Ford, General Motors, and the Nazis: Marxist Myths About Production, Patriotism, and Philosophies

By Scott Nehmer

The threat of concentration camps, untimely strikes, and propaganda influenced Ford and GM's war efforts in the U.S. and Europe. Dealing with both the brutal Nazi regime and Communist attempts to influence American opinion, leaders at Ford and GM attempt to balance loyalty to their corporations and homeland.

• Language: English
• Publisher: AuthorHouse
• Release date: Sep 4, 2013
• ISBN: 9781491810156

Scott Nehmer

Scott Nehmer attended four universities in the U.S. and Germany to prepare for this thoroughly researched book. His next offering will describe clerical resistance in Nazi Germany.

Book preview

AuthorHouse™ LLC

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.authorhouse.com

Phone: [phone]

© 2013 by Scott Nehmer. All rights reserved.

Cover picture provided by the Stadtarchiv Russelsheim

Der Opel-Prolet: Betriebszeitung Der Opel Arbeiter, 3 Jahrgang Nr. 6, Russelsheim, Ende Juli 1929, cover page, 11.2.1 KPD Flugblaetter, Stadtarchiv Russelsheim.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means without the written permission of the author.

Published by AuthorHouse 08/24/2013

ISBN: 978-1-4918-1014-9 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4918-1015-6 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2013915271

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Contents

Reference Guide To Various Persons

Keys To Symbols

Why?

Introduction

I.   American Know-How: Philosophies And Growth Until 1933

II.   Fdr And Hitler: An Increased Government Presence, 1933-1936

III.   Germany Vs. The West: Build Up To War, 1936-1939

IV.   War: Conformity And Public Relations, 1939-1942

V.   Total War: Mass-Production And Unity, 1942-1945

VI.   The Postwar Years: Divided Again

VII.   Ford And General Motors: Myths And Deceit

Bibliography

Endnotes

Reference Guide To Various Persons

Albert, Heinrich—Business lawyer who managed Ford’s interest as a stockholder at Ford Cologne. The head of Ford Cologne’s board of directors.

Bennett, Harry—Increasingly powerful Ford executive who largely dealt with personnel. In many ways Ford’s attack dog.

Bosch, Carl—Leader of IG Farben and a member of the Ford Cologne board.

Cameron, William—Newspaper and radio personality who often voiced Ford’s opinions.

Campsall, Frank—Ford’s personal secretary after Ernest Liebold started to lose power.

Diestel, Erich—Part-Jewish manager of Ford Cologne.

DuPont, Pierre—Henry Ford had a paranoid hatred of the DuPont family (also known as du Pont or Du Pont) because they historically sold armaments and Ford associated the family with war. DuPont was a leader at General Motors and had connections to the conservative opposition toward Franklin Roosevelt in the Democratic Party.

Ferdinand, Louis—Grandson of the former Kaiser. A friend of Franklin Roosevelt and an admirer of Fordism.

Fleischer, Rudolf—Member of Opel’s management team.

Franklin, Leo—Rabbi who was Ford’s strongest Jewish supporter.

Goering, Hermann—German World War I pilot and hero who became a high profile Nazi and took over aspects of the German economy.

Hauss, Carl—Longtime Ford Cologne board member.

Heine, Edmund—First manager of Ford Cologne.

Keppler, Wilhelm—Hitler’s representative to companies such as Ford or General Motors.

Liebold, Ernest—One-time powerful Ford executive who took care of Ford’s personal/financial matters until the late 1920s/early 1930s and ran The Dearborn Independent.

Knudsen, William—Danish former employee of Ford who went to General Motors before helping the American war effort.

Osborn, Cyrus—American manager at Opel who fought with German management before the war and left the company before Pearl Harbor.

Perry, Percival—British patriot and outstanding leader of Ford in England.

Reviol, Karl—A labor leader at Opel.

Richter, Heinrich—Opel’s lawyer who had a similar role to Heinrich Albert.

