Person of the 20th Century: Einstein or Hitler?

[EGarrett]

Figured I'd bring up this question from the 1999 Time Magazine controversy.

[Darth Rotor]

Figured I'd bring up this question from the 1999 Time Magazine controversy.
Neither.

Chuck Berry for the win.

DR

[geni]

Marx, Lenin and Stalin have perhaps a better claim.

Quantum physics would have developed without Albert Einstein which suggests that relativity would have as well.

[Darth Rotor]

Marx, Lenin and Stalin have perhaps a better claim.

Quantum physics would have developed without Albert Einstein which suggests that relativity would have as well.
Marx was dead before the 20th century began.

Mao, on the other hand, might lay claim to man of the century.

DR

[rtalman]

I name the man who has arguably had more impact on the world than any other:

Vladimir Kosma Zworykin

[shemp]

The World's Biggest Bastard, Harry Frazee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Frazee)

[petra10]

Neither.Einstein or Hitler deserves that title.I think it should be someone who had a big medical break through.Maybe the discover of penicillian, Louis (I cant spell his second name)

[rtalman]

Neither.Einstein or Hitler deserves that title.I think it should be someone who had a big medical break through.Maybe the discover of penicillian, Louis (I cant spell his second name)Do you mean Alexander Fleming (the man who discovered penicillin)? Louis Pasteur died in 1895.

[Mojo]

Neither.Einstein or Hitler deserves that title.I think it should be someone who had a big medical break through.Maybe the discover of penicillian, Louis (I cant spell his second name)Armstrong?

[NoZed Avenger]

Can I still vote for me?

[CptColumbo]

Charles M. Schulz

or

Norman Rockwell

[The_Animus]

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/54/039_20147%7EChuck-Norris-Posters.jpg

[rjh01]

Henry Ford, maker of the model T Ford. He did not have any serious competition for cheap reliable cars for many years. This means that if he had died at birth (or even at age 43) mass produced cars would not have eixisted for many more years. These cars had a HUGE impact on society.

[petra10]

Yes of course Alexander Fleming. What about great inventors like John logie Baird or Alexander Graham Bell.

[rtalman]

Yes of course Alexander Fleming. What about great inventors like John logie Baird or Alexander Graham Bell.Baird's work is derivative of Zworykin's (might as well put Philo Farnsworth in the mix, too). Bell did his best work in the 19th century.

[Jimbo07]

Bill Gates.

...

Without the massive consumer/business explosion of the PC (unprecedented in history, even with automobiles), it's doubtfull whether Al Gore could have taken a dingy little DARPA network and used it to invent 'teh internets'!

:D

[Segnosaur]

Bill Gates.

Without the massive consumer/business explosion of the PC (unprecedented in history, even with automobiles), it's doubtfull whether Al Gore could have taken a dingy little DARPA network and used it to invent 'teh internets'!


I don't really think Bill Gates deserves that much credit for the explosion of the PC market. There were operating systems prior to Microsoft's release of DOS, and ultimately Microsoft doesn't really provide that many innovations of note. Look at some of the key PC features/apps/etc.:

- MS Excel - Preceeded by VisiCalc
- MS Word - Preceeded by WordStar
- "Windows" graphical user interface: Preceeded by work at Xerox PARC, Macintosh, X-windows
- Internet Explorer - Preceeded by Mosaic, Netscape
- The Internet - Developed by DARPA (in fact, Microsoft's early networking attempts bore little resemblence to the internet of today)

If Bill Gates and Microsoft were not around, there would be some other company providing the same type of software (possibly in the same Monopoly position)

[Jimbo07]

I don't really think Bill Gates deserves that much credit for the explosion of the PC market. There were operating systems prior to Microsoft's release of DOS, and ultimately Microsoft doesn't really provide that many innovations of note.

Technical innovations? Not really, but it took a special kind of personality to get that many PCs into the home. Whatever happened to CP/M? OS/2? What market share did Mac OS ever have?


- MS Excel - Preceeded by VisiCalc
- MS Word - Preceeded by WordStar
- "Windows" graphical user interface: Preceeded by work at Xerox PARC, Macintosh, X-windows
- Internet Explorer - Preceeded by Mosaic, Netscape
- The Internet - Developed by DARPA (in fact, Microsoft's early networking attempts bore little resemblence to the internet of today)

Where is VisiCalc? Which browser has, by far, the most market share?


If Bill Gates and Microsoft were not around, there would be some other company providing the same type of software (possibly in the same Monopoly position)

Who else? If it wasn't Microsoft, then who? If it wasn't Einstein, then who? If it wasn't Ford, then who? What happened to all of these mythological people who 'could have done it' but didn't?

