties and an enduring relationship with Albert Kahn, a prominent Jewish American, up to WWII when Kahn passed away. Kahn was called the "architect of Ford" and then he was called the "architect of Detroit," as Detroit was called the "Arsenal of Democracy." Consider that Albert Kahn was widely known and well respected, just like Henry Ford. Its perfectly fine to cite some sensationalism as long is its balanced with reasonableness. Is there tolerance for reasonableness? Its not credible or fair to present Henry Ford as some sort of enduring anti-semite. He was a benevolent individual. Its well documented that Ford's central motives were anti-war at the time, not anti-semitism. Ford's motive seemed to be against war in general, he'd do what he could to stop it, he seemed to view war as harmful to the auto industry, not being able to sell cars, and that he felt war in general was a waste of time. (That was an era where the common political vocabulary would be considered somewhat crude compared with times). Ford came to support the war in WWI and WWII once it broke out. Besides, Ford recanted, accepted by credible scholars, with no credible evidence to the contrary. As for the skeptical analogies about Ford, how would skeptics characterize Jimmy Carter's new book using "Apartheid?" Why not expend energy where thise evidence like with Benz, BMW, and Mitsubishi after the war broke out? Nothing wrong with presenting the information, just make it balanced. Allegations and sensationalism shouldn't be presented as facts for the reader, but allow the reader to view a sampling of the information and draw their own conclusions. On Henry Ford and the American auto indusrty saving the world from tyranny, and so on, this is true in a big way, yet its not mentioned at all here, or by those with an anti-American auto industry agenda in their magazines and books. Don't you at least wonder why some publishers and authors would spend so much effort trying to denounce the American auto industry and its leaders like Henry Ford? The article needs to be almost completely rewritten or at least toned down and balanced in order for it to have neutral point of view. Thomas Paine1776 20:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

With only one top level section (out of 16) covering Ford's anti-Semitism and no mention in the lead paragraph, I'd say this article is pretty neutral on (if not outright white-washing) the topic. Remember, that in 1938, Germany was infamous for its persecution of Jews (I'd be happy to cite a 1939 encyclopedia article on Hitler about this if you like). Even so, Ford was happy to accept a Nazi medal - and he refused to return it when these "problems" were pointed out. How many corporate leaders would accept a medal from Fidel Castro or Kim Jong Il Jung these days? Only those with strong sympathies! Rklawton 20:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The medal was on occasion of Henry Ford's 75th Birthday in July of 1938, months prior to Krstal Nacht in November. GM exec James Mooney's award was in August of 1938. This was before the Munich conference in September of 1938. Chamberlain was in the appeasement mode. Allied appeasement may have been a delay tactic since none of the allies had enough of a military at that point to be making demands. Returning the awards would have precipitated retaliation against Ford and GM, the American auto companies were seriously concerned that their factories were going to be nationalized by Germany. There was probably the thought that US auto companies might have to wait out a possible war in Europe, or that perhaps they'd have to gear up and help ready the US for war. Ford and GM didn't have certainty that Congress would declare War to back them up at that point. Ford and GM lost day to day control of their factories in the spring of 1939, By then it the direction was known, US auto execs or the Fords did not travel to Germany after that, its likely that they knew US involement in the war was certain from the President himself at that point or they may have even asked the President to get involved at that point. Probably both. And this was still months prior to the invasion of Poland in September. The fact that GM and Ford factories were not actually nationalized by the Germans shows the Nazis feared the US might get involved. Its likely that the US with the American auto companies were secretly preparing in case war broke out. With the Lend-Lease Act, there was no reason for the Axis to delay attacking the US. Understand that US really didn't have much of an airforce or a bomber fleet in 1939. That was the whole purpose of Ford building the Willow Run aircraft assembly plant and US auto companies wartime production. Ford was honored by the Smithsonian for tranforming the aircraft industry which wasn't capable of an aircraft assembly line. The President couldn't just all of sudden say, get out of American factories or else. That underscores the importance of the US auto companies, Henry Ford, Albert Kahn, and the Arsenal of Democracy that saved the world from tyranny, and why people should be heralding it, not obfuscating it. The article here is not neutral, it something close to anti-Ford propaganda, attempts at labeling, with Ford's accomplishments and contributions practically set aside or missing altogher. Thomas Paine1776 21:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a lot of "well maybe he thought" stuff - but without sources that state these were his true motivations. And now you are saying that war was good for Ford's business. Yet Ford thought that war interfered with business, and he sought to prevent it. An alternative "well maybe" theory is that Ford admired Hitler and the Nazis and didn't want America to interfere in his affairs. Let's skip all the "well maybe" stuff and just go with what the historians have had to say about Ford's beliefs and writings. Rklawton 23:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Probably the thought..." "It is likely..." "Probably both" all indicate that this is your conjecture. It's well reasoned, but still way inside the ballpark of WP:OR. Further, you're posturing now, soapboxing on 'The Arsenal of Democracy that saved the world from tyranny'. That's a blatant emotional appeal and it's not only poor debate technique, it's disingenuous and ultiamtely, jsut more strawmanning. This is absolutely the last time I will say this, and I use caps to be absolutely clear: NO ONE SERIOUSLY INVOLVED IN EDITING AND IMPROVING THIS ARTICLE THINKS FORD WAS A TOTALLY EVIL MAN WHO DID NOTHING GOOD. NONE OF THE SAME GROUP DENIES FORD'S CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE WAR. STOP USING A STRAWMAN TO IMPLY THAT WE HATE FORD AND HATE AMERICA. As RKLawton notes, it is ONE of 16 sections. His actions are well documented. To assert that he was a clueless, uninvolved, bumbling idiot with one business and a shrewd, clever, controlling businessman with another doesn't make sense on it's face.