Roberge, Russell—Sorensen’s assistant.

Schacht, Hjalmer—German economist who attempted to moderate Hitler’s economic views in favor of business over the views of the National Socialist economist Gotfried Feder.

Schmidt, Robert—Ford Cologne’s original head of purchasing.

Sorensen, Charles—Ford executive placed in charge of the plants in the United States and abroad.

Stief, Karl—Opel manager accused of betraying Germany in tandem with General Motors and Charles Lindbergh.

Vitger, Erhard—Danish member of Ford Cologne’s management team.

Von Opel, Wilhelm—Corporate leader at the General Motors subsidiary in Germany, Opel.

Keys To Symbols

List of Archives:

Archives of Labor and Urban Affairs, Wayne State University=WSU

Bundesarchiv Berlin Lichterfelde=BAB

Bundesarchiv Freiburg=BAF

Ford Motor Company Records, Benson Ford Research Center, The Henry Ford= BFRC

Stadtarchiv Russelsheim=SAR

Franklin D. Roosevelt Library President’s Personal Files=PPF

Yale University Library Manuscript Collection Group Number 1799 GM Documents on WWII Corporate Activities in Europe=Yale

Archival Symbols:

+=plus

Acc.=Accession

Bd.=Board

Doc.=Documents

Cata=Catalog

Co.=company

Corres. or corres =correspondence

FMC=Ford Motor Company

FMC Ltd.=Ford in England

FMCAG=Ford in Germany

FMCSAF=Ford France

Ger.=Germany

GMOO=General Motors Overseas Operations

H.F.=Henry Ford

HF office=Henry Ford Office

HFII=Henry Ford II

HFM=Henry Ford Museum

Mfg=Manufacturing

Misc.=Miscellaneous

NLRB or N.L.R.B=National Labor Relations Board

NYC=New York City

Rel. Arr =Press releases arranged by subject

Sub.=Subject

Why?

The question launching the research for this book was did the American automobile manufacturers betray the United States during World War II? My plan was simple, I would look at the research of those who have attempted to answer this question before me and then come to my own conclusion. This plan was very logical because previous researchers answered this question by making use of different materials. One set of researchers made heavy use of materials regarding the actions of Ford and General Motors in the United States and came to one conclusion. Other researchers tended to use materials regarding what happened in Germany. Both parties were largely disinterested in taking a deeper look into what the other side used. Some researchers left almost everything out about what happened in the U.S. during the war while others were very selective concerning the facts in Germany. I thought both sides may make some valid points and that by looking at the materials of both parties used, I would probably come down somewhere in the middle. I was wrong. I found that one group of researchers overlooked very important details in both the area they didn’t research and the area in which they were most interested. I then planned to present my findings in a short book which would concentrate on the patriotism of Ford and General Motors. I expected this to be an entertaining yet informative affair. Unfortunately, unforeseen and personally catastrophic events altered my vision of presenting my findings. These events caused me to change the purpose of this book to demonstrate Marxist myths, or deceit regarding Ford and General Motors during the Third Reich. I implore you, the reader, to visit my website (http://scottnehmer.weebly.com) and find out more about my plight at The Inside Story. You may feel compelled to take action and help rectify the injustice that has caused me to alter the nature of this book.

Introduction

Several journalists and other researchers question the patriotism of the Ford Motor Company and General Motors during World War II because their subsidiaries in Germany and continental Europe produced goods for the Germans. As early as the 1920s opponents of big business relied on Marxist theory to claim that Nazis and other fascists worked to preserve capitalism so companies such as Ford and GM would support them. During the 1930s critics of Ford and GM opined that the companies supported Nazism instead of American values. The faulty research and disingenuous claims of those critics provide the basis for modern day criticisms directed at Ford and GM. Those findings have been used to attack Ford and GM for unresolved issues from the war, along with completely unrelated issues, in order to smear the corporations. These Marxist inspired accounts are rather popular but forget that most businessmen in every country were loyal to their homelands during the war. The Ford Motor Company and General Motors did not betray the United States during World War II and did not produce goods for the Nazis out of some philosophical agreement with their ideology, despite that portrayal by various far left critics.