Newton/Liebniz exemplifies the concept that ideas do not exist in a vacuum, but if we bother identifying individuals at all, then what use is it to say, 'someone else could have done it,' when someone else clearly has not?

ETA: I wouldn't necessarily nominate Bill Gates, I merely embarked on this exercise to demonstrate that these choices can be problematic and are highly dependent on your criteria. Moreover, the story of the 20th c. is not yet fully written. We are still living with unfolding repercussions from that era...

[Segnosaur]

Technical innovations? Not really, but it took a special kind of personality to get that many PCs into the home. Whatever happened to CP/M? OS/2? What market share did Mac OS ever have?

I'm not denying that Microsoft has a large market share. My argument is that Microsoft's success in those areas have been due more to chance, and if they didn't have a dominate market share, someone else would.

Furthermore, the explosion in the number of PCs probably has more to do with hardware technical maturity (the price/power had got to the point where it was useful) rather than the operating system. Microsoft just came along for the ride. (I.e. people weren't saying "We need to buy a PC to run this MICROSOFT program", they were saying "We need to do some function... now what just happens to be available?")

If Bill Gates and Microsoft were not around, there would be some other company providing the same type of software (possibly in the same Monopoly position)
Who else? If it wasn't Microsoft, then who? If it wasn't Einstein, then who? If it wasn't Ford, then who? What happened to all of these mythological people who 'could have done it' but didn't?

Well, given that computer market share almosts seems to be 'random' when it comes to success, I can't really say. But as I pointed out, there WERE other products which filled the market prior to Microsoft's arrival. I'm sure that somewhere along the line those companies failed to make the 'right' business decisions, but that doesn't mean that any one of them couldn't have been the #1 product had circumstances been a little different.

Yes the market would look a little different had VisiCalc and Wordstar became/stayed the dominant applications, but it wouldn't have made much difference to the number of PCs sold, nor what people actually do with them.


Newton/Liebniz exemplifies the concept that ideas do not exist in a vacuum, but if we bother identifying individuals at all, then what use is it to say, 'someone else could have done it,' when someone else clearly has not?

True... but I'm not talking about how ideas are created 'in a vacuum' or how the work of one influences the other.

The difference between what Newton was doing and what Gates/Microsoft were doing is that with Newton/Liebniz, had neither of them done their work, their 'discoveries' (the invention of Calculus) would not have existed for some time (if at all). They may have had their influences, but what they did was a true change. With Gates/Microsoft, there were alternatives to the work they were doing.

If you want to argue that success in business makes someone "man of the year", there are a few others I'd pick... Ford (as someone mentioned earlier... he 'revolutinized' the assembly line), or Sam Walton (founder of Walmart, who has had a great influence in retail sales, although here it could be argued that other stores like Kmart or Target provided similar services).

[rjh01]

Just about anything anyone did to change the world would have been done by someone else eventually. However some of these people were just the first of many. Others were the only ones in the race. For example the space race between the Americans and the USSR was made possible by two men. If either of these men died during WW2 then the space race would be very different.

The Americans tried to get into space without using the Germans and failed. They needed the German knowledge of von Braun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun) and others to catch up with the USSR.

After Sergei Korolev died the Soviet space effort almost stopped.

Ref The space Race by Deborah Cadbury http://www.amazon.co.uk/Space-Race-Deborah-Cadbury/dp/0007209959

[Ian Osborne]

Time Magazine (which has really jumped the shark since its relaunch) always claims its Person of the Year is not a merit award, but a recognition of the individual, individuals or 'thing' that had the most effect on the world over the previous 12 months. This claim is wearing increasingly thin. For example, given Time's self-imposed rules, there could only be one credible choice for Person of the Year 2001 - Osama Bin Laden. Understandably reluctant to make this choice, Time went for NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani. OK, he did a great job, but if it's not a merit award, this is irrelevent. His input to the events of 9/11 and beyond were entirely reactive - how could he possibly be more influential that year than the person who caused the events he was reacting to?

If we go by Time's own rules, there can only be one Person of the Century - Adolf Hitler. Apart from his massive impact on 20th Century history, he's had such an effect on world culture that Godwin's Law was coined to lampoon the way he gets brought up on internet forums, a technology which didn't exist until half a century after he died.

If we go by Time's practices and only pay lip service to the idea that it's not a merit award, Einstein is as good a choice as any.

[Jimbo07]

If you want to argue that success in business makes someone "man of the year",

Not everyone can win, so perhaps sometimes, winning is enough...


there are a few others I'd pick... Ford (as someone mentioned earlier... he 'revolutinized' the assembly line), or Sam Walton (founder of Walmart, who has had a great influence in retail sales, although here it could be argued that other stores like Kmart or Target provided similar services).

