Quick synopsis: 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.
The Inside Story: Ford, General Motors, and the Nazis
Dear readers and other visitors to this website,
I intended to write my book solely concentrating on the patriotism of Ford and General Motors during World War II but my plans were altered causing me to emphasize how Marxist ideology combined with sensationalism has smeared Ford and GM. The book was conceived as a PhD in history dissertation for Central Michigan University (CMU). Almost from its inception my advisor, Eric Johnson, attempted to force me to libel the Ford Motor Company. He ordered me to accuse Ford of betraying the United States during World War II using falsehoods based on the faulty implications of sensationalist journalists. I attack some of those implications regarding the nature of Henry Ford's anti-Semitism, the loyalty of Charles Lindbergh to the United States, Willow Run's production, and Ford Cologne's management team in my book. Mr. Johnson wanted me to also state that Ford killed a former forced laborer at its Cologne subsidiary in 2003 to shut her up. However, the trial resolving Ford Cologne's forced labor was conducted in the late 1990s and the issue apparently settled making Mr. Johnson's claim faulty at best. His plan was to either take what he had me do to get published or use it for his next book to attack various entities. Most likely Mr. Johnson wanted to impress the journalists I note in my book along with historians such as Claudia Koontz. Koontz visited CMU in 2010 as a guest of Mr. Johnson. She is well-known for her role in the Group of 88. This group of professors at Duke University implied members of the Duke Lacrosse team (mostly white men) were guilty of raping a (black) stripper in 2006 in an apparent attempt to paint America as a racist nation. Later, the full story came out and the men were exonerated. The dissertation also appeared to be a loyalty test of sorts. Would I lie to promote a point of view?
From late 2010 until December 2012 I sought to explain what was wrong with the falsehoods he wanted me to use for the dissertation but I was always shouted down. When I initially voiced my concerns about what Mr. Johnson ordered me to write in 2010, he informed me that I could write whatever anyone else had written regardless if it was true or not. I responded by telling him I will not lie and he told me not to tell all the truth. From then on he pressured me to imply his falsehoods. He tried blackmailing me in early 2012 by making statements such as; he was against me teaching a class until I graduated, I would not graduate until I made him happy, and I had to "get Ford." This was one of his worst actions because he knew I needed the experience teaching in order to pursue my dream of becoming a tenured history professor. He also knew of my desperation to get started on a career. Experience is pretty much necessary for teaching history when you attend a university like CMU since more prominent schools have plenty of students to fill society's needs. The increased use of adjunct faculty makes it even more difficult for someone from CMU to find suitable employment. The entire time Mr. Johnson was my advisor I was denied the opportunity to teach while younger students, nowhere near as far along in the PhD process as I was, had the opportunity to teach for CMU. When confronted he claimed the reason I was not given that chance was because he does not believe in letting students teach during the dissertation process. However, Mr. Johnson's students before and after myself had that opportunity during the process.
In order to force me to smear Ford, Mr. Johnson also tried bullying me into compliance while at his house, where I was forced to go for appointments. There he behaved in an aggressive or out of control manner. By 2012, Mr. Johnson would conduct these meetings in various stages of undress and let it be known that he could do anything he wanted to me if I wanted to graduate. He felt so comfortable that I've seen him in his underwear ("white" briefs). At one meeting Mr. Johnson implied he was going to physically assault me because I noted he was spreading falsehoods about Mount Pleasant Community Church. The church is a large, formerly Presbyterian, Church that Mr. Johnson frequently stated conducted its services in tongues - which is not true. He possibly spread this rumor in an attempt to smear a colleague he enjoyed mocking because the man attended the church. Mr. Johnson also enjoyed telling people this colleague was a homophobe but that the colleague's son was a homosexual (not the word Mr. Johnson uses) and making crass unsubstantiated commentary about the young man's supposed love life.
