2007-12-21 15:41:23 · 22 answers · asked by Angela 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Other - Cultures & Groups
In 1938. It gets worse. Stalin was voted person of the year twice
2007-12-21 15:49:07 · update #1
He was influential.
2007-12-21 15:44:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Your question is actually what's ignorant. Time's person of the year is just a person who has made the most impact or influenced the world for that year. It's not an award like he's the best person of the year. Sheesh. The personal computer was also a "person of the year" before.
Now I think an apology is in order to Americans who have nothing to do with the publishing of this magazine or the selection of man of the year but who you've managed to insult nonetheless.
2007-12-22 00:25:37 · answer #2 · answered by Lydia H 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hitler was picked as Time's Man of the Year for the 1/2/39 edition. It was not for any good deed that he did. It was for the impact he had on the world. He brought over 10 million people "under his absolute rule".
2007-12-21 23:54:16 · answer #3 · answered by Renata 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think "Man" or "Person" of the year has to do with being a good person. It has to do more with who has made the most significant impact in the previous year. I don't think anyone can deny that Hitler and Stalin made enormous impacts in their day. Certainly not good impacts, but impacts nonetheless.
2007-12-22 20:39:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Man of the Year is the most influential person that year - the influence can be for good or bad. Hitler has obviously been one of the most negatively influential people of all time.
2007-12-21 23:57:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
For the year 1938, Time had chosen Adolf Hitler as the man who "for better or worse" (as Time founder Henry Luce expressed it) had most influenced events of the preceding year.
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauMemorial/TimeCover.html
As it says, "for better or worse". The award wasn't "best man of the year", it was "man of the year". It's about the same as giving Britney Spears the "teenage idol of the year" award. Doesn't mean she's the best role model.
2007-12-21 23:50:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Lily's right. He was influential. Time's "Person of the Year" is mainly based on this, even though, sadly, in some cases it's a representation of evil.
He was also a contender for Man of the 20th Century, although I think Einstein got the title.
There's no escaping the fact that he was one of the defining shapers of recent history.
2007-12-21 23:48:44 · answer #7 · answered by Barry K 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
yep barking lol
he was voted man of the year in 1938, but then i spose he did drag Germany up to become a huge industrial success in the 30's.......before he went barking mad and tried to take over the world
so he wasnt looked at as a dangerous fruit bat at that time, rather just a great leader(you have to give him some praise for lasting so long against half the developed world in a war tho, mad or not, right or wrong, he was not stupid)
2007-12-21 23:50:32 · answer #8 · answered by david h 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
When? Yup, Person of the Year is more like the most controversial and the most influential...not necessarily good. I don't remember dates but probably at that time he wasn't yet the infamous Hitler.
2007-12-21 23:44:18 · answer #9 · answered by mcw 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
"Person of the Year" just means that is the person who had most influence on that years events.
Not that the influence was good or bad.
Hitler could easily been person of the year a few more times.
2007-12-21 23:55:34 · answer #10 · answered by ACE 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Because a person of the year doesnt always have to be a good guy.
2007-12-21 23:59:40 · answer #11 · answered by Bob Dylawn 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