Further, I note by your contributions tha you are steeped in pages dealing with Detroit. I admire your loyalty and pride to your city, and have no doubts that on most of those pages you're expanding Wikipedia's coverage of Detroit in great ways. While I encourage your efforts there, I have to ask: Is it possible that your pride in the Motor City is coloring your ablity to see this issue in a truly neutral way, and preventing you from seeing that this article conforms to Reliable Sources? Please think about this question. I am asking if you might have unrealized, normal 'accidental' biases regarding this issue. Thank you for listening. ThuranX 23:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural depictions of Henry Ford

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 19:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thought it had been bad for his wife to take side against him. Here is the story [7]

[edit] Ford origins

"The Ford family has its origins in western England - the family was evicted from their land in Somerset and 'planted' in Ireland."

This is probably true, but is it really that neccesary to put it up there(maybe a footnote)? The "eviction" probably took place around the 16th century [8] 300-400 years before he was born. Superdude99 19:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Addition

Tried to add Fordism to the "see also" stuff, but couldn't because this is a protected page. Anyone care to do this for me? I'd appreciate it.

Doing it now, thanks. --BenBurch 04:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-Nazi history

Some editors unwittingly are taking the neo-Nazi line that Hitler and Ford were kindred souls. Experts on Hitler reject that nonsense, which is why we have silly mistaken statements by people like Curcio who took his stuff from an old popular bio of Ford. Curcio is a very poor source. We need to use the best scholarship like Kershaw, whose 1700 pages on Hitler finds zero reference to Ford's influence. I do not think out editors are intentionally taking the neo-Nazi line but they need to realize what's happening. (note some have added Nazi insignia to the article too). Rjensen 04:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a personal attack. You're also in violation of 3RR. I'm going to ask you to self-revert your violating edits, and provide better scholarship than 'I like my guy over all the others in the article' when removing major sections. Further, your edits serve to whitewash Ford's antisemetic behaviors, which is diametrically opposed to the light you paint yourself in when proposing that those reverting your whitewash are neo-nazis. ThuranX 04:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not personally attacking editors who seem to be acting in good faith, based on very poor and unreliable sources. The elaborate attention to Hitler and to Nazi insignia is false history--NOT supported by any of the hundreds of studies of Hitler or Nazi Germany. (I did elaborate searches on the Hitler literature to show this.) Glorifying Hitler and the Nazis violates Wiki rules and cannot stand. The result is to glorify or exculpate Hitler by making Nazi antisemitism seem to be caused by a leading American. Someone even pasted in some Nazi regalia in the article. The article covers Ford's antisemitism in depth using many reliable source (which I in fact added). Rjensen 04:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you call all those who reverted your edits 'Neo-Nazis'. That's a personal attack. Phrasing it with 'I'm not saying you're a neo-nazi if you revert me, but if the shoe fits..." doesn't negate your personal attack. Further, you've been rebuked multiple times for exactly this set of edits in the past, as evidenced above. I again recommend that you revert yourself, go cool off, and come back when you can stop elevating your hero, and his interpretation of fact above all the other citations of fact. It's been covered before that Ford DID know what his paper was publishing, that his attitudes were clear, and that Hitler DID in fact draw on Ford's writings. This whole situation comes off as nothing more than you retrying something you were caught doing before, in the hope that as some time has passed, no one will notice. Stop removing valuable content which relates the effects of Ford on Hitler with this minority view that one of the richest industrialist anti-semites in the country was totally ignored by the biggest, most pwoerful anti-semite in Europe. ThuranX 05:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think people who link Hitler and Ford are doing a disservice to history. Specialists on Hitler's antisemitism have looked at hundreds of sources and none claim that Hitler was seriously influenced by Ford's antisemitic ideas or writings. (Hitler grew up surrounded by antisemitism in Austria and Bavaria--the mayor was a leading anti-Semite.) Ford, as the article explains, approved of the antisemitic content but did NOT actually originate any of the ideas or do any of the writing). Kershaw finds no influence re antisemitism. (Hitler was infatuated with automobiles, and that's why he had Ford's portrait in the 1920s.) Bad history gives serious distortions and we do not want the article to glorify Hitler or say he was a product of Detroit. That's false and plays into the neo-Nazi hands. I repeat again I think the editors who fell for this line of thought were NOT neo-Nazis, but rather they just did very poor research and fell for pop history that is bad quality--none have cited any major books on Hitler, for example. How can Wiki make statements about Hitler with ZERO reliable sources?? Rjensen 05:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, numerous editors confronted you on just these claims before. You're rehashing old news. Stop, revert, and move on. This is ridiculous. Nowhere does the article claim Ford made Hitler an antisemite. NOWHERE. You're just looking for excuses to absolve Ford of his anti-semitism, and it's effects beyond America's borders. As cited above, Hitler lifted parts of Ford's writings for Mein Kampf. That's clear signs of influence. I've alerted other editors from the previous series of debates on this, in the hopes that like last time, if enough editors actually repeat all the things they said last time, you will understand that Wikipedia will not permit biased minority view scholarship to become prevalent here. Further, your continued ad hominem attacks 'neo-nazi', 'disservice to history', need to stop, or I'll be inclined to dismiss all of what you say. You've yet to demonstrate anything discrediting the information which rebuttted you the last time you tried this. Then, as now, youv'e got nothing to refute Crucio but 'I like my guy better'. That's NOT grounds for good edits. ThuranX 05:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, now this is getting ridiculous - And I intend to see it stop. It is beyond doubt both that Henry Ford was an anti-semite, and that he supported Hitler. It is also beyond doubt that Hitler admired him. Not only have I read this in several places but it is in the oral history of my family (which I realize is not an RS-V source.) The current citations do establish these facts. If you have anything to attack the RS of the current citations, present that cited RS-V evidence. If not, I will defend the current text of the article against change on this matter. PERIOD. --BenBurch 05:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