When I complained about my treatment to history department leaders in January 2013, I was told to apologize to Mr. Johnson and treated as though my complaint was the problem. The method I used to draw attention to my complaint was to forward them an e-mail he sent me where he stated Henry Ford was a supporter of Hitler during World War II along with some of his other falsehoods. It also included my response, which detailed some of the things he did to me and pointed out some of his errors. My book fulfills the promise that I made to uncover the falsehoods Mr. Johnson wanted me to repeat. I tried reasoning with the history department and the Dean's office even following various directives to a point in order to demonstrate a willingness to be fair minded toward their position. This was despite those directives being worded as though Mr. Johnson's behavior was acceptable. Unfortunately, in their opinion Mr. Johnson had the right to force me to write whatever he wants whether it is true or not. It also did not matter to them what he did to me at his house or the various damages inflicted upon me as a result of this issue. They made excuses for his actions and tried to get me to work with him by directing me to apologize and wait a few months before begging him to take me back. At first I wanted to believe this was mere oversight, but my guess is history department leaders did not want to deal with Mr. Johnson being angry with them since he had a lot of power in the department. CMU would also like to avoid admitting its negligence in monitoring an employee's behavior.
Since I refused to let them sweep me under the rug despite months of delays and bureaucratic shuffling, CMU finally started conducting an "investigation" in August 2013. Various tactics by school officials suggested they could not be trusted to handle my complaint but I tried working with them anyway. For instance, by phone, Kathy Lasher from the schools "Office of Civil Rights and Institutional Equality (OCRIE)" told me I could still be forced to work with the obviously hostile Mr. Johnson after her "investigation." It's noteworthy that university officials were a lot kinder via e-mail than by phone or in person. They also tried to do everything in person costing a great deal of money for an unemployed student who had to travel to meet with them. I received a number of excuses in an apparent attempt to delay matters and make me quit. These are not the activities of an organization that is interested in doing what is right, but rather a cover-up and mistreatment of a whistle-blower.
In September 2013, Ms. Lasher's "investigation findings" confirmed my worst fears about CMU. She outright lied about aspects of my dissertation and complaint. Ms. Lasher also didn't use the list of witnesses to Mr. Johnson's behaviors I gave her. Instead she merely relied on his word and ignored parts of my complaint such as my being forced to go to his house for meetings. Likewise, she lied about what I said in my meetings with her along with matter in e-mail exchanges and documents pertinent to this issue - all of which I can demonstrate. Some e-mails or parts of e-mails proving Mr. Johnson wrong were outright ignored. In short, Ms. Lasher falsified records rather than behaving impartially. The so-called "findings" also demonstrated that Mr. Johnson was backing away from his positions regarding Ford. This retreat was something he started in January 2013 when it was clear I was not going to write what he ordered no matter what he did to me. It would not be surprising for someone to have told him that his claims were ridiculous and would make the school look bad. I was denied an appeal of Ms. Lasher's "findings" because I wrote the school that I was protesting the "findings" rather than stating I was appealing the ruling. Of course, the school waited for the period of appeal to be over before using that as the reason. CMU officials then effectively kicked me out of school, claiming it was because I had not turned in a draft of sufficient quality to a dissertation committee. It was probably really because of my complaint which I had by then sent to CMU president George Ross, the CMU Board of Trustees, and the State of Michigan House Higher Education Appropriations Subcommittee.
This case is an example of what is happening at universities around the United States. For example, Florida Atlantic University attempted to discipline a student who complained about a college professor forcing students to step on the word "Jesus" as a sign of disrespect. A portion of the media actually paid attention to the story and the student received a false measure of justice - by being "allowed" to retake the course. There are plenty of other examples of what is wrong with the American college system, largely controlled by various activists using their positions to bully students or even faculty who question their propaganda. This issue effects the entire American education system because students must either accept various untruths as fact or feign acceptance in order to receive a degree. What type of future educators are we creating? Likewise, why trust a historian that decided what to conclude before researching the material? It should be noted that CMU had various problems throughout 2013. Some professors were charged with crimes related to child pornography and another professor was charged with embezzlement. The university has a history of being out of control and poorly managed.
I hope to combat this problem by bringing attention to the matter. Please help me end the various injustices by contacting offending universities presidents and boards of trustees to let them know you do not want to support those institutions in any manner. That includes sending your children elsewhere, refusing to donate money, and writing your state representatives to have them cut funding to offending institutions. Why should tax dollars go to subsidize this problem?
Scott Nehmer
[email protected]
As a note: I have not provided the whole complaint because it could harm various innocent individuals.
