Hitler was Time's "Man of the Year" in 1938

[mtnsnake]

I've noticed that when you do a search on this, most of the Google searches that have time.com in them will send you to an error page. Must be Time Magazine would rather you didn't notice.

BTW, back then I think they called it Time's "Man of the Year" instead of Time's "Person of the Year"

There is no question about it. Bush = Hitler.

[ramblin_dave]

1. Are there cover images available

to print out and post around?

[mtnsnake]

8. Yes, plenty of them. Here ya go:

It shows Hitler on the organ playing his hymn of hate.


Here's URL for it on Time's website where Time calls him "Man of the Year":
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/archive/covers/0,16641,1101390102,00.html

[merh]

2. Why is it that this doesn't surprise me?

So do the brownshirts plan to remove all proof of this from every library. Poor collectors, will they have their collections ruined? :scared:

[Pepperbelly]

3. and once again in 2004 ... the Great Mandala. nt

[madrchsod]

4. hey the freepers are talking about us

again ..they think we will compare hitler and bush. well ..hitler could at least speak in coherently , he did fight in a war, and built a political party by his sheer will. bush has never accomplished anything on his own. bush kind`a loses out in that comparison...

[cal04]

5. Hitler 1938 ,Stalin 1939

http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/archive/covers/1938.html

[coreystone]

7. From Serendipity: Stalin was Time’s man of the year in ‘39 & ‘42

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=1938++Man+of+the+year&page=3&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D5e51c0c36d6a7a28%26clickedItemRank%3D22%26userQuery%3D1938%2B%2BMan%2Bof%2Bthe%2Byear%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.serendipity.li%252Fwot%252Fsenhorsan01.htm%26invocationType%3Dnext%26fromPage%3DNSCPNextPrev%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.serendipity.li%2Fwot%2Fsenhorsan01.htm

"As I mentioned above, Hitler was TIME Magazine's Man Of The Year in 1938. Stalin was TIME Magazine's Man Of The Year for 1939 and 1942. Both of these men, and many others also celebrated by the media, were unimaginable monsters. The lesson from these facts is that it isn't easy to spot a genocidal tyrant when you live with one, especially one whom the press supports and promotes. Tyrants become obvious only when looking back, after what they have done becomes known. The German people did not stand up to Hitler because their media betrayed them, just as the American media is betraying the American people by willingly, voluntarily, even proudly, abandoning its traditional role as watchdog against government abuse."

[madrchsod]

6. google man of the year 1938 and

some interesting sites will come up.

[cali]

9. Just curious,

but was he man of the year in '38 because he posed a threat or did Time laud him? Anyone know?

[rman]

13. pre-WW2 US did support fascism, Mussolini, Hitler

The Life and Times of Noam Chomsky: A Brief History of America's Leading Dissident
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/26/1936241&mode=thread&tid=25

transcript: http://www.democracynow.org/static/chomskymit.shtml

<snip>

"In fact, the New Deal was called fascist in those days by many people without, you know, without any particular program. It was just one of the versions of this form of social and economic organization that was spreading over the world with some hideous parts like Hitler and some parts like Italy, which were actually approved. Mussolini was quite popular in the United States over a broad spectrum, including labor. Roosevelt called him "that admirable Italian gentleman." As late as 1939, he was saying that fascism in Italy was an experiment that was worthwhile and had to be carried out, and distorted later by its association with Hitler, but -- in fact, the U.S. business community loved it. Investment in Italy just shot up after Mussolini took over, same after Hitler took over. In fact, if you look back at the records, which are now available, there was really never -- what's now called appeasement is a very misleading term. I mean, it was supported. Hitler was described by the State Department into the late 1930s, 1937, as kind of a moderate standing between extremes of left and right you've heard this many times since -- who was protecting the West against the terrible threat of the working class and the Bolsheviks, and a possible revolution which might overturn the core of civilization, meaning capitalist civilization. So, appeasement is very strange. I mean, after Munich in 1938, Roosevelt's closest associate, Sumner Wells, reported back that it's a tremendous achievement. This is what destroyed Czechoslovakia, turned it over to Hitler. Great achievement. Now we have a chance for real peace in the world under the moderate Nazis who have programs that we can work with. It gets worse as -- this is from memory, it might be slightly wrong, but George Cannon, who was one of the leading post-war planners and very much on the humanist liberal side, he was American Consul in Berlin, I think until mid-1941, I think sending back pretty favorable reports that you shouldn't be too extreme in condemning the Nazis, and Italians, certainly not. I mean, in the early 1930s, I remember Fortune magazine, a main business magazine, had an issue with the cover saying something like "The wops are unwopping themselves." These backward dirty Italians are finally learning how to do something right. This was -- it was not -- I mean, I thought that -- I didn't know most of this, but I knew enough to see that there was no serious opposition to fascism, and it was, for me and people like me, it was a scandal."

