Talk:Henry Ford

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

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

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

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

this is very interesting:

Detractors often point out that Henry Ford gave Adolf Hitler financial backing when Hitler was first starting out in politics, and prohibited Jews from working in the Ford company's European factories. In July of 1938, Ford became the first American awarded the Grand Cross of the Order of the German Eagle by the Nazi regime, the highest award that could be given to a civilian. He was praised in Hitler's Mein Kampf as "the only man in America free from Jewish control."

The last sentence is a paraphrase; I'll quote the passage in full here:

...It is Jews who govern the stock exchange forces of the American Union. Every year makes them more and more the controlling masters of the producers in a nation of one hundred and twenty millions; only a single great man, Ford, to their fury, still maintains full independence."

– Mein Kampf, first edition, page 639.

A footnote in my translation states that in the second edition Hitler changed "a single great man, Ford" to "only a very few". This might be a source of confusion.

The rest should be fairly easy to confirm or deny; I'll work on it a bit today. Hephaestos 16:11 Jan 30, 2003 (UTC)

(Here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm) is a photograph of him recieving the Grand Cross; that wasn't very difficult. In light of this, I think I'll let others play class librarian on the rest if they wish. Hephaestos 16:25 Jan 30, 2003 (UTC))

The formal repudiation, while perhaps forced by public opinion (one cannot, after all, read Ford's mind) was dated June 30, 1927. These two sources, [1] (http://www.jrbooksonline.com/henry_ford_dilling.htm) and [2] (http://www.adl.org/special_reports/protocols/protocols_international.asp), agree. It's fairly obvious what when two independent sources with widely different agendas agree on something, it can be taken as truth.

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

Hephaestos 00:43 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

You put a link to the Aryan Nations website as a reference. When I followed the link, the very top of the page talked about a) Henry Ford's confession that he didn't sign the document, and him and his family were suprised to hear about it and b) Ford's personal secretary wrote a book at his time at Ford, where he confirmed Ford's statement that he was the one that signed the apology, which had actually been written by the Anti-Defamation Committee. --Clutch 00:53 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

I do not consider the Aryan Nations website to be an unbiased source (nor do I consider the ADL website an unbiased source). The fact that they agree the apology document was issued, regardless of their respective spins on the circumstances, is very telling.

The link was there as an illustration of how "The International Jew" remains currently-read and influential more than fifty years after Ford's death. While one can in no way say that every site with a copy of the book is a hate site, it's fairly clear that a competently-done hate site would not be without it (I could have just as easily pointed to the KKK site, for example).

Hephaestos 01:07 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

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

Some facts:

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

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

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

I suggest you read the Wikipedia NPOV policy. Although Ford was anti-Semitic in some sense of the word, the word carries emotional baggage in the minds of most people which is libellous to apply to Henry Ford. For instance, he never supported pogroms, bigotry, or violence toward Jews. He spoke out against such things. Yet, the commonly understood implication of the word anti-Semite is that the target of the epithet would have supported the gas chambers and death camps of Nazi Germany.

Secondus, anti-Semitic implies racially based hatred. Again, Ford and many others branded as anti-Semites had no racially based hatred. They had a dislike of Talmudism, based on their informed adherence to Christianity. In an academic sense, that may be "anti-Semitic", but in the popular mind, religious differences are NOT anti-Semitism. If being a Christian is sufficient cause to be called anti-Semite, then you are alienating a large percentage of the worlds population. This encyclopedia is for everyone, remember? You can't exclude Christians just because you want the liberal, atheist, and Jewish biases to compromise this encyclopedias neutrality.

By calling Henry Ford an anti-Semite, you are violating NPOV by making a moral judgement about someone, instead of providing information so that the reader can make their own informed decision about the matter. But far worse, you are using a word in an academic way in a popular context where the words meaning has emotional baggage and innuendos that paint a dramatically false and misleading picture of the man under discussion.

If this were a scholarly publication in a field where anti-Semitic had a clear, well defined meaning, I would support your use of the word anti-Semite to describe Henry Ford. But it isn't. The Wikipedia is an international project to provide an encyclopedia to the public at large. That means using language that they can understand, instead of deceptive terms that only make sense to academics.

If you are pissed off because Henry Ford didn't hire Talmudists at his factories, put that in. That is factual and neutral. But keep it NPOV; don't call him an anti-Semite unless you can show clear evidence that he hated the Jewish race, and wanted it harmed or exterminated. Don't confuse race with religion. Don't confuse dislike with hatred.

--Clutch 00:49 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

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

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

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

NPOV doesn't mean hiding some dissssturbing facts.

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

Ericd 01:20 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

The general public includes many dummies as you term them. If you want to make an elitist encyclopedia, I suggest that the Wikipedia isn't for you. The charter of the Wikipedia is that of a humanist project for the benefit of all mankind; not some tiny and specialized "elite".

To say that anti-Semite fits perfectly is to ignore it's emotional baggage. We are even careful with calling some religious groups "Arian", or using the word "alleged" because of the emotional content they convey to the casual reader; and these are minor words. Do we not have a duty to be even more careful when using such an extremely emotionally charged word as "anti-Semite"?

