2006-09-04 01:25:20 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
At that time, there was a big split in the United States. Many people believed Hitler was what was needed in Germany and in the US. Some of these people were big heroes. They were fascists, or Nazis. Some people could see Hitler was going to be a big problem if not stopped soon. Some people didn't vote or listen to the news. They were apathetic. Does this sound familiar? The fascists, with the help of the apathetics kept the US out of the war for quite a while. This is why it is important to vote.
2006-09-04 01:36:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
From our viewpoint in time, yes it is. In 1938 it should have been the same. By this time it was fairly clear that the Nazis were a nasty organisation. The 'Night of the Long Knives' when Hitler purged the 'brown shirts' from his own party took place in 1934. The infamous "Krystal Nacht" when the shops and homes owned by Jewish people had their windows smashed took place in November 1938, just to name a couple of examples. My grandfather always said that the common feeling in Britain was that there was going to be another war when Hitler seized power in 1933.
Not all of what Hitler was about was well known to most people who were perhaps not as well informed as they could have been. To many he was seen as someone who had pulled Germany out of the hyper inflation years and restored the country to some kind of prosperity and order. I assume that most of the voters in this case (if there were a vote for this title) would be American. Perhaps the rise of Hitler didn't seem as menacing to them being so far away, than it did to most in Europe.
2006-09-04 01:46:38 · answer #2 · answered by keefer 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because America at that time in history was not concerned by Hilters threat of war that was looming over Europe. Therefore TIME magazine did not have the insight to know that Hitler was man with his own agenda and one who would go down in history as a tyrant. No they bestowed this accolade in all innocence.
Hitler must have thought when he was awarded this title that he would have an Allie in the American people otherwise why would he have attempted to conquer Europe at all? Other than he was a megalomaniac and a wicked man.
2006-09-04 01:44:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Time Magazine Man of the Year award is given to the person the magazine editors believed was most influential in world events during that year. Influential in either a negative or positive way.
It is not a popularity contest as many people believe!
2006-09-04 01:37:27 · answer #4 · answered by Bad M 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why would that be a disgrace? Man of the year award goes to whoever in the world affected the news the most - for good or bad. OBL should have won it for 2001 but instead it was Mayor Juliani (sp?). That was rediculous - of course OBL affected the news a lot more than Juliani. I can't even spell his name...
2006-09-04 01:29:23 · answer #5 · answered by Andy J 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
My heavens, I in no way have been flashed, yet I did accidentally flash some persons as quickly as. i grew to become into interior the well-being facility it sluggish back and desperate to take a stoll to the merchandising section. nicely, I wasn't thinking approximately what i grew to become into wearing and, enable's only say that those well-being facility robes do not leave lots to the mind's eye on the backside. The nurse got here up from at the back of me and placed a blanket over my shoulders . . . i grew to become into questioning why it grew to become right into a touch drafty back there!
2016-10-01 07:17:18 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Time does not always pick Mr. Nice Guy to be the Man of the Year.
There have been other slimeballs chosen, and the articles in the magazine, usually very unflattering, explain why.
2006-09-04 01:31:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well; that was before World War II and he had brought Germany out of a recession. But it's still a tad weird and a bad judgement call (With 20/20 retrovision)
2006-09-04 01:27:19 · answer #8 · answered by Felidae 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah I heard that.
The "Man of the Year" title doesn't mean "Most Favorable Man of the Year" though. It doesn't mean they agreed with his politics.
I think they choose people who are always in the news. They've had a few weird ones over the years. A few years ago that had one that wasn't even a real person.
2006-09-04 01:43:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
at that time he wasnt all wacked out. if he was man of the year in TIME magazine after 1938 during WWII that would be crazy.
2006-09-04 01:28:05 · answer #10 · answered by crackalac 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