History is messy. It’s not a collection of morality tales where the "good guys" always get the trophy and the villains are left in the dust. If you need proof, look no further than the cover of the January 1, 1940 issue. There he was. Joseph Stalin. The Time Magazine 1939 Man of the Year.
People still freak out about this. They see the name Stalin next to a "Person of the Year" title and assume it’s an endorsement. It wasn't. It never is. Time has a very specific, almost cold-blooded metric for this: the person who had the most impact on the news, for better or worse. In 1939, Stalin’s impact was like a sledgehammer to the face of global geopolitics.
Think about the context for a second. The world was teetering. Most folks in the West spent the late 1930s assuming the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany would eventually tear each other apart because they hated each other's guts. Then came August 1939. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact happened. Basically, the two biggest monsters under the bed decided to stop growling at each other and start dividing up the room. This non-aggression pact was the ultimate "plot twist" of the 20th century. It cleared the way for Hitler to invade Poland without fearing a two-front war, and it gave Stalin a green light to snatch up territory in the East.
Stalin changed the world map in 1939. He didn't do it with kindness.
Why Time Magazine 1939 Man of the Year Wasn't an Honor
We have to clear this up because the misconception persists. Being named Man of the Year—or Person of the Year, as they call it now—isn't a Nobel Peace Prize. It’s not a "Good Job" sticker. Honestly, it’s more like an acknowledgment of power.
Time’s editors were looking at a year where the "Man of Peace" (a title some hoped would go to Neville Chamberlain a year earlier, though he actually won it in 1938) had failed. The world was at war. And the reason the war started with such terrifying efficiency was because of the deal Stalin struck. By choosing the Time Magazine 1939 Man of the Year, the publication was identifying the fulcrum upon which history swung.
The Ribbentrop-Molotov Shocker
The pact signed in Moscow was the "black wedding" of diplomacy. It stunned everyone. Even the most hardened political analysts in Washington and London were caught flat-footed. By agreeing not to fight Germany, Stalin essentially signed the death warrant for Poland. He then proceeded to march into Eastern Poland himself, followed by an invasion of Finland—the Winter War.
📖 Related: Why Fox Has a Problem: The Identity Crisis at the Top of Cable News
Stalin was busy.
He was rewriting borders while the rest of the world was still trying to figure out if the League of Nations actually did anything. (Spoiler: it didn't). When Time wrote about him, they described a man of "granite" who had turned the world upside down. They didn't call him a hero. They called him a formidable, cold, and calculated force that had outmaneuvered the Western democracies.
The Winter War and the "Granite" Image
While Hitler was the loud, screaming face of fascism, Stalin was the quiet, pipe-smoking enigma in the Kremlin. In 1939, his invasion of Finland showed the world a different side of Soviet power. It wasn't actually a great look for him at first. The tiny Finnish army, using skis and Molotov cocktails (ironically named after Stalin's foreign minister), held off the Soviet giant for way longer than anyone expected.
But Stalin didn't care about the optics. He cared about the dirt. He wanted a buffer zone for Leningrad.
The Time Magazine 1939 Man of the Year coverage reflected this grim reality. The article didn't shy away from the fact that Stalin was a dictator who had spent the previous years purging his own military and party. But by the end of 1939, he held the balance of power in Europe. If he stayed neutral, Hitler could focus on the West. If he flipped, the war changed. Every move he made was the lead story in every newspaper on the planet.
Was there anyone else?
You’d think maybe FDR or even Churchill (who wasn't Prime Minister yet but was back at the Admiralty) would have been in the running. But 1939 was Stalin’s year to be the bogeyman. Even Hitler had already been the Man of the Year in 1938.
👉 See also: The CIA Stars on the Wall: What the Memorial Really Represents
It’s kinda fascinating to look at the progression.
- 1937: Chiang Kai-shek and Soong Mei-ling
- 1938: Adolf Hitler
- 1939: Joseph Stalin
That is a dark, heavy trilogy of covers. It reflects a world that was falling apart, not a world that was celebrating progress. Time was documenting the decline of Western influence and the rise of totalitarian dictators who didn't play by the old rules of diplomacy.
The Controversy That Never Ended
Every time Time picks a "bad" person, the letters to the editor fly in. People cancel their subscriptions. They did it in 1939, they did it in 1979 for Ayatollah Khomeini, and they did it in 2007 for Putin.
The choice of Stalin as the Time Magazine 1939 Man of the Year was particularly jarring because, for a brief moment in the mid-30s, some Western liberals actually thought Stalin might be a "bulwark" against fascism. The 1939 pact shattered that illusion. It revealed Stalin as a pure realist—or a pure opportunist, depending on who you ask.
He wasn't interested in saving democracy. He was interested in the Soviet Union.
The 1939 cover story is a fascinating read if you can find an archive. It’s written in that old-school, punchy "Timestyle" that used to be the magazine's hallmark. It describes him as a "man of steel" (the literal translation of his name) and emphasizes his "insatiable" appetite for power. It’s not a puff piece. It’s a profile of a man who had just become the most dangerous person on Earth.
✨ Don't miss: Passive Resistance Explained: Why It Is Way More Than Just Standing Still
Stalin's "Double" Win
What most people forget is that Stalin actually won the title twice. He was the Man of the Year for 1939 and again for 1942. The 1942 selection was different, though. By then, he was our ally. The narrative had shifted from "the man who helped Hitler start the war" to "the man who is stopping Hitler at Stalingrad."
It shows how quickly the "Man of the Year" criteria can shift based on who we're currently rooting for—or who we're currently terrified of. But that first 1939 win? That was pure, unadulterated fear and recognition of a geopolitical masterstroke that changed the course of human history.
What You Can Learn from the 1939 Selection
Understanding the Time Magazine 1939 Man of the Year helps contextualize how we view power today. It reminds us that "influence" isn't a synonym for "goodness."
If you're researching this for a history project or just because you fell down a Wikipedia rabbit hole, keep these three things in mind:
- Context is King: You cannot separate Stalin's 1939 title from the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. That deal is the "why" behind the whole thing.
- The Definition of Influence: Time defines impact by the degree to which a person changed the world. In 1939, Stalin moved the needle more than anyone else through sheer, cynical power politics.
- Media Neutrality (of a sort): Even in an era of more "biased" journalism, the Man of the Year was intended to be an analytical choice, not a moral one.
To really wrap your head around this era, you should look into the specific details of the Soviet-Finnish War (the Winter War) which was raging right as this issue hit the stands. It provides the perfect backdrop to the "Man of the Year" choice—a superpower flexing its muscles while the world watched in horror.
If you want to dive deeper into how these selections are made today, check out Time's own archives on their "Person of the Year" history. It’s a wild ride through the 20th century’s greatest hits and deepest lows.
Actionable Next Steps:
- Research the "Winter War": To understand why Stalin was so feared in late 1939, look at how the Soviet Union's invasion of Finland changed European perspectives.
- Compare the 1938 and 1939 Issues: Look at the Hitler cover (1938) and the Stalin cover (1939). Notice the difference in how the magazine describes "influence" versus "evil."
- Check the 1942 Issue: See how the tone changed when Stalin became an "ally." It’s a masterclass in how media narratives shift during wartime.
- Analyze Modern Selections: Look at the last five years of "Person of the Year." Ask yourself if the "most influential" rule still applies or if it has become more of a "hero of the year" award.