--Clutch 02:42 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ford wrote about the dangers of anti-Semitism, and encouraged all readers of the Dearborn Independant to not get involved without anyone who promoted anti-Semitism. It is there in the book linked to at the bottom of the main article. As it is straight from the horses mouth, I recommend reading it. --Clutch 02:42 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

Is that why Ford kept sending Hitler 50,000 DM as a 'birthday present' every year? I take it Hitler only suffered from "mild anti-Jewism", just like Ford did?

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

You haven't paid attention to my comments. I said that by academic definitions of anti-Semitism, there is no dispute. You are ignoring the connotations and emotional element in the use of word. Worse, you are ignoring the NPOV position that it is not up to us to make moral judgements about other people. Are you afraid that the facts don't speak strongly enough for themselves?

You are wrong to equate Talmudists with Jews in general. There are many half-breeds who self-identify as Jews, but who whose mothers were Gentile. There are many atheist Jews. There are many homosexual Jews. There are Jewish converts to Christianity, Bahai, Scientology, and the Unification Church. None of these are Talmudists.

Hitherto you seemed relatively unbiased and reasonable. Unfortunately you have just blown that out of the water. You took my position of neutrality then said that it implies I would support a lot of positions that I do not. This shows a deplorable lack of logic and sound reasoning in your comments.

Before doing more edits, I suggest you actually read the International Jew, instead of leaping in and making edits, as you have done tonight. Also, the fact that you have a copy on your desk implies a single volume; the International Jew is a four volume work. Quotes taken out of context from the abridged one volume reprint isn't acceptable.

--Clutch 04:36 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

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

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

Clutch wrote :

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

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

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

"Barney Oldfield, who named this new Ford model "999" in honor of a racing locomotive" Are you sure ? I believe it was Henry Ford himself who named this caar the "999" ?

I got that from here [3] (http://www.mshf.com/index.htm?%2Fmuseum%2F999.htm), which of course isn't the best source in the world. On the other hand I can find nothing that says Ford named it. I can see where that'd be important, because it would imply it was either unnamed or named something else at the time of the speed record. I'll look some more and see if I can come up with anything. Hephaestos 15:37 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, now I'm confused: "Ford published an American version of the Protocols between May and September of 1920 in a series called ?The International Jew: the World?s Foremost Problem" [4] (http://www.adl.org/special_reports/protocols/protocols_international.asp) - is it correct to say that the protocols are seperate from the International Jew? Seems like both were part of the same crime... :-/ Martin

Two different works. International Jew was written contemporary to Ford and was originally published as an exclusive for the Independent, later in a four-volume set of books. Protocols dates much earlier, originating in Europe; Ford reprinted it in the Independent. (As to whether Ford knew the Protocols were a hoax, I don't think there's really any way to tell one way or the other.)Hephaestos

Does that mean that the ADL is wrong? Or was the republishing of the protocols done as part of the international jew? Martin

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

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

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

Ericd 20:49 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear what you're saying here - "the nazis continued to pay the dividends" - Didn't governments of all countries allow companies to continue making money and paying dividends? I still don't see why Ford is a special case. Was it that it had a public relations backlash after the war? Martin

This was normal as long the USA were neutral, not after. Generally when there's a war between to countries, properties of one country or his citizens in the other are confiscated or frozen... Do you believe the nazis payed anything to the British ?

Ericd 21:37 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

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

Between 1943 and 1945 The FoMoCo was presided by Henry Ford himself isn'it ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, i got it. Thanks a lot! -- 212.95.105.101 20:22, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

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

A few extra external links, too many for article.

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

Contents

1 The International Jew

2 Heirs attempt to wrest control?

3 Some Ford personality idiosyncracies

4 NPOV

5 Dearborn Independent

6 Pop culture

The International Jew

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

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

Heirs attempt to wrest control?

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

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

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

Some Ford personality idiosyncracies

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

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

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

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

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

NPOV

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

So which parts of the article do you think are POV? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. If you have specific problems with value judgments made in the article or inaccurate statements, please go ahead and mention them. Rhobite 07:05, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

I think the article dwells too much on Ford's Anti-Semitism (which I do not dispute) and weak ties with Nazi Germany. I would like to see more fleshing out of his odd personality. Did you know that Ford grew soybeans on Ford Motor Co. property, and made some of the first synthetic car parts out of soy? He also fed soybeans to his workers, or tried to, anyway, insisting that they were a more healthy food. Crackpot! MF1911 07:11, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You have not described any issues which violate the NPOV rule. Instead, you have stated that it has too much content in some areas, and not enough content in others. If you think some of the information is superfluous, please list it. If you think more information is needed, please add it. However, what you describe is not a NPOV issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, I will come back later, and add more information. I believe the article violates NPOV because it is unbalanced, offering too narrow a view of a complex and controversial subject. I do not want to remove any information that is there. I am not clutch!

Dearborn Independent

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

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

Pop culture

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

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Henry_Ford"

Talk:Henry Ford

The International Jew

Heirs attempt to wrest control?

Some Ford personality idiosyncracies

NPOV

Dearborn Independent

Pop culture

Navigation

Search

Toolbox

Personal tools