Talk:The International Jew

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



It's important to be precise about this antisemitic contribution to life by Henry Ford. I ask that any effort to change substantially the bibliography be discussed here first.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 14:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Robert Lacey[edit]

A useful reference is this [1]:

    FORD: The Men and the Machine. By Robert Lacey. Illustrated. 778 pages. Little, Brown. $24.95.
    FORD is a workmanlike assemblage by an English writer of a great American family saga.
    Robert Lacey carries us briskly through almost a century of corporate fortunes
    (Model A, Model T, Mustang) and misfortunes (Edsel, Pinto).
    He makes admirably clear the technical and marketing considerations
    that have gone into each new or revised model
    and provides plenty of opportunity along the way to view the ...
    July 9, 1986
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting context[edit] -- Nevard 12:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Tweaked image locations to fix edit link bunching[edit]

With all the images in this article, there was a serious case of edit link bunching that made it hard to edit sections in the article. I believe I've fixed this as much as can be done by a combination of brute force, removal of unneeded headings, and pure voodoo, but the page layout is now heavily dependent on the assumption that the present sections will still exist and remain the same size. It might be preferable to do this as a gallery instead. Gavia immer (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


This page s:American Jewish Year Book/Volume 29/Statement by Henry Ford is sitting on Wikisource, all by it's self. The parent document s:/Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#American_Jewish_Year_Book is being considered for deletion, as an incomplete work. Jeepday (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


Look, ViriiK, I don't actually care what this user's history is. It may well be that some, if not most, of the changes he wants are bad. But this one change seems like a good idea. From what I've seen, when a category box includes a page, the page shows the category box. Why shouldn't we do that here? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I moved this wikilink here[edit]

because I see no connection between it and this article - other than there are jews sort of involved. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


I must question why or how this article ended up being part of an "anti-Semitism" section. Anyone familiar with what the book (articles) actually say, is aware that they make a painstaking effort to differentiate Jews at large from the powerful Talmudic Zionist Jews that it actually criticizes. Ford is critical of a political movement, emphatically NOT a religion or a race. Does every person who argues in a pro-choice manner belong under an "anti-Catholicism" banner? The idea is absurd. Ford makes it clear again and again that Judaism at large is not what he is criticizing, although he does note Jewish peoples' tendency to lift one another up via preferential treatment. Does that observation make him an "anti-Semite?" Being that Arabs are a Semitic people, is the book also to be construed as anti-Arab? I could go on and on. The label reeks of amateurish, uninformed assumption, and does not belong on a serious article on Wikipedia. I challenge anyone who supports it to actually read the entire book. It can be found for free of charge all over the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism is anything that Jews don't like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This whole selection is bunk. I am reminded of how a roommate in college described race relations in America to me. "All n*****s are black, but all blacks are not n*****s." He, of course, was not a racist. This stuff above is pretty much the same. Carptrash (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Zionists and Judaism are not the same thing. And the Zionist plans are faltering very clearly. No amount of backup plans or secret oaths will allow the Zionist menace to resurface. Judaism is a noble religion ... and Zionism is a dirty power grab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Inspiration for Adolf Hitler[edit]

All this nonsense describing this book as a decisive factor in the holocaust ("Inspiration for Adolf Hitler" paragraph) should be deleted. For instance : "Without the German translation of The International Jew, it's unclear how much support Hitler could have gotten for The Holocaust." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

We can quibble over the exact wording, but I think it's abundantly clear that Hitler and many of his followers derived support from The International Jew, to the point that failing to mention the connection is a violation of Wikipedia's POV policy. The Holocaust didn't officially begin until 1941, almost 3 years after Kristallnacht, 9–10 November 1938, and that didn't occur until 13 years after the appearance of Mein Kampf in 1925 -- and Mein Kampf didn't appear until 5 years after the publication of the first volume of The International Jew. From Sémelin (1993) Unarmed against Hitler and other sources, it's clear that Hitler encountered substantial resistance in his efforts to eliminate what he called "parasites" from the human genome -- and the resistance increased as time passed. In addition to the links in this brief section, there are Wikipedia articles on Action T4 and the Rosenstrasse protest, which indicate the vulnerability of the Nazis to public pressure. DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on Henry Ford includes 10 references to Hitler, 5 in the text and 5 in the notes; 2 of the references in the text include clear antisemitic comments. DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

My Struggle[edit]

Although I mentioned Hitler's My Struggle in my edit summary I did not change that part because I don't have the book with me right now. Hitler only mentioned Ford once in one sentence, nowhere is Ford cited as an authority for his views. Hitler said in the sentence that Ford was an American businessman who shared his Anti-Judaism and held out against Jewish financial interests in the one sentence, Hitler never brought up Ford again in the book. This article makes it look like Hitler cited Ford as a great influence on his Anti-Judaism in My Struggle, that is not accurate. RandomScholar30 (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, I cannot change this because I don't have a source for it yet, but I know the reference to Ford was not even included in future editions of My Struggle because none of the online editions I looked at contain the Ford sentence. I'm not going to change the article to points that until I have a secondary source though. RandomScholar30 (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I located my edition of My Struggle. The only reference to Ford is this sentence "Every year makes them [American Jews] 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." Page 639 of the Mariner Books Houghton Mifflin Company Boston New York edition translated from German into English by R. Manheim. Since I have source for the fact Ford is only mentioned once in My Struggle can I change the text to reflect that, or do I need a secondary rather than primary source? RandomScholar30 (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. The most important thing in Wikipedia is to present an honest, balanced assessment of the issue at hand. I just skimmed Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources. If I understand correctly, two issues drive the rules of using primary vs. secondary sources: accuracy and notability. Both are well satisfied with what you've done.
I just downloaded the 1943 German-language edition from "". It's searchable, and I could not find Henry Ford's name. This matches your observation that Ford is not mentioned in later editions -- and confirms that a translation did not conveniently omit a controversial name ;-) DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