<more>

[renegade000]

18. from what i gather from the caption on the time cover

it isn't that flattering...

i think i make out the words "unholy" and "hate"...

but my vision sucks...so try to find the actual article and a bigger version of the cover heh...

on edit...i think i figured it out:
"From the unholy organist, a hymn of hate"

[BOSSHOG]

10. John O'Neill or those who live on Freeper.com

would make good nominees. People who have no use for the Constitution or honesty and will have a negative effect on the planet for years to come. The basis for the nomination of Hitler. Toss in a hardy dose of ignorance and hate and the lemming gene and you have a perfect fit. Please conservative dumbasses take exception and prove my point.

[mtnsnake]

11. Not everyone is happy, btw, with some of Time's despicable choices

like Bush, Hitler, and Stalin. There has been public outcry, much in 1999 when Time named Hitler as one of the most influential men of the century or something like that. I forget the exact title.

Equally, we should not be happy about this choice. Bush is just as despicable a choice. I don't care how much of an impact he's had on things, good or bad.........he's a no-good fuck who doesn't deserve to be called "Person of the Year" on any account.

"Murderer of the Year" would be more like it.

[HockeyMom]

12. 2001

There was talk in 2001 of BinLaden being Person of the Year too. My take on it is that it is a person who has the most impacted the world in the previous year; NOT necessarily, who has done the most GOOD for the world. That being the case, I guess it is logical for Bush to have gotten the nod (impacted for the most DESTRUCTION - lol).

[mtnsnake]

14. Then they should title it accordingly.Where else does "Person of the Year"

mean something that could be perceived as something bad?

I don't disagree with your post, but Time should change the title to suit their selection. "Person of the Year" is way too good a sounding title for people like Hitler and Bush. If they want to include people like them, they should call it something else. For sake of accuracy, they should at least call it "Person Who Impacted the World the Most" or something to that effect....but not "Person of the Year".

[Dr Ron]

15. "Tribute" to the winners posted

See them together

http://kerryblog.blogspot.com/

[KnowerOfLogic]

16. No shit? wow, that puts it in perspective, alright. nt

[DaveinMD]

17. the awards

don't give value judgements. Its an award for the person that had the greatest effect on the year.

[burned]

19. google cache of Time MOY-Hitler

http://tinyurl.com/6a572

Adolf Hitler
FROM THE TIME ARCHIVE
Jan. 2, 1939


Greatest single news event of 1938 took place on September 29, when four statesmen met at the Fuhrerhaus, in Munich, to redraw the map of Europe. The three visiting statesmen at that historic conference were Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of Great Britain, Premier Edouard Daladier of France, and Dictator Benito Mussolini of Italy. But by all odds the dominating figure at Munich was the German host, Adolf Hitler.

Fuhrer of the German people, Commander-in-Chief of the German Army, Navy & Air Force, Chancellor of the Third Reich, Herr Hitler reaped on that day at Munich the harvest of an audacious, defiant, ruthless foreign policy he had pursued for five and a half years. He had torn the Treaty of Versailles to shreds. He had rearmed Germany to the teeth--or as close to the tooth as he was able. He had stolen Austria before the eyes of a horrified and apparently impotent world.

All these events were shocking to nations which had defeated Germany on the battlefield only 20 years before, but nothing so terrified the world as the ruthless, methodical, Nazi-directed events which during late summer and early autumn threatened a world war over Czechoslovakia. When without loss of blood he reduced Czechoslovakia to a German puppet state, forced a drastic revision of Europe's defensive alliances, and won a free hand for himself in Eastern Europe by getting a "hands-off" promise from powerful Britain (and later France), Adolf Hitler without doubt became 1938's Man of the Year.

more if you want

[whirlygigspin]

20. all good christians, surely

"The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality. Today Christians stand at the head of our country. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit. We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press-- in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past years."

Adolf Hitler