Dear readers and other visitors to this website,
I intended to write my book solely concentrating on the patriotism of Ford and General Motors during World War II but my plans were altered causing me to emphasize how Marxist ideology combined with sensationalism has smeared Ford and GM. The book was conceived as a PhD in history dissertation for Central Michigan University (CMU). Almost from its inception my advisor, Eric Johnson, attempted to force me to libel the Ford Motor Company. He ordered me to accuse Ford of betraying the United States during World War II using falsehoods based on the faulty implications of sensationalist journalists. I attack some of those implications regarding the nature of Henry Ford's anti-Semitism, the loyalty of Charles Lindbergh to the United States, Willow Run's production, and Ford Cologne's management team in my book. Mr. Johnson wanted me to also state that Ford killed a former forced laborer at its Cologne subsidiary in 2003 to shut her up. However, the trial resolving Ford Cologne's forced labor was conducted in the late 1990s and the issue apparently settled making Mr. Johnson's claim faulty at best. His plan was to either take what he had me do to get published or use it for his next book to attack various entities. Most likely Mr. Johnson wanted to impress the journalists I note in my book along with historians such as Claudia Koontz. Koontz visited CMU in 2010 as a guest of Mr. Johnson. She is well-known for her role in the Group of 88. This group of professors at Duke University implied members of the Duke Lacrosse team (mostly white men) were guilty of raping a (black) stripper in 2006 in an apparent attempt to paint America as a racist nation. Later, the full story came out and the men were exonerated. The dissertation also appeared to be a loyalty test of sorts. Would I lie to promote a point of view?
From late 2010 until December 2012 I sought to explain what was wrong with the falsehoods he wanted me to use for the dissertation but I was always shouted down. When I initially voiced my concerns about what Mr. Johnson ordered me to write in 2010, he informed me that I could write whatever anyone else had written regardless if it was true or not. I responded by telling him I will not lie and he told me not to tell all the truth. From then on he pressured me to imply his falsehoods. He tried blackmailing me in early 2012 by making statements such as; he was against me teaching a class until I graduated, I would not graduate until I made him happy, and I had to "get Ford." This was one of his worst actions because he knew I needed the experience teaching in order to pursue my dream of becoming a tenured history professor. He also knew of my desperation to get started on a career. Experience is pretty much necessary for teaching history when you attend a university like CMU since more prominent schools have plenty of students to fill society's needs. The increased use of adjunct faculty makes it even more difficult for someone from CMU to find suitable employment. The entire time Mr. Johnson was my advisor I was denied the opportunity to teach while younger students, nowhere near as far along in the PhD process as I was, had the opportunity to teach for CMU. When confronted he claimed the reason I was not given that chance was because he does not believe in letting students teach during the dissertation process. However, Mr. Johnson's students before and after myself had that opportunity during the process.
In order to force me to smear Ford, Mr. Johnson also tried bullying me into compliance while at his house, where I was forced to go for appointments. There he behaved in an aggressive or out of control manner. By 2012, Mr. Johnson would conduct these meetings in various stages of undress and let it be known that he could do anything he wanted to me if I wanted to graduate. He felt so comfortable that I've seen him in his underwear ("white" briefs). At one meeting Mr. Johnson implied he was going to physically assault me because I noted he was spreading falsehoods about Mount Pleasant Community Church. The church is a large, formerly Presbyterian, Church that Mr. Johnson frequently stated conducted its services in tongues - which is not true. He possibly spread this rumor in an attempt to smear a colleague he enjoyed mocking because the man attended the church. Mr. Johnson also enjoyed telling people this colleague was a homophobe but that the colleague's son was a homosexual (not the word Mr. Johnson uses) and making crass unsubstantiated commentary about the young man's supposed love life.