people seem to be shouting when they should be footnoting. yes Ford was antisemitic. No, he did NOT support Hitler: Who claims that??? Hitler and many others admired Ford for his autos. BenBurch claims his grandparents talked to Hitler about this??? just what did Hitler tell them? He should read any of many serious biographies of Hitler or studies of Nazi Germany. They discuss the roots of Hitler's antisemitism in depth and they do NOT say Ford was involved. We have one fringe popular writer from decades ago versus hundreds of recent scholars. Rjensen 07:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

PROVE IT --BenBurch 09:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Kershaw proves it. please read that book. (or look at Amazon.com and search the 2 volumes for FORD, as I did. Zero results. then look at words like JEWS = 153 pages in volume 1 alone. Kershaw examines Hitler's antisemitism in depth, as have others, and finds hundreds of influences, but not Henry Ford. (Hitler did not read English anyway). Rjensen 16:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oooh. That's a great argument. HItler didn't read english anyway. One, prove it. Two, prove there were no translations of Ford's writings into German that Hitler could've had access to. ThuranX 17:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have found several other cites that support this, though. What you need to find is a RS that specifically attacks the cite we have here and says it is untrue. You may not whitewash Henry Ford's article to keep out his association with Hitler unless you can prove the source is a liar or incorrect. Honestly I don't know why you would want to defend this racist bastard? --BenBurch 16:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia works this way: ONLY statements that are fully reliable can be posted. When a writer on Chrysler makes statements about Hitler you expect to examine his sources. In this case there were no sources on Hitler whatever. Rjensen 16:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• You need to PROVE that this is not a reliable source. Do that and it goes. You have to prove your case as you are making the assertion. Was this source self-published, for example? Is there scholarly criticism of this source? That is your burden if you want to rehabilitate Ford and Hitler, but I wonder why you would want to whitewash Ford and Hitler??? Both were SCUM. --BenBurch 17:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ben, please avoid attacking either the editor or the subject directly, and focus on the edits at hand. RJensen, Ben's point is still valid. You've done nothing to discredit the scholarship of the cites extant before your recent bout of edits. In fact, you've done NOTHING new since the last time you tried this, and the fact that you're providing no new evidence to support your edits does look a bit like agenda pushing. Before I go so far as to state that's what you're doing, I'm asking you, one last time, to please bring evidence discrediting the research of all the cites you're removing, and evidence that Kershaw is truly 'the only definitive biography'. That's definitely source-bias, and it's not a good idea. It, like much of what you've done, is really coming off as 'I like this guy better, so he's right'. Please don't sink to saying 'no, He's right so I like him better.' It's flat and not clever, and it does nothing to support your case. Focus on specific issues of scholarship and research. thank you. ThuranX 17:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Which cites does Thuranx have in mind? Rjensen 17:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh don't play coy, i've already explained. This is ridiculous. You act like you're the only knowledgable person here till I call you on it, now you play ignorant. I'm tired of this, you've done it before, and were stopped. You've brought nothing new to this, beyond the hopes that after a few months, no one will notice. Your continued refusal to actually debunk the existing authors and cites suggests that you can't. ThuranX 18:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to write about Hitler without any sources except your grandfather's memory. The Hitler experts reject this mythology, and so should wiki. Rjensen 18:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Then PROVE That? With cites to an RS-V source. That is all anybody here is asking you to do. Why is that so difficult for you to comply with? BenBurch 18:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

BenBurch needs to realize that editors have to prove statements that are made. He has never cited any serious book on Hitler but instead relies on stories he heard from his grandparents. Wiki rule is to ERASE statements not based on reliable sources. Unless we learn more about his grandparents we have to consider their memories as unreliable as far as encyclopedias go. Rjensen 18:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop it. You know what you have been asked to do is totally proper. If you cannot provide cites to support you position then your position is untenable. I am not relying on the memories of my uncles and aunts, I am relying on the citation that you say is invalid. Well, if it is invalid you should be able to provide a scholarly or at least RS source that SAYS so! Do that. BenBurch 18:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to be civil. I cited Kersdhaw to show that scholars do not consider Ford to have been a major influence on Hitler. BenBurch cited only his family memories to the contrary. Rjensen 18:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That was civil. Cite your source that attacks the RS of the current source. PERIOD. If you cannot do that, the matter is closed. Move on. BenBurch 18:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