Modern critics of the companies, much like their predecessors, contend that the American automobile manufacturers were disloyal to the United States because leaders of the firms clashed with Roosevelt concerning foreign and domestic policies, supposedly had similar beliefs to Hitler, did not consider the Nazis a threat, and made profits from subsidiaries that used forced labor to manufacture goods for the Third Reich. Their method is to highlight some of the statements made by corporate leaders in the United States, including rumors of duplicity, and then list what Ford and GM subsidiaries did in Nazi Germany. These investigative reporters often repeat claims by Marxist reporters from before the war and conclude that the two companies enjoyed working for the Nazis. Max Wallace’s The American Axis: Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and the Rise of the Third Reich and Edwin Black’s Nazi Nexus: America’s Corporate Connections to Hitler’s Holocaust are two examples of this literature.¹ The two had predecessors during the late 1970s in James and Suzanne Pool’s Who Financed Hitler: The Secret Funding of Hitler’s Rise to Power 1919-1933 and its attempt to make it appear that big business controlled the Nazis.²

Historians and other scholars such as political scientists or economists have generally concentrated on what actually happened at the German subsidiaries. They have concluded that the subsidiaries of Ford and General Motors faced discrimination by the Nazis and were pressured to conform to expectations. Leaders at the subsidiaries resisted these demands with varying degrees of success, but they received little or no direction before and during the war because communication with the parent companies was strained. The subsidiary leaders then caved into demands out of fear, despite trying to be loyal to their parent companies. Mira Wilkins used this methodology in her book American Business Abroad: Ford on Six Continents. Wilkins is mostly interested in Ford’s international growth, so Ford in Germany is hardly covered.³ Simon Reich in his book Fruits of Fascism largely echoes those findings while comparing a variety of companies in England and Germany. Unfortunately, his coverage of Ford in Germany is also limited, but he made valuable inroads into the study of forced labor at Ford Cologne.⁴ The method of Wilkins and Reich concludes that Ford’s German subsidiary was forced to be subservient to the whims of the Nazis. The position that business did not control the Nazis is even embraced by respected Marxist historians such as Tim Mason.⁵

This examination has used both methodologies and is different from previous works because it emphasizes that Henry Ford did not have day to day control of his company in the United States or overseas. From the moment it was established, Ford Cologne had a surprising amount of independence from Dearborn. Evidence gathered about Ford Cologne before 1939, which has not been sufficiently covered in previous accounts, makes a significant contribution to this examinations conclusions. This account is partially based on letters from Ford Cologne to the parent company and there is the potential problem of German leaders being dishonest with the parent company. Far left critics will argue that the corporate archives have been sanitized. However, that is the risk inherent in all investigations when archives are in use and there are no documents that discredit what has been found in the corporate archives. In fact, the critics generally omit material to make their case. A minor goal of this project has been not only to fully describe the relationship between the Nazis and the two companies, but also to explain how Marxist propaganda against the companies is such an influence on why the issue has been viewed so differently by people who research the issue. The two companies were increasingly viewed as patriotic during the United States’ efforts to arm itself before and during World War II.

Ford and General Motors have always been compared by researchers interested in the activities of the companies during World War II. It makes sense to compare and contrast the two companies in order to understand the situation in which the two corporations operated. They were the only two American car manufacturers to remain in Germany after the Nazis took power and both played a part in the Volkswagen project of the Nazis before 1939. The two companies also played a direct role in both the American and German war efforts, which makes them different from other American owned companies such as Coca-Cola, despite Edwin Black’s statement that Coca-Cola invented Fanta to enliven Nazi soldiers.⁶ Filmmaker Michael Moore, known for his attacks on GM, makes similar statements about Coke, GM, and Ford.⁷

