A fellow Kosaholic, with a much larger tribe of followers than I have, and probably a larger cranial capacity, recently 'got my Irish up,' as it were. I may lack the mental endowment to speak with the same authority, or the charm and acumen to command the same audience, as some here obviously do. But my understanding was that we needn't make our relationships, to follow the Brazilian folk saying, as "ugly as a knife fight in the dark."
Hence, as promised, I now provide copious documentation for the point that induced a reply to me to the effect that I "don't get to make up history." Prior to that, immediately following these introductory remarks, I have some ideas to offer about how we conduct ourselves in relation to each other. I also proffer some notion of what I have learned about the nature of evidence and argument, about which I invite correction if I am F.O.S. in this regard. Then, as I swore that I would do, I provide a sliver of the mountain of evidence that I have uncovered in support of my position, inviting further baiting, no doubt, but from a position that I am certain is well-enough-fortified, rhetorically, analytically, and factually, that I feel confident of withstanding any assaults on my intellect, character, or general fitness as a human being.
INTRO AND BACKGROUND
Just so as to reduce any sense of mystery, I'll announce the substance of the situation. Henry Ford, scion of industry and twisted sister of anti-semitic viciousness, was arguably a traitor to the United States, providing aid and comfort to declared enemies with whom he found himself in basic, and highly profitable, accord, which treasonous actions followed a long commitment to and support of--fiscal, propagandistic, and organizational--a Germany that he wanted in the hands of one Adolf Hitler and his National Socialists.
For purposes of the material that I proffer today, I primarily address the second half of the prior thesis. As I telegraphed above, however, I have some comments about the sorts of interactions that I've often seen on DK. No doubt, unfortunately, since I can be the world's chief number one asshole, I am occasionally guilty of the same attitudes that I notice in others, to wit, a certain arrogance or condescension in addressing people who in my estimation have gone astray. When I say that "such acts destroy the potential for constructive engagement," therefore, I am critiquing myself as much as, or moreso than, I excoriate others. I insist on making the point, however, because I have fairly frequently observed just such behavior on the premises, often by intelligent and forceful folks who have a lot to gain, as well as give, from a less hostile environment. Again, I am speaking to myself as much as I am to anyone else, but "a word to the wise is sufficient," as granny used to tell me.
The situation that induced this diary flowed from a posting that made a cogent argument with which I happen strongly to disagree, although for purposes of today's presentation that is 'neither here nor there.' One commentator, whom I assumed to be a callow youth of working class origin, much like myself once upon a time, noted that "CEO's" were responsible for or otherwise supportive of fascist states. The Kosaholic who accused me of bearing historical false witness dismissed the puppy with assertions that he knew less than nothing about fascism and should listen and learn instead of spouting ideas about which he was clueless.
I managed to contain my fury at such treatment, when in the event I made several observations, more or less a three-part argument about the origins and meaning of what we might term fascism, which materials included an assertion that our dear Henry and other 'CEO' types had in fact contributed to Hitler's rise and empowerment. This in turn elicited the headline that I too knew less than nothing and was just "making up" whatever suited my purposes.
No argument ensued in this reply to my analysis, since my assailant "stopped reading" when, according to the script, I lowered myself to being at best a lying idiot. After this, I acknowledge, and accept all measure of criticism which I am due, I became more than a little 'hot under the collar' and responded with a flurry, of my own, of unkind words, and evil assertions about character and intellect.
What transpired was, for me, an interesting, instructive, and important lesson in the nature of evidence, argument, and dialog, which I am going to unleash at this juncture on anyone who's managed to follow so far. I, and many others here as well, I notice, pride myself on being fact-based, or in other words of having a strong belief in reality orientation, so to say. Just as in law, or so my professors tirelessly instructed me, everything in the court comes down to evidence(at least, once a litigator has met minimal procedural requirements)so too in honest dialog--and whether scholarly, political, or just honest and informational matters not in the least--we can only engage fully if we are willing to provide data in support of our opinions and contentions.
Now, in the matter of the eventuality that underlies my prosaic outpouring today, this issue arose quite forcibly, and at some length. Since I consider myself a people's intellectual(my conveying that I teach a "Course in How to Think" brought forth the admittedly hilarious comparison of me to the wacko-self-promoter in "Little Miss Sunshine," played brilliantly by Greg Kinear), I take these matters seriously enough to spend the time and energy to address some pertinent points about data.