{edit conflict} This is pointless. RJensen can't support his side and edits. He wo't be able to refute the scholarship of Curcio and the other author he's removed. He won't, he can't, and he doesn't even try, beyond 'Curcio isn't good enough, but my guy is because I say he is.' He continues to rely upon the volume of writing (two volumes) as evidence that Kershaw is the best, but verbosity isn't a measure of accuracy or reliability. I'm done with this, and, BenBurch, I suggest that this might be a case for AN/I. RJensen's retort to all of this is that those opposing him are saying Ford made Hitler, which no one has done, and which the article did NOT state. Instead, the article actually stated that Ford's writing was ONE influence upon hitler, an influence so strong that Hitler lifted, paraphrased, and quoted Ford in Mein Kampf. This was coverdd at length last time you tried this. YOu refuse to answer any of these points. You keep changing topics and tactics. This is not a debate. This is an encyclopedia. You cannot refute the citations already present, so you cannot change them.It's that simple. Stop your edits here, RJensen. ThuranX 18:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

My poasition is that Ford did not have a major influence on Hitler and the Nazis (apart that is from automobiles). I support it with Kershaw's 2 volume biography of Hitler. Hitler mentioned Ford in one sentence (re Ford's famous battle against Wall Street). Fact is Ford was barely literate and never wrote a sentence and so Hitler never read a word of Ford's. To say otherwise requires a little proof, of the sort that grandfather's memories will not suffice. Rjensen 18:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Read what BenBurch said. He didn't CITE his relatives. He said you're ignoring way too much. I want a cite that Ford was illiterate, ofr one. For two, I want proof that all the authors already cited aren't worth using. Three, I want proof that Ford never dictated, or hired and worked with ghostwriters. Four, I want proof that nothing Ford wrote was translated into German. You've been asked for all this too many times. I"m done 'debating' this. You will either provide proof or leave. Beyond this, I'll just revert anything you do here until you can provide actual answers. ThuranX 18:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thuranx has no cites for his notions about Hitler. Where do they come from?????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rjensen (talk • contribs) 18:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

My apologies for not signing. We cannot allow this article to be a vehicle for glorifying or exculpating Hitler and Naziism -- and we can't allow bad research with mystery sources to control a major artile like this. all statements in Wiki must have reliable sources. Let me explain that it not necessary to footnote a blank line. Rjensen 19:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

{Edit conflict}This is your second personal attack against me. Revert it or strike it through, or else I wil go to AN/I and all other necessarry steps to have you blocked for PA. You continue to be aggressive and hostile to all editors, while NOT providing the answers requested. ThuranX 19:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

See - WP:V for thoughts on "grandfather's memories". Rklawton 22:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

STOP! BenBurch admits his family memories are NOT WP:RS in his comment. Attacking him with sarcasm like this is a cheap shot. he knows it, and if you read it through, he's making a point by citing the common-man beliefs as regard Ford's behavior, from commono-men contemporaneous to Ford's actions. Knock off the cheap shots and focus on the fact that RJensen was already once rebuked for this behvaior, and now has come back after a few months to try again with nothing new to help his side.ThuranX 22:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Ford-Hitler sources

Who Financed Hitler: The Secret Funding of Hitler's Rise to Power 1919-1933 by James Pool and Suzanne Pool (The Dial Press, 1978) pp 111, 129: -

“

"That Henry Ford, the famous automobile manufacturer gave money to the National Socialists directly or indirectly has never been disputed," said Konrad Heiden, one of the first biographers of Hitler.[87] Novelist Upton Sinclair wrote in The Flivver King, a book about Ford, that the Nazis got forty-thousand dollars from Ford to reprint anti-Jewish pamphlets in German translations, and that an additional $300,00 was later sent to Hitler through a grandson of the ex-Kaiser who acted as an intermediary.[88] The US Ambassador to Germany, William E. Dodd, said in an interview that "certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy."[89] At the time of Dodd's criticisms, the general public was aware that he was speaking of Ford because the press made a direct association between Dodd's statements and other reports of Ford's anti-Semitism. .... Henry Ford's reward from Hitler finally came in July 1938, when on his seventy-fifth birthday he was awarded the Grand Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle. Ford was the first American and the fourth person in the world to receive this medal, which was the highest decoration that could be given to any non-German citizen. Benito Mussolini, another of Hitler's financiers, had been decorated with the same honor earlier that year.[128] The presentation was made in Ford's Dearborn office by the German Counsul on Cleveland, Karl Kapp, and Consul Fritz Hailer of Detroit. Kapp placed the silk red sash over Ford's right shoulder. The sash was worn in a diagonal line from the right shoulder to the left hip where it was clasped with a gold and white cross. Kapp then pinned a large, shining star-shaped medal of Ford's white suit. The decoration was given "in recognition of [Ford's] pioneering in making motor cars available for the masses." Hitler's personal congratulatory message accompanied the award.[129] Endnotes 87. Konrad Heiden, Hitler: A Biography, p. 221. 88. Upton Sinclair, The Flivver King: The Story of Ford in America (Pasadena, Calif., 1937), p. 109. 89. Georg Seldes, Facts and Fascism (New York, 1943), p. 122. 128. See Chapter 7. 129. Detroit News, July 31, 1938.

