The Ship Model Forum

by **Werner** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 8:17 pm

Growing up I knew a number of senior men of Jewish faith who simply refused to own or ride in a Ford. Then I learned why.

It wasn't just anti-union activities at Ford. Henry actively supported anti-semitism in the 1930s and supported Hitler's crowd before the war.

by **Lesforan** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 6:28 pm

Wow!

1938 was pretty late to be cozying up to the Nazis. I'm rather surprised that the medal is on display at the Ford Museum.

Certainly neither Ford nor GM had any reservations about selling their cars to Jews. I wonder how sales would have been if the American public and American Jews in particular were aware of this schmoozing.

Ford's anti-semetic views were apparent as far back as the 1920's, when he financed the publication of some virulently anti-Jewish tracts. Apparently his products were popular with the Nazis. I have seen many photos of SA-types being driven around in Ford trucks.

Germany was a "stopper" for "Asian Communism", but the time to cultivate US-German ties to exploit this was long before 1938. By 1938 Hitler was cozying up to Stalin, and had revealed the true nature of his political program.

by **Werner** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:51 pm

The Third Reich.

Understand, the 1920s and 1930s were very different times, with Communism on the march, Britain trending left and unofficial America left with the feeling she had few real friends in the world... sound familiar?

Wikipedia wrote:In July 1938, prior to the outbreak of war, the German consul at Cleveland gave Ford, on his 75th birthday, the award of the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, the highest medal that Nazi Germany could bestow on a foreigner, while James D. Mooney, vice-president of overseas operations for General Motors, received a similar medal, the Merit Cross of the German Eagle, First Class.

Wikipedia wrote:The American Axis, written by Holocaust researcher and investigative journalist Max Wallace, takes a harsh view of Lindbergh's pre-war actions, agreeing with Franklin Roosevelt's assessment that Lindbergh was "pro-Nazi". However, Wallace finds that the Roosevelt Administration's accusations of dual loyalty or treason are unsubstantiated.

Greatest American Aviator in history denied an active role in WW.II. Interesting....

Lindbergh's two awards:

Congressional Medal of Honor

For displaying heroic courage and skill as a navigator, at the risk of his life, by his nonstop flight in his airplane, the "Spirit of St. Louis," from New York City to Paris, France, May 20-21, 1927, by which Capt. Lindbergh not only achieved the greatest individual triumph of any American citizen but demonstrated that travel across the ocean by aircraft was possible.

Service Cross of the German Eagle

(I realize this is the same medal shown above for Henry Ford, but this is the way it is denoted in Wikipedia (probably wrongly).

A number of influential Americans saw Germany, rightly or wrongly, as a "stopper" for "Asiatic Communism", and felt that it would be possible to tame Hitler's more outrageous positions with money and influence. Some, like Ford did not hold views dissonant with Hitler on anti-Semitism.

by **Lesforan** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:48 pm

Werner,

Who awarded that to Henry Ford?

by **Werner** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:17 pm

Getting back to France, I would like to point out that they had an impressive number of ships still under construction in 1918, and with the release of the shipwrights from the front (talk about a ludicrous draft policy), they could have had a reasonable force by 1922. Meanwhile, they discussed and debated and deliberated and in the end nothing was done.

Fortunately for France, George Leygues and Francois Petric were able to create a first-class navy by the late '30s. What a shame they were let down by their national leaders.

I think given the internal political situation in France, a carefully guided German policy, perhaps with the aid of sympathetic America, (remember, Charles Lindbergh was openly pro-Nazi, and Henry Ford was awarded the "Great Order of the German Eagle") could have circumvented the Versailles treaty and left Weimar Germany in the hands of MODERATES by the mid 1930s.

Even if France felt provoked, and occupied the Rhineland, it would be their equivalent of the "West Bank", and they would have withdrawn in months. It probably would also have required the recall, transport and sustenance of Colonial troops from Africa, which would be politically untenable.

Henry Ford's decoration at the Ford Museum

by **Werner** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:15 pm

Chuck wrote:
Werner wrote: Not so. The emergency anti-Kamikaze refit of 1945 would have landed the aft 5 tubes on the last three classes in favor of Bofors (March 45) or twin 3-inch (November 1945).Although the 1650 ton and earlier ships were supposed to have had a similar refit in 43/4, battle damage photos of Morris at Kerama Retto show all 8 tubes in place.

Scale and intensity of air attack faced by surface ships in the pacific is on a different order of magnitude than those seen, or imagined, in Europe. Both British and Germans would be aghast at the sort of air attacks experienced by USN and IJN. German naval air defense is in particular lagging sadly not just in providing the means, but in lack of consciousness about the need. Even monster H-44 design only provided for a fraction of AA artillery present on pacific cruisers. The Germans were still thinking of air defense as defense against a few aircraft, each trying to deliver a magic bullet bomb to penetrate the deck armor, instead of swarms of hundreds of aircraft fighting close and dirty.

Nimitz, I believe, wrote to ask for a different kind of AA weapon because his ships were becoming platforms for hundreds of guns served by thousands of men, yet these guns had at most 5,000 yards range and were utterly defensive in nature. They called the result project "Bumblebee", and the current ship to air system is a product of this essentially uninterrupted program.