EVIDENCE
First of all, we can all agree, I pray to God, that if we're talking about a problem in higher mathematics, particle physics, or the nature of muscular DNA in nematodes, then a body of specialized knowledge is necessary to make almost any sort of original discovery. Even an intelligent discussion of efforts to create new knowledge, which after all is the purpose of the science of everything that is part of our legacy as humans, largely necessitates training and preparation that are, to say the least, far from universally extant.
My second point in this regard may meet with less universal agreement though I am hopeful that most folks will still nod affirmatively. Even if we're discussing rocket science or other truly arcane areas of the universal canon, then amateurs can argue authoritatively, when they are willing to 'do their homework,' so long as they can stand the snide sneers that inevitably appear at their temerity. If we don't accept this, of course, we basically upend what to me is utterly the most brilliant contribution of Anglo philosophy and institutions, which is to say the legal ideation that we think of as the jury system and the rule of law. What else is an attorney doing in a product liability case, among many other such scenarios, except making a policy argument about something, based solely on expert opinions and verifiable facts in support of the technical position about which she or he has no specialized training or ability?
In the real exchanges that occur here on DK, including in the one that ended up with this diary, such issues of 'expertise' are as common as corn. In the event, amidst my insults and 'casting down the gauntlet' in response to confronting the label of 'lying idiot,' I mentioned, as is my wont even when in the most assaultive mode, a source for my point about the estimable titan of industry whose affection for and support of German naziism I had asserted. My opposition on that day pointed out, much to my embarrassment, that the author of my source material was not a professional historian, and that moreover, he advertised his services as a hypnotherapist. This sent me scrambling for further support and led to a pas de deux about this issue of evidence that eventually involved a third party in the fray.
If for no other reason, this is important because I was wrong to feel any sense of shame about my source. His book won awards; a dozen languages, more or less, contained interest adequate for his publishers to translate the tome; hundreds of thousands of copies, at least, circulated among us; most critical, I had seen the book, reviewed the notes and sources, and I have training in the area of history, meaning that I actually know a thing or two about historiography and such. He was clearly a talented amateur, or more, and as such, he needed no additional qualifications to contribute to a discussion that was clearly not of the 'rocket-science' mode.
As the specific discussion developed a week or so ago, after the lampooning of my source, implying the unfitness, or even fraudulence, of the authority upon which I had relied, my sparring partner revealed that the best-in-the-business, a Cambridge historian, had not even seen fit to mention my guy in his nearly 2,000-entry bibliography. So one very pointed query to consider in this regard is as follows: does a situation like this invalidate a source?
The analogy of a trial is again apt. We might imagine a defense attorney, stating in the strongest terms that his client is insane. The only witness to support this allegation is a preacher who counseled the accused. The prosecutor guffaws in his summation about this itinerant evangelist, "Why, he doesn't even receive a mention in our State's Religious Counseling Journal's list of superior practitioners." Would this be adequate to call the testimony of this 'expert' into question? Well, of course it would; the jury might, in the best of all possible worlds in which its members truly struggle with their august responsibility, doubt the minister's ministrations, as it were. But would it establish an adequate basis to discredit, dismiss, and disprove the expert testimony at issue? And the answer is an equally resounding, "Well of course it wouldn't, unless the prosecutor proffered countervailing evidence."
The judge and the jury, using common sense and the capacity to reason, may choose to weigh the man-of-the-cloth's testaments as they see fit, but the prosecution may not eliminate the potential force of whatever wisdom or foolishness that the cleric presented at trial. And this brings me to my third point about evidence. While as a matter of rhetoric--the art of persuasive writing and speech--or charm, a propagandist may call for the rejection of a source, equally valid, or perhaps moreso, is an appeal to reason, that if a fact provides any material support for a conclusion, then it might arguably predispose the investigator to believe that conclusion.
And this leads to a fourth idea of plausible import regarding matters of an evidentiary nature. What should our 'standard of proof' be? To suggest that, in as fluid an environment as is necessarily the case on DK and in our everyday lives, we should adhere to "beyond a reasonable doubt" feels unduly harsh to me. Either the lesser requirements of 'clear and convincing' evidence, or even, when we are seeking to define the course of a dialog before we adopt a course of action, the simple-majority standard of a 'preponderance of the evidence' seems well-suited to a DailyKos kind of world.