Management and labor are also compared by critics of the corporations. The authors of Working For The Enemy take a stance similar to Wallace and Black, arguing that the working class largely resisted the Nazis and noting that business received benefits from working with the Nazi regime.⁸ These claims of working class resistance are exaggerated, do not recognize the divisions in working class movements, and refuse to acknowledge that the Nazis offered workers benefits that made the Nazi regime popular with the German people. The Nazis did indeed suppress radical labor, but they also offered laborers many benefits such as vacations and the promise of the Volkswagen which would give the people cheap transportation similar to what the American public had available. In other words, labor was controlled by carrot and stick measures in largely the same fashion as business.

The German Historical Institute had a debate on the topic of business during the Third Reich in 2009. In those debates between Peter Hayes representing Yale, and Mannheim University’s Christoph Buchheim and Jonas Scherner, Hayes demonstrates a better understanding of what took place in the automotive industry during the regime. To the credit of the Mannheim team, they have relevant questions for this topic and demonstrate that the Third Reich was pragmatic in its dealings with big business. They also abandon the traditional Marxist theory that business and the Nazis were partners. Hayes represents a school of thought prominent at Yale, where he studied under Henry Ashby Turner. The Yale school makes heavy use of corporate archives, helping them understand the pressures Nazis placed on businessmen.⁹ The German Historical Institute has also recently published work by Stefan Link which is concerned with global Fordism or the spread of Ford’s ideals during the 1920s.¹⁰ This concept of Fordism and its appeal to various segments of German society was previously tackled by other researchers.¹¹ It is an issue worthy of some attention when considering developments in Germany during the Third Reich because of Fordism’s appeal to the Nazis. This appeal led to the creation of Volkswagen. German automobile manufacturers such as Volkswagen and Daimler-Benz and their war efforts have been covered but BMW needs more scrutiny.¹² Situations at these German corporations are too different from the American subsidiaries for comparison purposes in most instances because they had no connection to the United States, and because they became fully integrated into the German war effort without significant difficulty.

Chapter 1

AMERICAN KNOW-HOW: PHILOSOPHIES AND GROWTH UNTIL 1933

Ford and Politics Before 1933

This story begins with the development of the car in Mannheim, Germany by Carl Benz in the mid to late 1880s. Developments to the car and mass production continued through the 1800s and early 1900s. Henry Ford, a farmer from Dearborn, Michigan was born in 1863. He experimented with car production and by World War I he developed impressive assembly line technology. During this time, Ford attempted to become a public figure. The auto manufacturer was made famous for his ability to mass-produce automobiles for the general public and provide high wages to employees. He hoped to use his success to influence politics and public policy.

In 1914, Henry Ford developed a school to Americanize foreigners by teaching American customs and the ability to speak English. The idea was that America was a melting pot and people from all over the world could come to the United States and do well if they adapted. Ford’s family came from Ireland and settled in an area with a large German and Irish population. When the first World War broke out former President Theodore Roosevelt wanted to prepare for war while Ford embraced an anti-war stance. Ford had George Washington’s farewell address against foreign entanglements printed in his company newspaper. The tycoon even sponsored a ship that sailed to Europe to advocate peace. Theodore Roosevelt complained about Ford’s attempts to put himself in the spotlight and he would later oppose Ford’s efforts to win a senatorial campaign. Meanwhile, the Chicago Tribune called Ford an ignorant idealist and an enemy of the nation, prompting him to sue the Tribune.¹³ When the United States went to war Ford threw his plants into work for the United States and even offered to rebate profits to the government.¹⁴ The production efforts were heroic and Americanization, or Fordism, would become terms used to describe Ford’s assembly line technology.