”

From http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_06.htm :

“

CHAPTER SIX Henry Ford and the Nazis I would like to outline the importance attached by high [Nazi] officials to respect the desire and maintain the good will of "Ford," and by "Ford" I mean your father, yourself, and the Ford Motor Company, Dearborn. (Josiah E. Dubois, Jr, Generals in Grey Suits, London: The Bodley Head, 1953, p. 250.) Henry Ford is often seen to be something of an enigma among the Wall Street elite. For many years in the 20s and 30s Ford was popularly known as an enemy of the financial establishment. Ford accused Morgan and others of using war and revolution as a road to profit and their influence in social systems as a means of personal advancement. By 1938 Henry Ford, in his public statements, had divided financiers into two classes: those who profited from war and used their influence to bring about war for profit, and the "constructive" financiers. Among the latter group he now included the House of Morgan. During a 1938 New York Times interview1 Ford averred that: Somebody once said that sixty families have directed the destinies of the nation. It might well be said that if somebody would focus the spotlight on twenty-five persons who handle the nation's finances, the world's real warmakers would be brought into bold relief. The Times reporter asked Ford how he equated this assessment with his long-standing criticism of the House of Morgan, to which Ford replied: There is a constructive and a destructive Wall Street. The House of Morgan represents the constructive. I have known Mr. Morgan for many years. He backed and supported Thomas Edison, who was also my good friend .... After expounding on the evils of limited agricultural production — allegedly brought about by Wall Street — Ford continued, ... if these financiers had their way we'd be in a war now. They want war because they make money out of such conflict — out of the human misery that wars bring. On the other hand, when we probe behind these public statements we find that Henry Ford and son Edsel Ford have been in the forefront of American businessmen who try to walk both sides of every ideological fence in search of profit. Using Ford's own criteria, the Fords are among the "destructive" elements. It was Henry Ford who in the 1930s built the Soviet Union's first modern automobile plant (located at Gorki) and which in the 50s and 60s produced the trucks used by the North Vietnamese to carry weapons and munitions for use against Americans.2 At about the same time, Henry Ford was also the most famous of Hitler's foreign backers, and he was rewarded in the 1930s for this long-lasting support with the highest Nazi decoration for foreigners. This Nazi favor aroused a storm of controversy in the United States and ultimately degenerated into an exchange of diplomatic notes between the German Government and the State Department. While Ford publicly protested that he did not like totalitarian governments, we find in practice that Ford knowingly profited from both sides of World War II — from French and German plants producing vehicles at a profit for the Wehrmacht, and from U.S. plants building vehicles at a profit for the U.S. Army. Henry Ford's protestations of innocence suggest, as we shall see in this chapter, that he did not approve of Jewish financiers profiting from war (as some have), but if anti-Semitic Morgan3 and Ford profited from war that was acceptable, moral and "constructive." Henry Ford: Hitler's First Foreign Backer On December 20, 1922 the New York Times reported4 that automobile manufacturer Henry Ford was financing Adolph Hitler's nationalist and anti-Semitic movements in Munich. Simultaneously, the Berlin newspaper Berliner Tageblatt appealed to the American Ambassador in Berlin to investigate and halt Henry Ford's intervention into German domestic affairs. It was reported that Hitler's foreign backers had furnished a "spacious headquarters" with a "host of highly paid lieutenants and officials." Henry Ford's portrait was prominently displayed on the walls of Hitler's personal office: The wall behind his desk in Hitler's private office is decorated with a large picture of Henry Ford. In the antechamber there is a large table covered with books, nearly all of which are a translation of a book written and published by Henry Ford.5 The same New York Times report commented that the previous Sunday Hitler had reviewed, The so-called Storming Battalion.., 1,000 young men in brand new uniforms and armed with revolvers and blackjacks, while Hitler and his henchmen drove around in two powerful brand-new autos. The Times made a clear distinction between the German monarchist parties and Hitler's anti-Semitic fascist party. Henry Ford, it was noted, ignored the Hohenzollern monarchists and put his money into the Hitlerite revolutionary movement. These Ford funds were used by Hitler to foment the Bavarian rebellion. The rebellion failed, and Hitler was captured and subsequently brought to trial. In February 1923 at the trial, vice president Auer of the Bavarian Diet testified: The Bavarian Diet has long had the information that the Hitler movement was partly financed by an American anti-Semitic chief, who is Henry Ford. Mr. Ford's interest in the Bavarian anti-Semitic movement began a year ago when one of Mr. Ford's agents, seeking to sell tractors, came in contact with Diedrich Eichart, the notorious Pan-German. Shortly after, Herr Eichart asked Mr. Ford's agent for financial aid. The agent returned to America and immediately Mr. Ford's money began coming to Munich. Herr Hitler openly boasts of Mr. Ford's support and praises Mr. Ford as a great individualist and a great anti-Semite. A photograph of Mr. Ford hangs in Herr Hitler's quarters, which is the center of monarchist movement.6 Hitler received a mild and comfortable prison sentence for his Bavarian revolutionary activities. The rest from more active pursuits enabled him to write Mein Kampf. Henry Ford's book, The International Jew, earlier circulated by the Nazis, was translated by them into a dozen languages, and Hitler utilized sections of the book verbatim in writing Mein Kampf.7 We shall see later that Hitler's backing in the late 20s and early 30s came from the chemical, steel, and electrical industry cartels, rather than directly from individual industrialists. In 1928 Henry Ford merged his German assets with those of the I.G. Farben chemical cartel. A substantial holding, 40 percent of Ford Motor A.G. of Germany, was transferred to I.G. Farben; Carl Bosch of I.G. Farben became head of Ford A.G. Motor in Germany. Simultaneously, in the United States Edsel Ford joined the board of American I.G. Farben. (See Chapter Two.) Henry Ford Receives a Nazi Medal A decade later, in August 1938 — after Hitler had achieved power with the aid of the cartels — Henry Ford received the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, a Nazi decoration for distinguished foreigners. The New York Times reported it was the first time the Grand Cross had been awarded in the United States and was to celebrate Henry Ford's 75th birthday.8 The decoration raised a storm of criticism within Zionist circles in the U.S. Ford backed off to the extent of publicly meeting with Rabbi Leo Franklin of Detroit to express his sympathy for the plight of German Jews: My acceptance of a medal from the German people [said Ford] does not, as some people seem to think, involve any sympathy on my part with naziism. Those who have known me for many years realize that anything that breeds hate is repulsive to me.9 The Nazi medal issue was picked up in a Cleveland speech by Secretary of Interior Harold Ickes. Ickes criticized both Henry Ford and Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh for accepting Nazi medals. The curious part of the Ickes speech, made at a Cleveland Zionist Society banquet, was his criticism of "wealthy Jews" and their acquisition and use of wealth: A mistake made by a non-Jewish millionaire reflects upon him alone, but a false step made by a Jewish man of wealth reflects upon his whole race. This is harsh and unjust, but it is a fact that must be faced.10 Perhaps Ickes was tangentially referring to the roles of the Warburgs in the I.G. Farben cartel: Warburgs were on the board of I.G. Farben in the U.S. and Germany. In 1938 the Warburgs were being ejected by the Nazis from Germany. Other German Jews, such as the Oppenheim bankers, made their peace with the Nazis and were granted "honorary Aryan status." Ford Motor Company Assists the German War Effort A post-war Congressional subcommittee investigating American support for the Nazi military effort described the manner in which the Nazis succeeded in obtaining U.S. technical and financial assistance