A multimodal fifth and final notion concerns the types of evidence that can help to validate an argument. Each of these categories is well worth an extended essay in its own right. In any event, though more or less potent in different sorts of arguments, all of the sorts of factual elements in existence can advance and help to sustain a thesis. Just to 'get the ball rolling,' one might list the kinds of evidence as follows: circumstantial, physical, documentary, testimentary, expert opinion, among others; in other conceptual terms, we might think of anecdotes, observed facts, statistics, research tests, archived materials, literary and other kinds of secondary or scholarly sources, journalism, and common sense. Even intuition is a kind of evidence that is worthy of attention; we've survived on the basis of inferential ability that is often beyond our ken to explain, after all.
In relation to the above ideas, then, does the acclaimed, but not cited-by-the-Cambridge-genius output of James and Elizabeth Poole, Who Financed Hitler and Hitler's Secret Partners, pass muster in the case at hand? On the basis of such affirmation, might the listener or other juror accept the notion that Henry Ford contributed money and other in-kind gifts to Hitler and the Nazis? I am now of the mind that the Pooles do indeed 'pass muster.' But, on the chance that they do not, and inasmuch as I felt relatively certain that I was not an idiot, and that the Poole's were not either taking advantage of the fact that libeling the dead is not actionable or otherwise misrepresenting, misinterpreting, or simply mistaking historical fact, I have spent the last week on a hunt, so to speak, which leads me to the next section of this diary.
ARGUMENT
Of course, my erstwhile laughable effrontery in holding myself out as a "How-to-Think" instructor, given the occasional, but more than infrequent, contentions that have greeted me on DK--that I am unable to construct a logical idea, let alone a syllogism or other tour-de-force of analytical acuity--may cause the already-convinced-of-righteousness to skip this section. That would be their choice, and, inherently, our mutual loss. We might ask the finest minds in any profession what the quickest way is to be absolutely certain of the worst sorts of beliefs, and I would bet money that a top answer would be, "dismiss points of view that don't fit with your own." And yet that's precisely what transpires daily on the site, in my estimation, whenever we take for granted the proposition that only expertise, especially when it squarely meets our own prejudgments, confers the right to a respectful audience.
Therefore, to those willing to string along a bit further, I would offer the idea that the nature of essays is argument. What we do here, diary-by-diary, and comment-by-comment, is build the superstructure of a better world, a world where analysis trumps personality--at least to an extent, a world where an 'enlightened aristocracy' does not reject, out of hand, thoughtful attempts at intelligence by the hoi polloi. Echoing what I present above, we only hurt ourselves if we consign to idiocy, 'wingnuttitude,' or congenital unworthiness those opinions that fail arbitrary or ill-informed 'tests' of rectitude.
In the most rudimentary sense, of course, an argument is an opinion supported by reason and information, at least an informed amateur's perspective, perhaps an expert's knowledgeable analysis. In this regard, standards of proof, and ways to weigh quality are of course mete and proper to consider, as I attempt to do in the preceding section.
Hopefully, at their best, arguments conform carefully to certain standards of logic. Definition of terms at issue, statement of premises and presumptions, adherence to the rules of cause and effect, correlation, and complexity are all part of that picture. I have produced very simple materials for my students in this regard, and I would certainly appreciate any of the nascent or professional philosophers among us if they were to develop more detail concerning this point.
Thankfully, on DailyKos, a great strength of the system here is that, diaries almost never lower themselves to the disreputable juncture where, at their least, arguments call on us to respond with bigotry and presumption. We rightly note that such methodology is the province of the we-can-only-hope 'loyal opposition,' which will now need to clean up its act in a hopefully longlasting blossoming of informed citizenship. Nevertheless, I have witnessed many cases of such blatant appeals to prejudice and blind certitude in comments and replies here. Such 'venting' may be sometimes 'good for the system,' it may be on occasion richly deserved, and in any event it clearly is inevitable. Notwithstanding all of this, our hope, our goal, our practice must be to conform to a higher evaluative measure.