The Ford Motor Company and its subsidiaries would operate on Henry Ford’s philosophies and the eccentric industrialist was different from other businessmen. Ford considered service more important than profit, and saw business and labor as partners.¹⁵ According to Charles Sorensen, the boss at the Rouge and other plants, Ford loved to have his production process glorified and in the limelight.¹⁶ Ford also liked being considered a reformer and a man of the people. In December 1917, Ford called for companies to stop looking out for themselves and create a more unified railroad system. This would give people better service at lower rates which would in turn increase the number of people using the rail service, making it able to pay for itself. Ford attributed railway problems to Wall Street bookkeeping and he believed these problems could be solved with common sense approaches.¹⁷ One of the wealthiest men in the world saw himself as fighting the excesses of Wall Street and standing for progressive consumer oriented ideas. The government was never suggested as an answer to this problem despite the propensity for some people to desire government ownership of the railways.

Henry Ford’s anti-militaristic views on politics were presented during his senatorial race which promoted Democrat Woodrow Wilson’s administration. Ford believed Wilson would encourage world-peace.¹⁸ Wilson asked Ford to run for office and the automaker claimed that Wilson was the only man that could get him to run. He thought Wilson would be the savior of Europe and also felt that Wall Street unfairly attacked Wilson. According to Ford, Wall Street also caused Bolshevism. The tycoon believed preparing for war led to war and quipped that the German military dominated that country. He feared the United States could end up with the same problem. The United States was victorious in World War I because it could mass produce up to date machinery but Ford opined the Germans put their trust into having enough antiquated stuff to get them licked.¹⁹ The German manufacturers built cars for a luxury goods market so only wealthy people could afford a car, but Ford built cars for the common man. German carmakers helped Kaiser Wilhelm in World War I but they did not match the effectiveness of the American firm. Ford recognized progress and wartime security in profitable civilian production and not in constant preparations for war which he identified with German militarism.

The Democrats embraced Ford and distributed materials that supported his senatorial campaign. They released an election newsletter called Henry Ford: The Man and His Work, portraying Ford as a hero running in order to serve the people. The newsletter said Ford helped cripples, hated war profiteers, and called him the Kaiser’s greatest enemy. Ford helped soldiers reclaim their farmlands and supported Wilson. At the start of American involvement in World War I, Ford came to Wilson and said all that I have in wealth, time, or influence is at your disposal. His production during the war was praised in a cartoon called The Fighting Pacifist showing Henry Ford in the midst of a factory throwing war materials at the Kaiser who said and he makes Americans out of foreigners yet! Ford was further portrayed as finding a way around Wall Street with his five dollar work day, a high wage at the time, because he was a true son of the masses. The Democratic State Committee even compared Ford to his hero Abraham Lincoln.²⁰

The Chicago Tribune lawsuit took until summer 1919 to make it into court. Henry Ford was called to the stand during the proceedings and was forced to admit that he was ignorant of most things. For instance, he believed that the American Revolution occurred in 1812. The auto manufacturer also refused to read a passage from a book because he feared he would make a mistake. This allowed the jury to think he was possibly illiterate which was to the benefit of the Tribune. Oddly enough a great deal of the American public did not mind Ford’s lack of formal education and still praised the progressive business owner.²¹

The Ford Motor Company expanded greatly between World War I and into the late 1920s. During this time the company moved its production from Highland Park to the massive Rouge plant. The company invested in hydroelectric plants and started to become involved in all the phases of production necessary for the production of automobiles including mining, rubber plantations, and forestry. Henry Ford bought railways, ships, and airplanes in order to independently ship his products. The company also became involved in tractor production, radio broadcasts, and purchased the luxurious Lincoln car line resulting in a variety of lawsuits. The company made its name with its famous model T car but was branching out. Ford was so praised throughout the world for his ability to produce that some Chinese and Germans wanted him to be an economic advisor of sorts while some Poles and German businessmen wanted him to become their King.²² The expansion brought with it powerful leaders within the Ford organization who ruled over their departments with a great deal of authority granted from Ford himself.

