Well, you answered your own question: it was right before the war. The world did not dislike Hitler initially, it was when he invaded Poland that they started having second thoughts about him. Time's 'Man of the Year' award is not for the best person of the year, but rather the most influential, for better or for worse. Ahmadinejad has a long way to go to receive this accolade. Perhaps if he got Iran to be a peaceful nuclear power they might consider him.
2007-11-13 02:16:45
·
answer #1
·
answered by Pfo 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
"I don't know the statistics myself but if you are telling the truth, TIME is ludacrissly left-winged"
Ok, now that one made me laugh. I would recommend looking up "fascism" in a dictionary first before you trot out the "liberal media" stuff. Also, check out what Hitler did to communists during his rule.
Having said that, didn't TIME have Osama bin Laden as its Man of the Year one year? That created a veritable s***storm of controversy, until you remember that "Man of the Year" has been awarded in the past to many different types of people, both good and bad. The only qualification is that they have a huge impact on the world.
2007-11-12 16:51:26
·
answer #2
·
answered by wahoobob312 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think it was in 2002 that a German journal published an article claiming that the number of victims of Auschwitz (said to be the main camp where Jews were killed) who died in gas chambers was 'only' about 360,000. Although it is illegal in Germany to doubt the Holocaust numbers the author Fritjof Meyer was not prosecuted, possibly because he is a Jew. Since the 6,000,000 figure was being used even before the war broke out it is obviously not does not have any factual basis. I think these details tend to lend credulity to John Beaty's figures. PS I found a link, see below.
2016-05-22 22:07:37
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because "Man of the Year" means the person who had the most impact on the world, positive or negative. Hell, Osama was nominated after the twin towers. Stalin has been man of the year before. The President of Iran is even in the running this year. It's a bunch of B.S. anyway. It seems like every American president gets it more than once.
2007-11-13 04:00:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Hitler did a bunch of good things for Germany. After WWI there were so many laws and regulations put upon them that their economy plummeted. Hitler (awful as he was) helped get them out of the red.
Also, Hitler actually discouraged anti-semetic displays for a little while...granted this was when the Olympics were in German and it was really just to get the world to see how nice the place is and encourage tourism and trade.
2007-11-12 16:17:16
·
answer #5
·
answered by crimson_heaven 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
They made him man of the year because he did AMAZING things for Germany. Germany was essentially in shambles after world war 1. Hitler got it back on its feet. Also, no one had any idea what Hitler was going to do at the time (kind of, there was a little denial going on.
2007-11-12 16:16:41
·
answer #6
·
answered by Jeremy M 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
"Time" itself tells us why it nominated Hitler 'Man of the Year' (a dubious honour) in their article of January 2, 1939: "But the figure of Adolf Hitler strode over a cringing Europe with all the swagger of a conqueror. Not the mere fact that the Führer brought 10,500,000 more people (7,000,000 Austrians, 3,500,000 Sudetens) under his absolute rule made him the Man of 1938. Japan during the same time added tens of millions of Chinese to her empire. More significant was the fact Hitler became in 1938 the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today."
The cover can be found here (and if you still think 'Man of the Year' is a compliment, note the terrifying tone of the picture, with bodies in a ferris-wheel arrangement): http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19390102,00.html
The article itself is here: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,760539,00.html
2007-11-12 16:29:25
·
answer #7
·
answered by ceewill 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Time was a rather right-wing publication in the 30s and many admired Hitler for how he resuscitated germany (at the expense of the Unions).
Hitler was horrible and anyone who has made it through "Mein Kampf" can see it all right there
2007-11-12 16:18:18
·
answer #8
·
answered by Experto Credo 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
it is only a matter of perception as to who is good or bad. what is important is the dominance of the person at a point of time. though hitler was defintely a villain and enemy of all humanity, yet the pro nazi and chauvinists hailed him. george bush cannot be compared to hitler, even if opinion may differ about him. prominent role, though not necessarily good makes a person for such awards.
2007-11-12 16:18:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Man of the Year is not necessarily "The greatest guy of the year". It is someone who has made a significant impact on the nation or the world. Sadly, Hitler did that.
2007-11-12 16:16:31
·
answer #10
·
answered by oldernwiser 7
·
1⤊
0⤋