as "quite fantastic.11 Among other evidence the Committee was shown a memorandum prepared in the offices of Ford-Werke A.G. on November 25, 1941, written by Dr. H. F. Albert to R. H. Schmidt, then president of the board of Ford-Werke A.G. The memo cited the advantages of having a majority of the German firm held by Ford Motor Company in Detroit. German Ford had been able to exchange Ford parts for rubber and critical war materials needed in 1938 and 1939 "and they would not have been able to do that if Ford had not been owned by the United States." Further, with a majority American interest German Ford would "more easily be able to step in and dominate the Ford holdings throughout Europe." It was even reported to the Committee that two top German Ford officials had been in a bitter personal feud about who was to control Ford of England, such "that one of them finally got up and left the room in disgust." According to evidence presented to the Committee, Ford-Werke A.G. was technically transformed in the late 1930s into a German company. All vehicles and their parts were produced in Germany, by German workers using German materials under German direction and exported to European and overseas territories of the United States and Great Britain. Any needed foreign raw materials, rubber and nonferrous metals, were obtained through the American Ford Company. American influence had been more or less converted into a supporting position (Hilfsstellung) for the German Ford plants. At the outbreak of the war Ford-Werke placed itself at the disposal of the Wehrmacht for armament production. It was assumed by the Nazis that as long as Ford-Werke A.G. had an American majority, it would be possible to bring the remaining European Ford companies under German influence — i.e., that of Ford-Werke A.G. — and so execute Nazi "Greater European" policies in the Ford plants in Amsterdam, Antwerp, Paris, Budapest, Bucharest, and Copenhagen: A majority, even if only a small one, of Americans is essential for the transmittal of the newest American models, as well as American production and sales methods. With the abolition of the American majority, this advantage, as well as the intervention of the Ford Motor Company to obtain raw materials and exports, would be lost, and the German plant would practically only be worth its machine capacity.12 And, of course, this kind of strict neutrality, taking an international rather than a national viewpoint, had earlier paid off for Ford Motor Company in the Soviet Union, where Ford was held in high regard as the ultimate of technical and economic efficiency to be achieved by the Stak-hanovites. In July 1942 word filtered back to Washington from Ford of France about Ford's activities on behalf of the German war effort in Europe. The incriminating information was promptly buried and even today only part of the known documentation can be traced in Washington. We do know, however, that the U.S. Consul General in Algeria had possession of a letter from Maurice Dollfuss of French Ford — who claimed to be the first Frenchman to go to Berlin after the fall of France — to Edsel Ford about a plan by which Ford Motor could contribute to the Nazi war effort. French Ford was able to produce 20 trucks a day for the Wehrmacht, which [wrote Dollfuss] is better than, ... our less fortunate French competitors are doing. The reason is that our trucks are in very large demand by the German authorities and I believe that as long as the war goes on and at least for some period of time, all that we shall produce will be taken by the German authorities .... I will satisfy myself by telling you that... the attitude you have taken, together with your father, of strict neutrality, has been an invaluable asset for the production of your companies in Europe.13 Dollfuss disclosed that profits from this German business were already 1.6 million francs, and net profits for 1941 were no less than 58,000,000 francs — because the Germans paid promptly for Ford's output. On receipt of this news Edsel Ford cabled: Delighted to hear you are making progress. Your letters most interesting. Fully realize great handicap you are working under. Hope you and family well. Regards. s/ Edsel Ford14 Although there is evidence that European plants owned by Wall Street interests were not bombed by the U.S. Air Force in World War II, this restriction apparently did not reach the British Bombing Command. In March 1942 the Royal Air Force bombed the Ford plant at Poissy, France. A subsequent letter from Edsel Ford to Ford General Manager Sorenson about this RAF raid commented, "Photographs of the plant on fire were published in American newspapers but fortunately no reference was made to the Ford Motor Company.15 In any event, the Vichy government paid Ford Motor Company 38 million francs as compensation for damage done to the Poissy plant. This was not reported in the U.S. press and would hardly be appreciated by those Americans at war with Naziism. Dubois asserts that these private messages from Ford in Europe were passed to Edsel Ford by Assistant Secretary of State Breckenridge Long. This was the same Secretary Long who one year later suppressed private messages through the State Department concerning the extermination of Jews in Europe. 16 Disclosure of those messages conceivably could have been used to assist those desperate people. A U.S. Air Force bombing intelligence report written in 1943 noted that, Principal wartime activities [of the Ford plant] are probably manufacture of light trucks and of spare parts for all the Ford trucks and cars in service in Axis Europe (including captured Russian Molotovs).16 The Russian Molotovs were of course manufactured by the Ford-built works at Gorki, Russia. In France during the war, passenger automobile production was entirely replaced by military vehicles and for this purpose three large additional buildings were added to the Poissy factory. The main building contained about 500 machine tools, "all imported from the United States and including a fair sprinkling of the more complex types, such as Gleason gear cutters, Bullard automatics and Ingersoll borers.17 Ford also extended its wartime activities into North Africa. In December 1941 a new Ford Company, Ford-Afrique, was registered in France and granted all the rights of the former Ford Motor Company, Ltd. of England in Algeria, Tunisia, French Morocco, French Equatorial, and French West Africa. North Africa was not accessible to British Ford so this new Ford Company — registered in German-occupied France — was organized to fill the gap. The directors were pro-Nazi and included Maurice Dollfuss (Edsel Ford's correspondent) and Roger Messis (described by the U.S. Algiers Consul General as "known to this office by repute as unscrupulous, is stated to be a 100 percent pro-German")18 The U.S. Consul General also reported that propaganda was common in Algiers about ... the collaboration of French-German-American capital and the questionable sincerity of the American war effort, [there] is already pointing an accusing finger at a transaction Which has been for long a subject of discussion in commercial circles.19 In brief, there is documentary evidence that Ford Motor Company worked on both sides of World War II. If the Nazi industrialists brought to trial at Nuremburg were guilty of crimes against mankind, then so must be their fellow collaborators in the Ford family, Henry and Edsel Ford. However, the Ford story was concealed by Washington — apparently like almost everything else that could touch upon the name and sustenance of the Wall Street financial elite. Footnotes: 1June 4, 1938, 2:2. 2A list of these Gorki vehicles and their model numbers is in Antony G. Sutton, National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union, (New York: Arlington House Publishers, 1973), Table 7-2, p. 125. 3The House of Morgan was known for its anti-Semitic views. 4Page 2, Column 8. 5Ibid. 6Jonathan Leonard, The Tragedy of Henry Ford, (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1932), p. 208. Also see U.S. State Department Decimal File, National Archives Microcopy M 336, Roll 80, Document 862.00S/6, "Money sources of Hitler," a report from the U.S. Embassy in Berlin. 7On this see Keith Sward, The Legend of Henry Ford, (New York: Rinehart & Co, 1948), p. 139. 8New York Times, August l, 1938. 9Ibid., December 1, 1938, 12:2. 10Ibid., December 19, 1938, 5:3. 11Elimination of German Resources, p. 656. 12Elimination of German Resources, pp. 657-8. 13Josiah E. Dubois, Jr., Generals in Grey Suits, (London: The Bodley Head, 1958), p. 248. 14Ibid., p. 249. 15Ibid., p. 251. 16Ibid. 17U.S. Army Air Force, Aiming point report No I.E.2, May 29, 1943. 18U.S. State Department Decimal File, 800/61o.1. 19Ibid.