One of the most prominent men was Ernest Liebold who handled Ford’s finances and was given Henry Ford’s power of attorney in July 1918. In 1917, he accompanied Ford to the U.S. shipping board and convinced the board to build more submarine chasers for the war effort than cargo ships so the U.S. could defend itself against German u-boats.²³ National hysteria against Germans caused some people to suspect that he was a German sympathizer.²⁴ Liebold would be described by many historians as proud of his German heritage and a massive anti-Semite who gained power because of Ford’s disinterest in paperwork. At the company he was known for controlling access to Ford. This would be a good weapon to use against corporate opponents considering Ford’s strategy of letting the major players at his corporation compete against one another for control of the Ford Motor Company’s various departments. Another major player was Charles Sorensen who by 1920 moved to the Rouge with his staff and would rule by a combination of talent and ruthlessness.²⁵ Harry Bennett, with his ties to the mob, increased his power in the corporation throughout the 1920s.²⁶

Henry Ford supported Calvin Coolidge during the 1924 presidential election. Coolidge was supposedly attacked by Wall Street which was controlled by the International Money Power that caused World War I, poisoned the peace, exploited Germany and threw England out of employment. To Ford, Coolidge and American businessmen represented three pillars-agriculture, manufacture and transportation which benefited the economy. Coolidge supposedly backed policies that promoted production, service, and prosperity. This caused Ford to support him.²⁷ Ford’s concept of Wall Street was that it did not represent business but rather some form of international exchange that backed its interests in order to maintain its power and wealth, without providing goods or services.

Ford was a man that could help or hurt politicians and they courted him and his family. Franklin Roosevelt courted the Ford family and in 1928 invited Henry’s son Edsel Ford to join him in Warm Springs, Georgia.²⁸ In the 1932 election, Henry Ford did not help Roosevelt because he believed Hoover’s reelection was necessary for economic recovery from the Great Depression.²⁹ He even pleaded with workers to vote for Hoover.³⁰ The election itself was a major event with the Socialist Party expected to have its largest turnout ever. Roosevelt attempted to appear far enough to the left without the country becoming socialist. However, doubters believed he made promises that only a socialist would keep.³¹

During the election, Ford made suggestions concerning voting and the perceived role of employers in politics. He believed that Hoover had overcome the forces that almost destroyed industry and employment and that the country was turning around. Hoover was described as a trustworthy, hard-working, human-hearted man. Ford was accused of trying to coerce his employees so he distributed notices that he merely wanted to endorse Hoover and was not trying to coerce anybody.³² Henry Ford’s views were not as popular as he would have liked and the newspapers attacked him.

Henry Ford, Jews, and Propaganda

Much has been written about Henry Ford’s attitude toward Jews. Critics such as Ken Silverstein from the left wing The Nation magazine, claim he was a violent anti-Semite and then try to make the case that he supported Nazism. Meanwhile, various historians have portrayed him as merely making a foray into anti-Semitism between 1918 and 1927.³³ This concept of a foray into anti-Semitism suggests that Ford was somehow caught up in ideas prevalent at the time. According to Ford’s foremost expert in the modern era, Dave Lewis, Ford’s anti-Semitism had more of a loutishness about it than of deep-seated bigotry or malice. Ford preferred to use the term Jew to refer to traits he did not like, as opposed to referring to race or religion. In fact, he would often call Gentiles Jews. Ford’s ignorance, which may have been influenced by Liebold along with boyhood impressions, led him to conclude that an international Jewish banking power started World War I, that these international Jews wanted to destroy Christian civilization and that they wanted to make profits from someone else’s production. He thought good Jews should rejoice in the exposure of the international Jew - Ford’s way of differentiating between so-called good and bad Jews. Many historians and other researchers have noted that Liebold was always at the center of anti-Semitic activity at Ford.³⁴ Henry Ford had many Jewish friendships and a close working relationship with Jewish architect Albert Kahn into the early 1920s. Kahn helped design many of Ford’s plants and always kept an autographed photo from Ford.³⁵ None of Ford’s Jewish employees ever complained about discrimination.