At their wisest, arguments permit us to follow the dictates of our hearts, which to be anything akin to fair and pure, must acknowledge the 'Golden Rule' and compassion as inherently foremost among human values. We are dealing with 'winning' and 'losing' here, with contests, with hard-fought campaigns, in which, to an extent, victory is the only tonic and defeat is inconsolable. If we can recall the calling to wisdom, though, then even after brief and unstoppable outbursts of less-than-salubrious name-calling and derogation, we might once more return to the path of righteousness, which involve listening and requesting information and clarification instead of rejection and the presumptuous certainty from which such attitudes almost always flow if they are instantaneous and visceral.
Clearly, this presentation would not even be sufficient for a freshman course in disquisition, although perhaps merely 'touching the surface' is a place to start, in any event. So saying, I am now ready to give the merest slice of the the gigantic pie of facts and analysis about fascism, in which, I would bet all that I have save my life, the assessment is dispositive that Henry Ford, judging by a 'preponderance-of-the-evidence' standard, did in fact fund, materially support, and otherwise back the rise to power of Adolf Hitler and his party.
SUBSTANTIVE MATERIALS ABOUT FASCISM
Defintional matters all too often serve to obfuscate assumption. If we define something a certain way, then only one view may appear reasonable. Such semantic trickery is not my intention. I could offer my own take on the matter, which might 'hold up in court,' as the saying goes, since I am a certfified degree-holding expert in research and the social sciences. However, I turn to one of the brilliant amateurs who many on DK would probably dismiss,since he does not appear to quality af "Dr." anybody; and his English usage is a little lacking in grammatical discipline, oh my!
Such attitudes! Goodness; the quality of Glen Yeadon's reasoning, fair-mindedness, thoroughness, and willingness to dig would make him a brilliant member of any intellectual commune. I unequivocally recommend his essay, "What Fascism Is, and What It Is Not," for anyone who wants to learn a bit of background about the history of this idea. His assessment of fascism is one of the best that I've ever read, whether he's a conspiracy theorist, a 'red,' or some other category of character that offends folks.
No other word causes so much misunderstanding, confusion, and heated debate in politics than fascism. ... What then is fascism exactly? Webster's Dictionary defines it as: "A government system marked by a centralized dictatorship, stringent socioeconomic controls and belligerent nationalism." ... At best, the definition is vague and abstract. Nor does the definition seem capable of taking into all forms of fascism.
There is a resurgent, widespread attempt by the far right to label fascism as a form of socialism. Fredrick von Hayek was the first to attempt labeling the Nazis as socialists in his book The Road to Serfdom published in 1944. The hard right quickly adopted it, as it allowed the hard right to escape the charges that they had much in common with the Nazis. Such endeavors are not only silly, but dishonest as well and represent an attempt by the far right to distance themselves for their earlier support of Hitler. ...
A definitive definition of fascism is a totalitarian government with extreme nationalist tendencies in which the government is controlled and operated for the benefit of a few elite. However, it should be noted that an all-encompassing definition of a complex system can not be simply stated. Such simple definitions undoubtedly fail in time. ...A list of traits of fascism is presented below. Note that the first two are the two most defining traits, obviously many of the others can be applied to many other social-political systems as one moves down the list.
1. Totalitarian.
2. Extreme nationalism.
3. Top down revolution or movement.
4. Destructive divisionism such as racism and class warfare.
5. Extreme anti-communism, anti socialism, and anti-liberal views.
6. Extreme exploitation.
7. Opportunistic ideology lacking in consistency as a means to grab power.
8. Unbridled Corporatism.
9. Reactionary.
10. The use of violence and terror to attain and maintain power.
11. Cult-like figurehead.
12. The expounding of mysticism or religious beliefs.
Not all fascists need exhibit all of the traits once again it should be emphasized that all fascist states will exhibit a totalitarian view. Most fascist states will have an extreme nationalism policy. However, extreme nationalism is not mandatory. States such as Spain under Franco and Chile under Pinochet were indeed fascist states, but they could hardly be described as having a policy of extreme nationalism.
Yeadon also cites Heywood Braun's definition of fascism, from 1939. Dear God, Braun is yet another 'amateur,' a "noted columnist," and funny fellow.
"Fascism, is a dictatorship from the extreme right or to put it a little more closely into our local idiom, a government which is run by a small group of large industrialists and financial lords...I think it is not unfair to say that any businessman in America, or public leader, who goes out to break unions is laying the foundations for fascism."