”

Also see:

• http://members.tripod.com/~Chaplain1/ford.html

• Okay - Now what do you have to say about the connection between Ford and Hitler, User:Rjensen? BenBurch 00:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] request edit

"at Gorky, a city later renamed to Nizhny Novgorod"

should be changed to

"at Gorky, as Nizhny Novgorod was then known as"

68.4.37.196 05:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Hepcat65 13:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assembly line

I deleted a sentence from the sidelights section about Ransom Eli Olds being the inventor of the assembly line for cars.. Not true. No moving assebly line at Oldsmobile before Ford had the first one in 1913. Olds though, was first in mass production of one single car model, when he started production of the Oldsmobile Curved Dash in 1901. Where the low limit of mass production lies can be debated, of course - but Curved Dash was the best seller in the world of cars for some years, until Oldsmobile changed to expensive cars & Ford got his buissness rolling. Ford started experimenting with moving assembly line with one part of the engine, the flywheel magneto wich included many parts bolted together. He may have been inspired by practices in the weapons industry, of which I have no expertice. Hepcat65 11:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Somebody reverted the assembly line sentence, so I checked with more sources online. OK, this is a semantic issue - Olds is credited with being first assembling cars standing in a row... Not such a big step, since workers still had to walk long distances with parts until the chassis had wheels and could be pushed. Ford was still first with the major assembly time cutting method; the automatic moving assembly line. Though, the meat industry in Chicago was first with a moving disassembly line, even before car production & a possible inspiration for Ford or his production engineers. Hepcat65 08:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henry's beliefs

