If you’ve ever spent more than five minutes in a heated internet debate, you’ve probably seen it. Someone drops the "Hitler fact" like a tactical nuke. "Well, you know," they’ll say, "Time Magazine actually made Adolf Hitler the Person of the Year."
It sounds like a dark urban legend. A glitch in the matrix.
But it’s true. It happened.
In the January 2, 1939 issue, Time named Adolf Hitler the "Man of the Year" for 1938.
Now, before you go thinking the editors in the late 30s were secretly wearing swastika armbands, there is a lot more to this story than a simple headline. It wasn’t a gold star for good behavior. It wasn't a "congrats on a job well done" trophy.
Honestly, the context is everything here.
The Award That Isn't Actually an Award
The biggest misconception people have—and I mean basically everyone—is that "Person of the Year" is a popularity contest. Or a Nobel Prize. It’s not.
From the jump, Time defined the title as the person, group, or thing that had the biggest impact on the news and our lives, for good or ill. Key phrase: For ill.
The magazine’s editors were looking for the person who moved the needle the most. In 1938, that needle was being moved by a guy with a Charlie Chaplin mustache who was rapidly dismantling the peace of Europe.
👉 See also: Ethics in the News: What Most People Get Wrong
By the end of 1938, Hitler had basically bullied his way into annexing Austria and tearing apart Czechoslovakia. He’d outmaneuvered the leaders of Britain and France at the Munich Conference. He was the gravity around which the entire world was starting to spin, and not in a good way.
The 1938 cover didn’t even show his face in a flattering light.
Instead of a heroic portrait, Time used an illustration by Baron Rudolph Charles von Ripper. It showed Hitler as a tiny figure playing a massive, "unholy organ" in a cathedral of hate, with his victims dangling from a St. Catherine’s wheel in the background.
It was creepy. It was ominous. And it was intended as a warning.
Why 1938 Was the Breaking Point
To understand why they picked him, you have to look at what 1938 actually looked like. It was a year of "bloodless" conquests that were anything but peaceful.
Hitler was "reaping the harvest of an audacious, defiant, ruthless foreign policy," as the original article put it. He had torn the Treaty of Versailles to shreds. He had rearmed Germany to the teeth.
The editors at Time weren't fans. They called him a "moody, brooding, unprepossessing, 49-year-old Austrian-born ascetic."
They also didn't mince words about what was happening inside Germany. The article explicitly mentioned the "methodical, Nazi-directed events" and the horrifying persecution of Jewish people. This wasn't a case of the media being blind to his crimes; they were calling them out while acknowledging his sheer, terrifying power.
✨ Don't miss: When is the Next Hurricane Coming 2024: What Most People Get Wrong
The Other "Villains" in the Club
Hitler isn't the only "bad guy" to make the cut. If you look back through the archives, the list is a bit of a Rogue's Gallery.
- Joseph Stalin: He actually won it twice. Once in 1939 (for his pact with Hitler) and again in 1942.
- The Ayatollah Khomeini: His selection in 1979 caused such a massive backlash—people literally canceled their subscriptions in droves—that Time kinda got spooked.
- Vladimir Putin: Named in 2007.
There's a reason you don't see many "villains" on the cover these days. After the Khomeini disaster, and especially after 9/11 (where they famously chose Rudy Giuliani over Osama bin Laden, despite bin Laden clearly being the "newsmaker" of the year), the magazine shifted.
They started playing it safer.
They realized that the general public doesn't always read the fine print about "for good or ill." Most people see a face on a magazine cover and assume it’s an endorsement.
The 1933 Confusion
Sometimes you'll hear people say Hitler was Man of the Year in 1933. That’s a common mix-up.
He was definitely on the cover in 1933—that was the year he became Chancellor—but the actual "Man of the Year" for 1933 was Hugh S. Johnson, the guy who ran the National Recovery Administration under FDR.
Hitler had to wait five more years to get the "official" title, which is a bit of a grim milestone when you think about it.
What This Teaches Us About Media Today
So, why does this still matter?
🔗 Read more: What Really Happened With Trump Revoking Mayorkas Secret Service Protection
It’s a masterclass in how we consume information. We live in a world of headlines and thumbnails. We see a picture and we react.
The Time editors of 1938 thought they were being sophisticated. They thought they could highlight a monster to show the world how dangerous he was. But in the long run, the nuances of their argument got buried under the simple fact of the title.
Actionable Takeaways for History Buffs and Fact-Checkers
If you find yourself in a "Hitler was Person of the Year" conversation, here’s how to handle it:
- Clarify the Criteria: Remind people that the title is about "influence," not "excellence." It's a historical marker, not a fan club membership.
- Point to the Cover Art: Mention that the 1938 cover was an illustration of a "Hymn of Hate," not a photograph. It was designed to look sinister.
- Check the Date: Ensure they aren't confusing 1933 with 1938.
- Look at the "For Ill" Clause: Time has always been open about the fact that they include people who have a negative impact. Mention Stalin or Khomeini to prove the point.
The reality is that history is messy. Sometimes the most important person in the world is also the worst person in the world.
Naming Hitler in 1938 wasn't an act of support; it was a cold, hard recognition that the world was about to break, and he was the one holding the hammer.
Next time you see a controversial Person of the Year pick, remember the "Unholy Organist" of 1938. The media has a long history of trying to define the world by who is changing it, even when those changes are leading us toward a catastrophe.
To get a better sense of how Time handles these things now, you can look at their recent selections like Volodymyr Zelenskyy or the "Silence Breakers." You'll see a clear shift toward "hero" narratives, largely because the ghost of that 1938 decision still haunts the magazine's editorial board.