Scholarly sources that comport with an estimation of 'Heinrich' Ford as a fascist financier of one sort or another also are plentiful. This trove of evidence includes university professors, financial and investigative journalists, government hearings, lawsuits, national and private archives, and more. I only give a few such authorities here, but many more are inarguably accessible with the merest hint of research. Modern European history is not at all my area of expertise, but I am a researcher and have evaluated sources professionally for all manner of clients. I feel comfortable that what I offer here will 'pass muster,' and if not, I'm capable of much greater detail.
Resistible Rise: A Fascism Reader, edited by Margit Koeves and Shaswati Mazumdar identifies Ford as a Hitler backer, particularly in Kurt Gossweiler's essay, "Economy and Politics in the Destruction of the Weimar Republic." The preface lays the groundwork for a case against Ford, recognizing that fascism is
a striking feature of our times, even though the current world context and the forces that drive it are not quite the same as those that first gave birth to fascism. What factors underlie the rise of contemporary fascist tendencies? Can the investigation of how and why fascism initially emerged, of the forces that gave it sustenance and ensured its victory, help in understanding the nature of the contemporary tendencies? Though different in important ways from the period in which fascism first gained ascendancy, the contemporary world nevertheless shares many of the features that initially provided fascism with itsraison d’être.
Mira Wilkins, a professor at Wayne State University with easy access to Ford family papers, meticulously documents Ford's company operations in her American Business Abroad: Ford on Six Continents. Her essay in European Business, Dictatorship, and Political Risks, 1920-45, edited by Christopher Kobrak and Per
Hansen; "Multinationals and Dictatorship: Europe in the 1930's and Early 1940's" devotes over a page and a half to details of Germany's Ford operations from 1926 on, during which period the requirements for more and more German content, until "all-German" was the rule under Hitler, came to pass. She concludes,
From September 1939, Ford Motor Company's huge British company was producing to aid the British cause, while its smaller German affiliate was on the other side of the war.
Professor Wilkins takes great pains not to accuse Ford or the company that bore his name of anything like what I charge. But the evidence is present for anyone who can read. Ford gave Hitler guidance, invested in Germany and backed the Nazi party there, designed and built much of the Wehrmacht motorized war machine.
Antony Sutton has the kind of resume that is unlikely to lead to indictments of corporate titans: economics professor, fellow of the Hoover Institute, and more. Nonetheless, his powerful study, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, reveals again and again the types of ways that Henry Ford personally, and ford Motor Company institutionally assisted Hitler's rise to power, applying funds, resources, investments, and propaganda to drive Germany in a fascist direction. The following selection of excerpts, taken from Chapter Six of the monograph, "Henry Ford and the Nazis," are quite telling.
I could weave these and other materials into a seamless skein, were the point to convict Henry Ford of complicity, providing aid and comfort, or of being an accessory before, during, and after the criminal carnage of WWII. But I will let the materials speak for themselves for now.
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.)
During a 1938 New York Times interview 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.
On December 20, 1922 the New York Times reported 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 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.
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.
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.
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. 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."
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."
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. In any event, the Vichy government paid Ford Motor Company 38 million francs as compensation for damage done to the Poissy plant.
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.
Independent amateur experts have proliferated on the subjects of the Nazis and fascism. Rather than list dozens of such webvenues and authoritative publications, I'll direct all of the faithful who are still considering this material to Glen Yeadon's website, which is easy to locate and beautifully organized and managed. One further quotation from Yeadon demonstrates his fair-mindedness, intellectual honesty, and incisive ability to make the key argument stick.
Henry Ford also exerted a considerable influence over Hitler in the early 1920s, as well as money. Some passages from Ford's International Jew are nearly identical to passages in Mein Kampf. Ford's book is reported to have had a large effect on many of the school children of the time that were suffering through hyperinflation and economic hard times while reading a book written by the world's foremost capitalist.
The extent of Ford's financial donations to Hitler still remains a mystery. The U. S. ambassador to Germany, William Dodd, was quoted saying "certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy." The extent of corporate America's collaboration with the Nazis before the war and even during the war, in some cases, is not fully known. However, as time goes by and more information becomes available, the collaboration begins to appear significant, as shown in the following article.