I added a quote on Henry Ford's belief in reincarnation to the sidelights section. The quote can be found on the net, like here http://groups.msn.com/Jewishorg/reincarnation.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=2780&LastModified=4675348494079049553 and probably also in the archives at the San Francisco Examiner. His belief that he was a soldier killed in the battle of Gettysburg is found in several sources, for example in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Distant-Thunder-Michigan-Civil-War/dp/1932399038 (A Distant Thunder; Michigan in the Civil War, by Richard Bak)Hepcat65 15:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

And what's this about re-incarnation? Another piece of nonsense. Henry Ford dressed up like Santa Claus, hardly the sort for re-incarnation. Thomas Paine1776 00:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So it's your belief that re-incarnation is nonsense. What's interesting for this article is not what you or I believe, it's what Henry Ford believed in, according to available sorces, in order to present a full view of his way of thinking and functioning. Hepcat65 08:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Ford Hospital

Just wanted you to know I use Wikipedia often. It has definately been a lot of help for school. Although most of my teachers will not let me list it as a cite, it gives me lots of information to sort through and pull out so that I can find other supporting documentation without going thru a bunch of mess. However, when I did look up Henry Ford today, I was hoping to find some information on him regarding his development of the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, Michigan. I didn't see any. This information could be helpful and interesting to those that only know of his automation inventions. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.73.170.7 (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Ford and the Nzi concentration camps movie

I added a paragraph at the end of the Dearborn Independent section withs facts proving that Henry Ford was in good terms with many of the Jews he knew personally. I took these informations from the excellent book by Robert Lacey "Ford: The Man And The Machine". But before somebody point that out, in the book it says that when he was eighty years old he was shown a movie of the Nazi concentration camps and couldn't cope with what he saw and had a heart attack. If he was 80 years old that would make that event happen in 1943, two years before the end of the war... In the book it really says he was 80 years old but I have the french version of the book, maybe it's a translation error, what I suspect is that this event happened but must have taken place after the war when he had been 83 or 84 years old... Maybe someone with the english version could check, maybe the author meant that he was in his eighties not 80 years old exactly... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.55.113.84 (talk) 08:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Any customer can have a car painted any...

The reference for the quote is a copy of his book hosted at Gutenberg which for some reason uses "colour" throughout. Does anybody in the US have a hard copy that they can check to see what the spelling is? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

For whatever reason the 1922 copy from Doubleday, and the reprint currently sold at Amazon, are using British spelling for "color". The Wiki entry on Frank Nelson Doubleday being an Anglophile could explain why the book used British English spelling. It is not how American publishers would spell that word even in that day, nor Mr. Ford, and even his company prints it properly as "color" on it's website -- http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=3233 (which that paragraph in question doesn't cite as a source, though the content clearly comes from it). FResearcher 04:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A commercial for his product fails WP:RS, and may well have been copy-edited for American consumers; and your determination of which way means spelling it 'properly' is WP:OR. By your own admission, both the citation and the reprint edition give "Colour". Thus, we've got consensus to leave it as the citation reads, which is colour. ThuranX 04:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the link again. That is not a commercial, that's a press release which can be used as a resource Wikipedia:Citation_templates (go down to the cite template for press releases). This is an American automobile inventor, and that is his company. And goto here for a reference in the differences between British and American spelling,American and British English spelling differences. This is why the inquiry, and correction, as it's unusual to have an American quoted in British English claiming it's a source, as Mr. Ford wouldn't have written it that way, nor his own company. FResearcher 05:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The citation given, as well as an alternate YOU mentioned, use COLOUR. As that's the quote of the citation, it stands. It is OR to make determinations about how Ford would spell. Further, it's reasonable to see the press release as being edited for an American audience. ThuranX 16:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, this is a discussion page, not a soccer match. Behave appropriately and not shout. Secondly, there's a problem when a book that mixes both American English and British English spelled words -- the proof reader was apparently asleep. Went back and searched and found that "labor" was spelled "labour", but common British English spellings "lorry" for truck, and "tyre" for tire were not used, so this wasn't a British publication. The issue is the quote you provided is a typo, and typos aren't appropriate in encyclopedias, otherwise it'll look like a 6 year-old wrote it. A "[sic]" after colour will suffice, since clearly the 'book' was inproperly proof read for spelling errors for it's intended audience. This does happen, and when it does "[sic]" is employed. FResearcher 08:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page introduction

Please change the intro to this page it is very specific. it should tell a general brief history not his whole life Johnsome

The intro is fine. It gives the high notes, including some specific examples to support those notes, but avoids excess detail. if you have some suggestions, please post them here. ThuranX 22:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Timehenryford.jpg

Image:Timehenryford.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German Ford

What about a section on German Ford's contributions to the Nazi war effort? Seems very relevant especially considering the comment in the Pacifist section about his aversion to war profiteers.