Henry Ford on War
My opposition to war is not based on pacifist or non-resistant principals. It may be that the present state of civilization is such that certain international questions cannot be discussed; it may be that they have to be fought out. We ought not to forget that wars are a purely manufactured evil and are made according to a definite technique. A campaign for war is made upon as definite lines as a campaign for any other purpose. First, the people are worked upon. By clever tales the people’s suspicions are aroused toward the nation against which war is desired. Make the nation suspicious, make the other nation suspicious. All you need for this is a few agents with some cleverness and no conscious and a press whose interest is locked up with the interests that will be benefited by war. Then the “overt act” will soon appear. It is no trick at all to get an “overt act” once you work the hatred of two nations up to the proper pitch.
Hey George,
That's pretty good, Henry Ford was a wise man, and yet innovative.
FORD TOUGH..
p.s good research george keep me posted frank@schaefferas.com on upcoming thoughts!
Trending Topics
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Henry Ford funded Hitler's 1933 Election campaign. He received the Grand Cross of The German Eagle in 1938. Ever heard of the anti-semetic book "The International Jew"? Guess who... yes, Henry Ford's book.
The picture is of Henry getting his "Grand Cross Of The German Eagle".
Being married to a Jew and having Jewish family and friends, I can tell you that none drive Ford products.
The most accurate description of what "WAR" is, still is credited to an obscure German Professor:
"War is an extension of diplomacy by other means"
By this definition, terrorism can be loosely framed as belonging within that group -
HOWEVER (comma) -
Even WAR itself is subject to conventions as to what is acceptable and what isn't, and lack of agreement on what "ACCEPTABLE WARFARE" constitutes seems to be what we are dealing with in the world today.
In general - the world concensus tends toward excluding non-combatants, even though in Viet Nam (American Era) threats were carried out by combatants desguised as non-combative individuals. (IE: Babies with grenades, etc...). Which led to retaliation in kind, and so on...
There is a large grey area in existance, and it needs defining even as we move forward into what is in fact the consideration of not simply non-combatant casualty justification, but MASS non-combatant casualty doctrine.
And the only justification we really have for Nagasaki and Hiroshima is the non-combatants involved in Pearl Harbor on september 7th.
There are rules.
There are patterns.
But the concept of "Gentlemanly Warfare" is an oxymoron.
We have it in our reach to modify what is acceptable and what is not.
If nothing else survives as a legacy of the twentieth century, perhaps the sparing of innocents can be made a world heritage. And yet, even in the war between the states the supposedly more civilised UNION wreaked such enormous devastation on our own country -
(the drive through the southern states to the coast, in which homes and estates were devasted even to the point of poisoning wells)
- that hatred exists within even our own northern and southern citizens to this very day.
The only thing we can hope for is change.
At the rate we've been going - without it we are all done for.
Even if the entire world views the middle east as a backwards area - I tell you what, it may be - but what have we given them to learn from?
And people will always do what they see as the things that WORK.
Now we have to revise all of that, and yet in many ways we are also guilty. If you don't believe it review your history...
We have a great deal of looking inward to do.
Not that it's any justification for putting up with a bunch of crap and threats from anywhere else in the meantime!
And I STILL want to see Bin Laden hanging from a tree.
Last edited by Greywolf; Feb 8, 2003 at 11:51 AM.
As has often been said, there are no non-combatants in wartime. The general population, by choice or by force, are suppliers of the logistical requirements for any armed force. Ford was especially distressed by the unrestrained carpet bombing of Germany during WWII using conventional and incendiary explosives. Not for humanitarian reasons, but because his investment was being damaged.
I think you'll find little heart-felt sympathy from the majority of political leaders about abuse to civilian populations. Those positions are attained by sheer application of money and power, and often by force against their own countrymen. Not exactly a mindset that offers much room for empathy or sympathy. Armed forces are, as the saying goes, just doing their jobs as directed by those to whom they pledge allegiance.
Who do you blame? The leaders or the citizens who, for whatever rationalization, follow their direction? Chicken or egg?
Before WII, most people disliked or had a low opinion of Jews, blacks had to ride in the back of the bus, and women were not suppose to work and were considered vastly inferior in all aspects to men, except at making babies. If you think Henry Ford was any different in his opinions than 80% of the males in the country at the time, you are mistaken, imo. You might as well condemn all our grandfathers at the same time.
Though you can bet most American males when they walked into Hilter's death camps had a profound change of opinion and heart, that set things into motion decades later.
If we are lucky, in 60 years, "enlighten" people will look back aghast at the "normal" and "pc" things we allow in our society now.