Between 1919 and 1927 the Ford Motor Company published The Dearborn Independent weekly. It originally counteracted criticisms of Henry Ford’s pro-labor policies such as the five dollar day, his pacifism, the senatorial campaign, attacks on Edsel, and his belief that the press misinterpreted his opinions. Liebold was in charge of the paper and William Cameron was its editor. After a poor start, Liebold would attempt to make the paper more sensationalistic to gain more readers. The paper was also a forum for ideas of sorts because Socialist presidential candidate Allan Benson sold the most stories to the paper.³⁶ From mid-1920 until early 1922, the paper published anti-Semitic articles often demonstrating the anti-Semitism prevalent at the time. The first article, which appeared in late May 1920, started with a quote describing the Jewish people from The New International Encyclopedia and asked why such viewpoints existed. The articles would also be distributed as The International Jew-The World’s Foremost Problem which is still distributed under Ford’s name by anti-Semites today.³⁷ When Ford’s friend, Detroit’s Rabbi Franklin, found out about the articles he stood up for Ford as a person because he believed Ford did not hate Jews as a race or as individuals.³⁸ The newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst covered the articles more than other mainstream newspapers because of journalist Arthur Brisbane’s interest in the story.³⁹

The Dearborn Independent asked the Jewish question, why were Jews hated and yet successful in so many places? It noted that Jews had heavy representation in the business and professional trades. The Independent claimed that while there were various types of Jews, Jewish power came from their unity and the ability to work with elites wherever Jews settled. Jews were described as resisting assimilation in the United States despite having the opportunity to become American. This idea of separateness came over from Europe where Jews had no chance to assimilate. Jews were attributed with the cultural trait of not being concerned for the welfare of other peoples and viewing matters as just business. So a Jew would theoretically have no qualms about taking someone’s house provided it was done by legal means. This activity supposedly caused anti-Semitism. According to the Independent, anti-Semites often attacked poor Jews but couldn’t harm the international Jews responsible for anti-Semitism because of their actions. ⁴⁰

The Dearborn Independent pitied poor Jews attacked by Russian mobs during pogroms from the early 1800s to before World War I. It asserted that the entire Jewish race could not be indicted for Jewish character and the psychology causing Jews to believe they belonged to a superior race. This trait was ascribed to the international Jew who made use of protections against religious discrimination despite practicing racial unity. International Jews were described as secular and defined as a Jew who exercises international control. These Jews supposedly relied on finance rather than production to make money. On the other hand, religious Jews were portrayed as defending their faith against modernity and standing in contrast to the international Jew. The Independent defended its articles, opining people should not cry anti-Semitism over people asking the Jewish question. One article claimed that by miss-labeling people as anti-Semites for recognizing the Jewish question the real anti-Semites would grow stronger. A major problem with the articles was they often shortened the international Jew to the Jew later in the articles. This shortening made it easy for critics or anti-Semites to quote from the Independent in a manner that made the paper appear to be attacking all Jews.⁴¹

Henry Ford was confronted about the articles on several occasions. He told President Harding, his friend Thomas Edison, and Brisbane he would not interfere with The Dearborn Independent so they would have to take their case up with its staff. ⁴² The editors at the time were given free rein on how to conduct the articles but Ford launched the series. He explained the attacks on Jews to The New York Times in December 1921 saying that he was told by some Jews on his Peace Ship that the international Jew caused the war with their money. Ford said that originally he did not believe this idea but after noticing that some of the things he had been told were true he decided to show how the Jew contributed to wars.⁴³ One of the Jews on the ship was Herman Bernstein, the editor of the Jewish Tribune.⁴⁴ The Jewish community was justifiably offended by the articles which had been distributed via The Dearborn Independent on a large scale. In January 1922 Ford put a stop to the articles to the chagrin of Liebold and Cameron who argued against discontinuing the series.⁴⁵

