Image from 2017 Nov/Dec Time magazine
Clearing out a cupboard the other day, I perchance found a Time magazine featuring ‘The 25 best inventions of 2017’ amongst which was a Tesla Model 3. That year Tesla manufactured 100,757 cars. Production thereafter was exponential until 2024:
Indeed, Tesla once enjoyed the lion’s share of the UK electric car industry which, as the table below shows, continues to grow very quickly.
(Key – BEV: battery electric vehicle; PHEV: plug-in electric vehicle.)
But, as we all know, after peaking some ten weeks ago, Tesla shares lost more than 50% of their value wiping out some $800 million in market capitalization. This is, of course, entirely consequent on the widespread global rejection of Elon Musks’s engagement with right wing politics.
Musk is of course not the first car manufacturing magnate to so dally: Ferdinand Porsche joined the Nazi Party in 1937 and, ultimately, the SS where he held the rank of Oberführer. His support for Nazi ideology and goals no doubt led to him being commissioned to develop the prototype for the “Volkswagen”.
Louis Renault’s engagement with fascism was more complex: yes, his factories did cooperate with the Vichy government in producing some 34,232 vehicles for the Nazis, but he claimed his collaboration was forced, despite his visit to meet Hitler in 1938.
Andre Citroen died in 1935 but, in stark contrast to Renault, the Citroen company’s wartime president, Pierre-Jules Boulanger, was involved in multiple acts of resistance which included hiding the concept drawings for project VGD (forerunner of the extraordinarily futurist DS19) until after the war.
Three images showing the evolution of Flaminio Bertonis’ designs from project VGD to the DS19 just prior to production
One of his best-known acts of sabotage was as ingenious as it was simple: Every new T45 military truck sent to the German army carried a special dipstick on which the notches misrepresented the engine oil’s true level. Thus, German mechanics, deceived when servicing the trucks, failed to top up the oil causing engines to seize with grim regularity, leaving troops and supplies stranded.
Citroen T45 military truck and ‘dipstick’ sabotage.
Over in the USA Henry Ford’s engagement with the Nazis, unlike that of Renault, was entirely voluntary. In 1918, he acquired his hometown newspaper, The Dearborn Independent, and began publishing antisemitic articles (91 in total) through which he claimed that a vast Jewish conspiracy was ‘infecting America’. Incorporated into four volumes, some half a million copies were distributed through his widespread network of dealerships and subscribers. As American historian Hasia Diner has pointed out, Ford effectively legitimized ideas that otherwise may have been given little authority:
‘Henry Ford’s ability to gain a national audience with his words made him a very dangerous person.’
Amongst those influenced by Ford was Hitler who was so impressed that, according to author Brad Hart, he sought to help ‘Heinrich Ford become the leader ….of the American fascist movement’. Timothy Rybach’s fascinating book ‘Hitler’s Private Library: Books that Shaped his Life’ reveals that, while in prison following the failed 1923 Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler’s reading of Ford’s book ‘The International Jew’ had considerable influence on his draft for ‘Mein Kampf’. Ford’s acceptance, in 1938, of the ‘Grand Cross of the German Eagle’ is further evidence of the mutual respect and considerable empathy that had developed between Ford and the Fuhrer.
Back in England, William Morris, founder of Morris Motors Ltd. and later Lord Nuffield, was also heavily involved in supporting the fascists, despite his reputation as a philanthropist and major benefactor of healthcare, medical research and education: he gave Oswald Moseley £35,000 to help fund his pro fascist and antisemitic newspaper called Action and £50,000 to fund his party – respectively some £3.3 and £4.7 million today!
Hitler’s rejection of modern art and architecture in favour of classical styling was of course well known, and, whilst not wishing to suggest any fascist leaning on the part of President Trump, it is notable that he too has recently issued a directive in favour of classical architecture.
In a rambling 2,537 word order which, surprisingly, contains references to Robert Adam, John Soane and Sir Christopher Wren (you can see it here: https://search.app/LjX6zeVuSNCNoCAc8) the incoming president has instructed, at sub-section 2(a) that: ‘….In the District of Columbia, classical architecture shall be the preferred and default architecture for Federal public buildings….’
There is clearly a conflict between the common favouring, on the part of car manufacturing barons, towards political causes that routinely advocate classical traditions in both art and design with their own, essentially optimistic, commitment to inventive design and innovative design language.
Clues to this reside in the architectures that these magnates have both chosen and commissioned.
Lord Nuffield was involved in many disputes over the architectural language of his projects. In 1939 he threatened withdraw funding Nuffield College project unless the design which he described as ‘un-English and out of keeping with the best tradition of Oxford architecture’ was revised. The hapless architect, Austen Harrison, attempted to satisfy Nuffield’s desire for ‘something on the lines of Cotswold domestic architecture’ with a second scheme, only to receive harsh criticism from his peers which included comments such as ‘Oxford’s biggest monument to barren reaction’, the ‘most notable architectural casualty of the 1930s’ and ‘a missed opportunity to show that Oxford did not live only in the past’. Simon Jenkins more recently quipped that ‘vegetation was its best hope’.
Left: The Tower variously described as exciting, mighty, ungainly clumsy and grotesque. Right: one of the quadrangles.
Henry Ford, who more so even than Morris, committed his life to the ruthless pursuit of efficiency and cost cutting in every stage and aspect of production, was also a major philanthropist giving away some 33% of his life’s income….the average for his tax bracket was 5%.
Two of his projects are of particular interest in terms of their respective architectures: the Henry Ford Museum designed by architect Robert O. Derrick, its main façade borrowing heavily from the Georgian style of Independence Hall in Philadelphia, and the Henry Ford Hospital opened in 1915 and designed by a consortium of architects led by Albert Kahn. (Oft referred to as the ‘architect of Detroit’ having designed some 900 buildings in the city – Kahn would work extensively for Ford building plants and offices for his company as far afield as Copenhagen.)
Henry Ford Hospital – Detroit
So, if Elon Musk follows hard in the traditions of Morris and Ford with respect to his ruthless commitment to manufacturing efficiencies, his engagement with right wing politics, and his contempt for organised labour, what, if anything do we know of his architectural preferences?
Well, in terms of charitable architectural philanthropy, next to nothing for the simple reason that, as confirmed by Alan Cantor (a frequent contributor to the Chronicle of Philanthropy and Philanthropy Daily), Musk’s charitable impact has been (little) ‘more than negligible’ so not much guidance available there. A better picture emerges through investigation of the homes that he has purchased. Albeit developed by others, these indicate that his architectural tastes are both cautious and traditional.
But surprise, surprise, look below at the house that Musk recently had designed in the Dolomite Mountains:
Elon Musk’s proposed villa in Trentino-Alto Adige
In November 2023 he apparently (through an intermediary) selected BlueArch architects from Bolzano in Italy as his architect. A brief look at another of its luxury mountain house projects is indicative of that practice’s bold commitment to, and fascination with, architectures of tomorrow on the part of founders Allessandro Costanza and Alberto Montesi. That project can be found here: https://search.app/HTkNr2Vc1CKE5pY46. Musk clearly chose his architect carefully!
Although it has been shelved Constanza claimed that ‘Musk liked the project’ adding ‘since the news about Elon, it’s like a bomb has exploded: everyone is looking for us.’
What a surprise – I hope they got their fees while Musk still had money!