"Bernd Greiner said 26 of the top 100 US companies in the 1930s collaborated to some degree with the Nazis before, and in some cases after, Hitler declared war on the United States in December 1941. Company headquarters in the US have denied they knew what was going on in Germany, but there is evidence to suggest they knew their German subsidiaries used slave labor, tolerated it and in some cases were actively involved, Greiner said.
Greiner confirmed a report in the newspaper Die Zeit, based on his findings of US corporate involvement in Nazi Germany. The findings went beyond allegations of US lawyers and historians last year that automakers General Motors and Ford collaborated with the Nazi regime."
Primary and contemporary sources also unequivocally demonstrate different sorts of evidence about Henry Ford's personal involvement, as well as the company's corporate backing, of Hitler, his party, and the goals and objectives of nazi thinking and government. While my research shows that archival materials, letters, oral histories, and government documents all mention Ford Motor Company and its owner, lacking a budget and time to kill, I could not track down these items. However, many of the scholars turn to such material to back up their contentions about the worlds primary 'grosseindustrielle.'
Contemporary accounts, which are legally equivalent to eyewitness testimony, offer straightforwardly clear and direct, and hearsay, evidence that Ford regularly and enthusiastically backed Hitler and his rule of Germany. The Nazi regime was a model into which Ford Motor Company poured resources, and 'Heinrich' poured attention and support of all kinds. George Seldes is just one of dozens of such authoritative voices. His Facts and Fascism begins with a chapter, "Fascism on the Home Front," that is merely the start of his pummeling of Ford's untrammeled assistance to the Nazi Party and to Hitler.
But we must not be fooled into believing that American Fascism consists of a few persons, some crackpots, some mentally perverted, a few criminals such as George W. Christians and Pelley, who are in jail at present, or the 33 indicted for sedition. These are the lunatic fringes of Fascism, they are also the small fry, the unimportant figureheads, just as Hitler was before the Big Money in Germany decided to set him up in business.
The real Fascists of America are never named in the commercial press. It will not even hint at the fact that there are many powerful elements working against a greater democracy, against an America without discrimination based on race, color and creed, an America where never again will one third of the people be without sufficient food, clothing and shelter, where never again will there be 12,000,000 unemployed and many more millions working for semi-starvation wages while the DuPont, Ford, Hearst, Mellon and Rockefeller Empires move into the billions of dollars(Of nine points that indicate capital's support for Nazism, two of these concern activities which many sources document that Ford in particular played a part).
4. Signed a pact with Nazi agents for political and economic (cartel) penetration of U. S. (Exposed in In Fact).
5. Founded a $1,000,000-a-year propaganda outfit to corrupt the press, radio, schools and churches.
Naturally enough the President of the United States and other high officials cannot name the men, organizations, pressure lobbyists, and national associations which have made this and similar records; they can only refer to "noisy traitors," Quislings, defeatists, the "Cliveden Set" or to the Tories and Economic Royalists. And you may be certain that our press will never name the defeatists because the same elements which made the above 9-point record are the main advertisers and biggest subsidizers of the newspapers and magazines.
German sources, which comprise thousands of websites and tens upon tens of thousands of documents, conferences, books, overwhelmingly accept as demonstrable that 'Heinrich' was Hitler's man, or vice versa. This position is not universal, but it seems far and away the majority, and, relatively speaking, 'expert' opinion on the matter. I do not include quotations here because my German translation skills now approach decrepitude, and Google's translator comes close to gibberish.
However, I do offer here, for anyone so inclined to repeat, a couple of the half dozen searches that I conducted to recognize the drift 'on the ground' in Germany. Number one is 'finanz + finanzieren + Grossindustrielle + Hitler + "henry ford" OR "heinrich ford"'. The second was a variation of the first: "finanz + finanzieren + Großindustrielle + Hitler + "Henry Ford" OR "Heinrich Ford" + historisch + wissenschaft," emphasizing historical scholarship.
Jewish sources are obviously extensive in this area of understanding, for tragically grotesque reasons. I did not even try to tip my toe in this ocean of data. However, given Ford's open and vicious anti-semitism, given the harsh criticism of Henry Ford by contemporary Jewish leaders, and given that Jewish boycotts of Ford very nearly nailed the old bigot, one might be forgiven for believing that at a minimum, a modicum of evidence might be available in such vaults of shame.