That same year Henry Ford’s beliefs on Jews were briefly put forward in his autobiography My Life and Work. In the book Ford attacked people that promoted class consciousness (Marxists) and Wall Street, hurting efforts to promote more production as a solution to economic problems. Ford’s statements on Jews when taken as a whole, amounted to a wish to preserve Christian American culture. He did not have any problem with the individual practice of the Jewish religion, and stated prejudice or hate against anybody was neither Christian or American. The Dearborn Independent was supposedly only opposing false ideas that hurt the moral stamina of the people. Ford added that he had not intended to attack Jews but to help them.⁴⁶ Another biography came from James Miller and a good portion of his work merely repeated the articles, creating the appearance that it was of vital importance to Ford to go after Jews.⁴⁷ To some extent this was a contradiction of the autobiography.

As a result of the articles Ford’s corporation paid consequences. In addition to Jews who had a natural reason to worry over the anti-Semitic campaign against them, other groups chimed in with the problems they had with Ford. As early as late November 1921 a socialist author claimed that organized anti-Semitism in the United States was directed from Berlin and that Ford opposed the Jews.⁴⁸ This association with the anti-Semitic movement may have even been what prompted Ford to explain the articles origins. Socialists in Germany wanted to make a connection between the American automobile manufacturer and the German anti-Semitic movement. According to The New York Times, the Berliner Tageblatt in December 1922, asked an American Ambassador to check into rumors of Ford financing Hitler. This article proclaimed that Berlin Hears Ford is Backing Hitler: Bavarian Anti-Semitic Chief has American’s Portrait and Book in his office. It claimed that the reason Hitler didn’t support a return to monarchy was because he wanted Ford’s money. At the time, German conservatives wanted a return to the German Hohenzollern monarchy or another monarchy under the Wittelsbach’s (Bavarian princely family). Hitler was different.⁴⁹ The paper was covering this issue of rumors about Ford but could not find information to substantiate those claims. Clearly Marxists were seeking a connection between business and fascism. However, as historian Stefan Link demonstrates, Fordism also appealed to the Soviet Union.⁵⁰

This charge that Ford was backing Hitler was repeated in the Chicago Tribune which dedicated a series of articles to the issue. On February 1923, the vice president of the Bavarian parliament, Mr. Auer, informed the Tribune that Henry Ford was backing Hitler, leader of the Monarchists, who wanted to exterminate the German Jews as part of his party’s program. This was connected to a deal via a Ford tractor agent who had met with Dietrich Eichert sic Eckhart in the pan-German (German nationalist) movement.⁵¹ Another article from March 1923, with various misspellings of Hitler (called Hittler) and the Hammer Verlag of Leipzig (called the Hanimer-Verlag of Leipzip, among other misspellings) noted that Hitler denied receiving money from Ford but the Bavarian government claimed otherwise and huge sums of money were supposedly coming from somewhere.⁵²

The Chicago Tribune articles were an attempt to smear Henry Ford. The paper was previously sued by Ford for libel because it had called him an anarchist and said that he let go of National Guard members during World War I.⁵³ In fact, the Tribune’s 1923 articles were poorly researched. Neil Baldwin demonstrates that the rumor Ford was financing Hitler via his agent in Germany was false because the supposed agent was dismissed from Ford by 1920. The episode also took place after Ford had sold nothing more than a handful of tractors in Germany.⁵⁴ James and Suzanne Pool’s Who Financed Hitler repeats the Tribune’s unsubstantiated assertions. Their book has been taken as gospel by modern day critics of Ford such as Max Wallace. He does not consider evidence about the Tribune that accused Ford of treachery.⁵⁵ Rumors of Ford financing Hitler gave the corporation a black eye but were almost certainly false considering the small size of Ford’s presence in Germany, the fact that industrial support for the Nazis would not come until later, and the shear weakness of the Nazi Party at the moment.

While rumors circulated that Ford was going to run for president, Hitler lamented that he could not send his SA paratroopers to the United States in order to help him.⁵⁶ Like many Germans, Hitler admired Ford and included him in his 1924 book, Mein Kampf, or my struggle. Hitler believed that