More changes to Hitler section[edit]

I think Ford's influence on Hitler has been exaggerated. In any case the way it was presented in this article was weasel words, "was an influence on Adolf Hitler and many of his followers", and was unsourced, I replaced that with citing a specific follower of Hitler who was influenced by Ford instead of the weasel words, Hitler admired Ford because of his hate campaign against American Jewry, but it does not seem to me like he studied Ford's writings. Hitler's take on Jewry was very different from Ford's. Hitler viewed Freemasonry as an agent of International Jewry, whereas Ford was an apologist for Freemasonry and defended it in his writings, and Ford did not believe all Jews were programmed to be a united force, unlike Hitler. Another difference is Ford was extremely Anti-Zionist, whereas Hitler at one point considered Zionism as a way of getting the Jews out of Germany and its satellites, so I don't think Ford was as influential on Hitler as the article was portraying the case to be. Ford in general on other topics had opposite beliefs from Hitler's, he was a supporter of world government, despite his dislike of Jews, he financed Rosika Schwimmer's international conference and boat trip there in 1915. Kevin MacDonald, arguing that Ford's influence on Hitler was exaggerated, wrote "The logic seems to be that Hitler never would have heard of the Protocols except for the nefarious work of Henry Ford who was responsible for distributing it in Germany. No Henry Ford, no Holocaust.

This is ridiculous. The Protocols had been circulating in Germany since around 1918 — beforeTIJ was written. Hitler certainly didn’t need Henry Ford to be aware of the Protocols — nor were the Protocols the source of Hitler’s anti-Jewish attitudes. And, as I noted, TIJ is much more than the Protocols." MacDonald is almost as Anti-Jewish as Ford was, so he's not exactly objective and he probably can't be used as a source in the article itself, but I think he made valid points against the idea Ford was a great influence on Hitler, so this article should be careful not to exaggerate Ford's influence on Hitler.RandomScholar30 (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

My inclination is to think Hitler never read Ford's book, but there are some who disagree with me. Guillaume Durocher stated "Hitler famously read Henry Ford’s The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem. In 1922, Hitler’s private office featured a picture of Ford and the young nationalist leader would state “I regard Ford as my inspiration” (71). Like Ford, Hitler considered The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to be an accurate portrayal of Jewish behavior, whether or not the malicious motives were conscious or whether the document was authentic." However, Durocher presented no evidence Hitler read it. The only people I've seen viewing Ford's writings as greatly influencing Hitler are either Jewish apologists such as the Anti-Defamation League and others trying to discredit Ford, or Anti-Jewish authors such as Durocher trying to give mainstream credibility to Hitler by linking him to a respected figure, I haven't seen many neutral sources holding that view. Since Durocher is not a mainstream source and does not provide evidence I don't think we can use him as a source for this article. I'll look for what other sources say. RandomScholar30 (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on this. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Change section title from "Inspiration for Hitler" to "Inspiration for Nazi Anti-Semitism"?[edit]

What do you think about changing the title of the section discussing Hitler from "Inspiration for Hitler" to "Inspiration for Nazi Anti-Semitism"? That seems to more accurately reflect the reality. This book was certainly not the only inspiration, but it was one contributor. Other sources were the pograms in Russia in the late nineteenth century and the practice of forced sterilization of "imbeciles" under certain conditions, approved by a decision of the US Supreme Court around 1927. The "science" of eugenics had many followers, including the famous statistician Roland Fisher, who published extensively in the Annals of Eugenics. I don't have time to research this enough to say anything about it in the article, but clearly Ford was not the only inspiration, and I don't think the article says that. He was, however, one source, and I think this article would be biased if it didn't say something about this connection. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I support that change in the section title. Carptrash (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I changed the title to Influence on Nazi AntiJudaism. I think influence is more neutral than inspiration because inspiration implies soul or main cause while influence implies other causes existed as well. I don't think Ford was a big influence on Hitler's AntiJudaism. Erich Ludendorff was a much a bigger influence on the conspiratorial aspects of Hitlers AntiJudaism Gobineu was a much bigger influence on the racial aspects and Nietzsche and Schopenhauer were much bigger influences on the ideological aspects. Ford held many views exactly opposite to Hitler's for example Ford was a Freemason and in The International Jew defended Freemasonry against attacks by AntiJews while Hitler viewed Freemasonry as an agency of International Jewry Ford did not believe Jews were biologically wired to be subversive he said clearly that most Jewish people only followed their leaders to a limited extent and we're not aware of their plans and mentioned Jews who were against their leaders such as Spinoza and Oscar Levy. Ford also opposed Zionism while Hitler considered Zionism during the 1930s as a possible way of getting Jewish people out of Europe. RandomScholar30 (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)