PDA

View Full Version : Times magazine: Man of the Year 1938



Chevan
12-10-2007, 02:32 AM
Hello.
I heared the strange thing that the Hitler was was called The man of the Year by the famouse american periodical.
But i could not find anywhere the confirmation.
May be somebody have the link to watch of Times cover with Hitler photo?

pdf27
12-10-2007, 03:53 AM
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/projects/hitler/sources/30s/391time/391timemanyear.htm

He was named man of the year, but they weren't very keen on him. A quote from the original Time article is below:

Germany's 700,000 Jews have been tortured physically, robbed of homes and properties, denied a chance to earn a living, chased off the streets. Now they are being held for "ransom," a gangster trick through the ages. But not only Jews have suffered. Out of Germany has come a steady, ever-swelling stream of refugees, Jews and Gentiles, liberals and conservatives, Catholics as well as Protestants, who could stand Naziism no longer. Time's cover, showing Organist Adolf Hitler playing his hymn of hate in a desecrated cathedral while victims dangle on a St. Catherine's wheel and the Nazi hierarchy looks on, was drawn by Baron Rudolph Charles von Ripper (see p. 20), a Catholic who found Germany intolerable.

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/projects/hitler/sources/30s/391time/391-02hitlertime.jpg

Chevan
12-10-2007, 06:19 AM
Well i guess he was negative person in USA, nevertheless it was rather strange- why he was called as man of the Year.
What was it - the recognition of his World popularity?
I ve heared the Time wanted to call a man of the Year the Usama bin Laben two years ago:)

Nickdfresh
12-10-2007, 07:35 AM
Man of the Year is only the reflection of the person's current and historical importance, it has nothing to do with being a perceived positive honor nor is it an acknowledgement of one's 'popularity.' Indeed, there was a great controversy here as Osama Bin Laden was mentioned as, or thought to be, a candidate in 2001...

Drake
12-10-2007, 09:58 AM
That would've been an even worse PR desaster in retrospect than Hitler.

alephh
12-10-2007, 12:09 PM
And remember that Adolf Hitler was nominated for Nobel Peace Prize in 1939 by Erik Brandt, a member of the Swedish Parliament. ;-D


_

Nickdfresh
12-11-2007, 11:09 AM
That would've been an even worse PR desaster in retrospect than Hitler.

Which is why they didn't do it, because of peoples' perception of this distinction as an "honor" when it is in fact an observation of current events. On can see reading pdf's post that Time was actually sharply critical of Hitler and this edition probably contributed to as much as anything to the awareness of the coming storm...

Carl Schwamberger
12-15-2007, 05:06 AM
That would've been an even worse PR desaster in retrospect than Hitler.

In those days it was not a PR disaster. At least not in the way one might think. As Nick states the 'Man of the Year' designation was recognition of historical importance, not of positive importance. This was understood by the readers of Time inthe 1930s. Since then the preception of the designation has changed and Time now largely presents this recognition as one of positive honor.

However there was one important segment of the US population who were upset by the illustration on Times cover, and with the text. There were a large number of admirers of Hitler in the US. Not a majority of the population certainly, but many. Conservative in outlook, usually racially bigoted, and opposed to socialist economic and political ideas these Americans admired Hitler for 'restoring order to the streets of Germany, restoring profits to German business, and cleaning up the undesireables in German socioty'. As a young man I ran into a few of this sort; retired businessmen who still in 1974 ranted about how Roosevelt crippled the US and how a man like Hitler would have been what this country needs. Of course these people were disgusted by Times depiction of Hitler and no doubt canceled their subscription.

Chevan
12-20-2007, 12:39 AM
In those days it was not a PR disaster. At least not in the way one might think. As Nick states the 'Man of the Year' designation was recognition of historical importance, not of positive importance. This was understood by the readers of Time inthe 1930s. Since then the preception of the designation has changed and Time now largely presents this recognition as one of positive honor.

It seems you right.
So does it mean that the Man of the Year 2007 Mst. Putin rather the positive person than the importaint?
http://www.rambler.ru/news/images/news/2007/12/20/1198099683_19850.jpg


However there was one important segment of the US population who were upset by the illustration on Times cover, and with the text. There were a large number of admirers of Hitler in the US. Not a majority of the population certainly, but many. Conservative in outlook, usually racially bigoted, and opposed to socialist economic and political ideas these Americans admired Hitler for 'restoring order to the streets of Germany, restoring profits to German business, and cleaning up the undesireables in German socioty'. As a young man I ran into a few of this sort; retired businessmen who still in 1974 ranted about how Roosevelt crippled the US and how a man like Hitler would have been what this country needs. Of course these people were disgusted by Times depiction of Hitler and no doubt canceled their subscription.
I/m in shock if there in USA a lot of admirers of Putin:D

pdf27
12-20-2007, 01:32 AM
It seems you right.
So does it mean that the Man of the Year 2007 Mst. Putin rather the positive person than the importaint?
There was a guy from Time on the radio last night talking about it over here. They're a bit ambivalent - he's brought order and stability at what they regard as rather a high cost. However, they regard doing so as a major achievment of leadership, and that's why he got the award - for good or bad.

IIRC the others in contention were Al Gore, J.K. Rowling, David Petraus and Hu Jintao.

Chevan
12-20-2007, 02:29 AM
There was a guy from Time on the radio last night talking about it over here. They're a bit ambivalent - he's brought order and stability at what they regard as rather a high cost. However, they regard doing so as a major achievment of leadership, and that's why he got the award - for good or bad.
.
Yes i.ve read about it today morning- actually he is a rather leader than democrat , however this was HIS personal achivenments that state saved its controll over the OIL companies today- as the resault the gov are getting the maximum profit from the highest oil prices.
He just took back the privite company YUKOS that was stealed by the Hodorcovskij in the 1995-96 to the state controll.
The rest made his best friend George Bush:)
I mean the highest oil prices:)

Rising Sun*
12-20-2007, 03:51 AM
IIRC the others in contention were Al Gore, J.K. Rowling, David Petraus and Hu Jintao.

J.K. Rowling should have got it.

At least she knows she's making up her stories.