The flight decks of August show over 100 aircraft aboard, only 15 or so as dedicated attack planes. 85+ fighters per Essex!

by **chuck** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:54 pm

Timmy C wrote:
JWintjes wrote:

I agree with Chuck... shudder...

Jorit
Which begs the question: Savoir ou connaitre?

Savoir

by **Jefgte** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:51 pm

Hmmm... perhaps

200T Schnellboot

4TTx533+2x37+2x20 - 40kts

Jef

by **chuck** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:50 pm

JWintjes wrote:
Werner wrote:I don't see much more room in this thread unless you relax your strangling Versailles restrictions.
Of course; I think, however, the 200 ton torpedo boats might be interesting to further explore.

Jorit

How about going to the Allies and offering to trade 6 10000 tons ships for 2 30000 ton ships? Instead of renewed every 25 years, renewed every 15 years?

by **JWintjes** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:43 pm

Werner wrote:I don't see much more room in this thread unless you relax your strangling Versailles restrictions.

Of course; I think, however, the 200 ton torpedo boats might be interesting to further explore.

Jorit

by **Timmy C** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:43 pm

JWintjes wrote:
Anonymous wrote:You don't know the French.

I agree with Chuck... shudder...

Jorit

Which begs the question: Savoir ou connaitre?

by **JWintjes** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:41 pm

Anonymous wrote: German naval air defense is in particular lagging sadly not just in providing the means, but in lack of consciousness about the need. Even monster H-44 design only provided for a fraction of AA artillery present on pacific cruisers. The Germans were still thinking of air defense as defense against a few aircraft, each trying to deliver a magic bullet bomb to penetrate the deck armor, instead of swarms of hundreds of aircraft fighting close and dirty.

This view of German warship design is far too narrow in that it almost completely focusses on capital ship design, which after the Bismarcks was essentially a collection of drawing-board exercises which increasingly had the prevention of design people being drafted into the Wehrmacht at its main aim.

German destroyer and torpedoboat design was different; German destroyers packed an considerable AA punch at the end of the war, the main problem being that they lacked behind in fire control.

Jorit

by **JWintjes** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:38 pm

Anonymous wrote:You don't know the French.

I agree with Chuck... shudder...

Jorit

by **Guest** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 5:16 pm

Werner wrote: Not so. The emergency anti-Kamikaze refit of 1945 would have landed the aft 5 tubes on the last three classes in favor of Bofors (March 45) or twin 3-inch (November 1945).Although the 1650 ton and earlier ships were supposed to have had a similar refit in 43/4, battle damage photos of Morris at Kerama Retto show all 8 tubes in place.

Scale and intensity of air attack faced by surface ships in the pacific is on a different order of magnitude than those seen, or imagined, in Europe. Both British and Germans would be aghast at the sort of air attacks experienced by USN and IJN. German naval air defense is in particular lagging sadly not just in providing the means, but in lack of consciousness about the need. Even monster H-44 design only provided for a fraction of AA artillery present on pacific cruisers. The Germans were still thinking of air defense as defense against a few aircraft, each trying to deliver a magic bullet bomb to penetrate the deck armor, instead of swarms of hundreds of aircraft fighting close and dirty.

by **Guest** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 5:00 pm

You don't know the French.

by **Werner** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 4:36 pm

I don't see much more room in this thread unless you relax your strangling Versailles restrictions. If I know the French, sure they hate the Bosch, but they would be too busy arguing and pamphleteering and so on to actually get anything done.

by **JWintjes** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:56 pm

Anonymous wrote:
Uhem.

I said they couldn't deal with anything more powerful than a corvette, such as any destroyer. Which, incidentally, other people prefer to the torpedo boats.

So, for you there is nothing in between a corvette and a destroyer?

Incidentally, other people weren't forced to heed to a max 800 tons regulation...

Jorit

by **Werner** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:46 pm

Anonymous wrote:
JWintjes wrote: Good point - with which one can consign the torpedo-carrying destroyer outright into the bin. If I remember correctly nearly everyone traded one tube for additional gun armament at some point or other.

Jorit

Not everyone. Most modern USN and IJN destroyers kept all of their main guns and both banks of torpedo tubes and made other sacrifices for additional AA.

Not so. The emergency anti-Kamikaze refit of 1945 would have landed the aft 5 tubes on the last three classes in favor of Bofors (March 45) or twin 3-inch (November 1945).Although the 1650 ton and earlier ships were supposed to have had a similar refit in 43/4, battle damage photos of Morris at Kerama Retto show all 8 tubes in place.

by **Guest** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:31 pm

bengtsson wrote:When it comes to warships , you want "Looks that Can Kill".

But looks aren't everything in a relationship.

Bob B.

Beauty has been known to launch a thousand ships, but none has yet been accused of sinking a thousand ships.

by **Guest** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:18 pm

JWintjes wrote: Good point - with which one can consign the torpedo-carrying destroyer outright into the bin. If I remember correctly nearly everyone traded one tube for additional gun armament at some point or other.

Jorit

Not everyone. Most modern USN and IJN destroyers kept all of their main guns and both banks of torpedo tubes and made other sacrifices for additional AA.

The Ship Model Forum

Germany 1922 - what would you do?

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Germany 1922 - what would you do?

Nazi Medal

Nazi Award