Evidence alone, no matter how compelling and revealing, rarely in and of itself states a case. "Res ipsa loquitur" is more a theory than a legal fact. Very briefly, the reasoning about this evidence that is possible consists of several telling points. Number one: Ford and Hitler constituted a mutual admiration society. Number two: Ford Motor Company participated in the cartellization of Weimar Germany that militated in favor of Nazi influence. Number three: numerous contemporary sources name Ford as a multitasking financial supporter of Hitler and the Nazis. Number four: Ford Motor Company's direct investments in Germany contributed to Hitler directly, and these factories helped to rebuild Germany's martial might. Number five: American ownership and control were part of the story of Ford Motor Company in Germany before, during, and after the war. And, truthfully, at least another dozen additional evidentiary stabs would be easy to develop. Are they necessary to prove the point that an argument concerning Ford complicity strongly correlates with massive amounts of facts and observation about the period, the party, the dictator, the plutocrat, and the firm? I may be easy to convince, but I would bet that few readers need more to allow them to reach the same conclusions that I have. James and Elizabeth Poole were clearly correct.
For reasons that I pray to God are obvious to most observers, rich and provocative hypotheses about fascism serve progressives in various ways. That is one reason that I read the posting that originated the conflict which in turn drew forth this torrent of words. I will post again on this matter, but I also call on my colleagues to consider deeply their own understanding of these issues, to juxtapose that understanding with a refreshed commitment to study, and then to bring forth further waterfalls of textual exploration.
George Bush was a fascist's grandson. Many people who are liberal, progressive, or otherwise factually driven suggest that 9/11 was a homegrown version of Krystalnacht. By any reasonable measure, U.S. policies for the last eight years(and more)have contained elements that one might legitimately describe as fascist in some fashion. If we don't need hypotheses that help investigate and assess this matter, then 'God didn't make little green apples,' as the country song intones.
A CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENT ABOUT COLLEGIALITY
Since I am an admitted(get ready now; cover the ears of the young and the eyes of virgins)socialist, isn't a likely explanation for all of this that SERMCAP just loathes all capitalists and thinks that they should, more or less, 'eat shit and die?' I can't help but throw up my hands at such presumption, but I'd wager that a fair number of folks here would nod a quiet, "Oh yeah," to such an inquiry.
In my defense, I will introduce a few facts. I've been buying Ford pick ups since 1994--I used to say that "my back supports my wrist, in anticipation of a transformed future." I decided to do so due to the fact that, not only were they great models of industrial art, but they also were as close to locally-produced as I would ever get in the context of automotive commodities, since Atlanta sits astride I-75, anchored by Detroit at one end and Tampa at the other. Though Ford closed down the Hapeville plant here, an indelible truth in my life is that a gray F-150 saved my ass when almost any other vehicle would have ended my days ignominiously.
But even were I a bigoted anti-capitalist, instead of an informed pro-socialist, inasmuch as the residents of DailyKos--Kosaholics and 'moderation-management' participants and all the rest--share certain fundamental commitments beyond 'electing more Democrats,' we owe each other the 'benefit of the doubt,' a measure of respectful attentiveness, and other attributes of collegiality. Maybe that is presumptuous on my part. Perhaps, beyond the call of America's Democratic Party, we have nothing; perhaps we care for nada other than the 'party line.' if so, then I am decidedly 'out of line.' On the other hand, I have some company, I am sure. We call the rest to a more elevated sensibility, a commitment to service that does not automatically assume that one 'Party' is big enough to contain everything that we owe and can bring to each other.
I've read more than a few times on DailyKos that "We care about words and their consequences." Collgeiality is an interesting word. It shows up in a related form, college, of course, and one meaning is the quality of being schooled. This is not the sense in which I use it, however. A college combines the 'in-conjunction-with' meaning of "co"--the "l" serves only a spelling purpose--with "leg-" the Latin root for many words regarding law and responsibility. Thus, collegiality can mean the quality of sharing responsibility. This is a very useful idea; if we are jointly responsible, I act irresponsibly if I don't speak my mind and correct error; but I err most terribly and demean the core concept of personal accountability if I presume to know what is best for the collective, discrediting the ideas and input of others because they oversteps bounds, or somehow miss a mark that I have set for what constitutes acceptable participation. Anyone who acts with such high-handed arrogance and self-righteousness needs correction, in my view. Until someone torques me into a different mold, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.