When I complained about my treatment to history department leaders in January 2013, I was told to apologize to Mr. Johnson and treated as though my complaint was the problem. The method I used to draw attention to my complaint was to forward them an e-mail he sent me where he stated Henry Ford was a supporter of Hitler during World War II along with some of his other falsehoods. It also included my response, which detailed some of the things he did to me and pointed out some of his errors. My book fulfills the promise that I made to uncover the falsehoods Mr. Johnson wanted me to repeat. I tried reasoning with the history department and the Dean's office even following various directives to a point in order to demonstrate a willingness to be fair minded toward their position. This was despite those directives being worded as though Mr. Johnson's behavior was acceptable. Unfortunately, in their opinion Mr. Johnson had the right to force me to write whatever he wants whether it is true or not. It also did not matter to them what he did to me at his house or the various damages inflicted upon me as a result of this issue. They made excuses for his actions and tried to get me to work with him by directing me to apologize and wait a few months before begging him to take me back. At first I wanted to believe this was mere oversight, but my guess is history department leaders did not want to deal with Mr. Johnson being angry with them since he had a lot of power in the department. CMU would also like to avoid admitting its negligence in monitoring an employee's behavior.
Since I refused to let them sweep me under the rug despite months of delays and bureaucratic shuffling, CMU finally started conducting an "investigation" in August 2013. Various tactics by school officials suggested they could not be trusted to handle my complaint but I tried working with them anyway. For instance, by phone, Kathy Lasher from the schools "Office of Civil Rights and Institutional Equality (OCRIE)" told me I could still be forced to work with the obviously hostile Mr. Johnson after her "investigation." It's noteworthy that university officials were a lot kinder via e-mail than by phone or in person. They also tried to do everything in person costing a great deal of money for an unemployed student who had to travel to meet with them. I received a number of excuses in an apparent attempt to delay matters and make me quit. These are not the activities of an organization that is interested in doing what is right, but rather a cover-up and mistreatment of a whistle-blower.
In September 2013, Ms. Lasher's "investigation findings" confirmed my worst fears about CMU. She outright lied about aspects of my dissertation and complaint. Ms. Lasher also didn't use the list of witnesses to Mr. Johnson's behaviors I gave her. Instead she merely relied on his word and ignored parts of my complaint such as my being forced to go to his house for meetings. Likewise, she lied about what I said in my meetings with her along with matter in e-mail exchanges and documents pertinent to this issue - all of which I can demonstrate. Some e-mails or parts of e-mails proving Mr. Johnson wrong were outright ignored. In short, Ms. Lasher falsified records rather than behaving impartially. The so-called "findings" also demonstrated that Mr. Johnson was backing away from his positions regarding Ford. This retreat was something he started in January 2013 when it was clear I was not going to write what he ordered no matter what he did to me. It would not be surprising for someone to have told him that his claims were ridiculous and would make the school look bad. I was denied an appeal of Ms. Lasher's "findings" because I wrote the school that I was protesting the "findings" rather than stating I was appealing the ruling. Of course, the school waited for the period of appeal to be over before using that as the reason. CMU officials then effectively kicked me out of school, claiming it was because I had not turned in a draft of sufficient quality to a dissertation committee. It was probably really because of my complaint which I had by then sent to CMU president George Ross, the CMU Board of Trustees, and the State of Michigan House Higher Education Appropriations Subcommittee.
This case is an example of what is happening at universities around the United States. For example, Florida Atlantic University attempted to discipline a student who complained about a college professor forcing students to step on the word "Jesus" as a sign of disrespect. A portion of the media actually paid attention to the story and the student received a false measure of justice - by being "allowed" to retake the course. There are plenty of other examples of what is wrong with the American college system, largely controlled by various activists using their positions to bully students or even faculty who question their propaganda. This issue effects the entire American education system because students must either accept various untruths as fact or feign acceptance in order to receive a degree. What type of future educators are we creating? Likewise, why trust a historian that decided what to conclude before researching the material? It should be noted that CMU had various problems throughout 2013. Some professors were charged with crimes related to child pornography and another professor was charged with embezzlement. The university has a history of being out of control and poorly managed.
I hope to combat this problem by bringing attention to the matter. Please help me end the various injustices by contacting offending universities presidents and boards of trustees to let them know you do not want to support those institutions in any manner. That includes sending your children elsewhere, refusing to donate money, and writing your state representatives to have them cut funding to offending institutions. Why should tax dollars go to subsidize this problem?
Scott Nehmer
[email protected]
As a note: I have not provided the whole complaint because it could harm various innocent individuals.