2007-11-01 14:42:39 · 14 answers · asked by Lord of all Earth 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Time has a long history of choosing friendly dictators and calling them "Man of the Year" - and vilifying and Socialist or Communist leaders, and calling them "dictators." This is just one good example for the former, for the latter - see the Time cover that vilified the Sandinsta leader of Nicaragua - Daniel Ortega.
Daniel Ortega is currently the President of Nicaragua - it is the second time he has been elected democratically to serve as President. This says something about the Editors of Time.
2007-11-01 16:44:45 · answer #1 · answered by WMD 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Aside from the fact that man of the decade is not always a good man, Hitler had the German economy in great shape, and this during the depression. Germany had unprecedented lows in unemployment and a booming economy. He was also creating waves at that time with his expansion policies and desire to conquer Europe. As pointed out, WWII had not started and the atrocities of the holocaust had not occurred or were not yet know. He could have been named man of the decade because of the influence he had on the world at the time was greater than anyone else, including FDR.
2007-11-02 04:13:51 · answer #2 · answered by Spartan316 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Time's Man of the Decade is not neccessarily awarded to the greatest or most benevolent man they can find, but to the most influential and significant person of the decade. I think it's farily obvious that Hitler was both influential and, of course, significant in many ways. Read the article they wrote on him in that edition; it's probably got a lot of negative overtones.
2007-11-01 14:49:31 · answer #3 · answered by Pianist d'Aurellius 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes in 1938. Hitler was the person who most affected the events of the year; that's why Time chose him as "Man of the Year". This is not decided by who is the best person, but who had the biggest effect.
2007-11-01 14:46:53 · answer #4 · answered by staisil 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes 1938
2007-11-01 19:58:16 · answer #5 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because he was quite possibly one of the most influential men to live on this planet. Think about what he accomplished.
He single handedly almost brought the entire european contintenent under his control. He influenced people conquer and murder, with little to no effort.
I do not believe that anyone can seriously support what he did. However, you cannot deny the fact that he changed the entire world quite possibly forever.
2007-11-01 14:49:02 · answer #6 · answered by The Enlightened One 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because of the Munich Agreements in 1938. Read the Time article . http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,760539-1,00.html
2007-11-01 14:51:11 · answer #7 · answered by redgriffin728 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Keep in mind that World War 2 didnt start yet
2007-11-01 15:01:19 · answer #8 · answered by Jay M 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
LoaE, Probably cuz all his atrocities towards The Jews. They probably were in awe how someone could be so, for lack of a better word---hateful. The publishers were messed up for choosing him though. "That's all I have to say about that."---Forrest Gump
2007-11-01 14:49:49 · answer #9 · answered by "Johns" 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not trying to sound pro-nazi but he was a very intelligent man.
With a twisted and sick mind.
Opposites attract.
2007-11-01 14:45:49 · answer #10 · answered by Јέstέя [Pro-Mέtal] 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