Well, this would be a debate all on its own. Which business person was most influential? Sometimes this means on society/history as much as it means on business. I don't think Microsoft's impact has been fully accounted for, yet, and so, it's just premature to declare a something of the 20th C.

BTW, I have read enough to suggest that if Bill Gates didn't personally make some shrewd decisions, then some of the people in that orbit made some ludicrously stupid ones. Yes, there's a bit of luck involved, but a winner ultimately has to take advantage of that lucky break. How many of us haven't?

[brettDbass]

Hendrix.

No contest.

[Segnosaur]

BTW, I have read enough to suggest that if Bill Gates didn't personally make some shrewd decisions, then some of the people in that orbit made some ludicrously stupid ones. Yes, there's a bit of luck involved, but a winner ultimately has to take advantage of that lucky break. How many of us haven't?
Well, the nature of computers is such that even if you make 'good' decisions, you can still end up loosing. (Especially when you have things like brand recognition, etc.)

As for Gates: Microsoft's good fortunes began when it released DOS for the earliest IBM PCs. (In fact, Microsoft didn't even create DOS... it was actually started by another company.) Digital Research also had an operating system: CP/M (which was superior in some ways to DOS). Had IBM decided to go with CP/M rather than DOS, Microsoft would probably have died a quick death. Digital would have become entrenched as the primary OS provider. (Not sure if they would have taken over the applications market like Microsoft did, but someoneone would have.)

The result? Had Gates never released DOS, we'd still have the same basic computer environment, but end users would probably not be any better or worse off.

[Doc Daneeka]

I can't help but think that the obvious choice for the award is Alan Turing.

[firecoins]

Hendrix.

No contest.
agreed. 2nd place is Monty Python.

[Jimbo07]

I can't help but think that the obvious choice for the award is Alan Turing.

Funny, I almost put Turing, but decided to go with Bill Gates to put a more modern spin on things. We just have no idea, yet, of the far ranging consequences of this so-called 'information age.'

[asmodean]

Well, the nature of computers is such that even if you make 'good' decisions, you can still end up loosing. (Especially when you have things like brand recognition, etc.)

As for Gates: Microsoft's good fortunes began when it released DOS for the earliest IBM PCs. (In fact, Microsoft didn't even create DOS... it was actually started by another company.) Digital Research also had an operating system: CP/M (which was superior in some ways to DOS). Had IBM decided to go with CP/M rather than DOS, Microsoft would probably have died a quick death. Digital would have become entrenched as the primary OS provider. (Not sure if they would have taken over the applications market like Microsoft did, but someoneone would have.)

The result? Had Gates never released DOS, we'd still have the same basic computer environment, but end users would probably not be any better or worse off.

Don't forget the CPU tax* (http://www.fool.com/CashKing/1998/CashKingPort981022.htm),** (http://www.vcnet.com/bms/features/serendipities.html) and the successful reverse engineering of BIOS allowing for cheap IBM clones to be made.

[Vorticity]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/45146cc5551c4d95.jpg

[CptColumbo]

One word: Oprah!

[Gregoire]

Figured I'd bring up this question from the 1999 Time Magazine controversy.

Johnny Carson circa 1979

"We had a really bad audience last night"

(How bad was it?)

"It was so bad Time magazine named them audience of the year."




(In 1979, The Man of the Year was the Ayatollah Khomeini)





To me the clear answer to this question has always been Lenin. The story of the rise and fall of his influence neatly fits into the 20th century.

At the beginning of the century there was only a small group of intellectuals who agreed with his interpretations of Marxism. He described his theories in a book published in 1903 which he titled What Is To Be Done. He basically described how to conduct a revolution. Few at the time could predict the future impact of this book.

In 1917, after of a lot of hard work (and help from the Kaiser;) ), Lenin and his followers were able to take over the Soviet Union. Although he had to fight counterrevolutionaries aided by foreign armies, he still managed to stay in power. He subsequently began to try to build what he felt was to be a workers' paradise. He was so fixated on implementing his theories, he could always justify the subjugation of the individual for what he theorized was the greater good.

At that time and for most of the rest of the century, leftists around the world would look to his example as the ideal to follow. Interestingly, however, one of the first leftists to change his mind in his assessment of Lenin was Bertrand Russell. He visited Lenin with a group of Labour party leaders in
1920. He noted how Lenin seemed to be the embodiment of pure theory. (Read The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism where he records his disillusionment.)

Lenin's Soviet Union continued to be thought of as the ideal by many leftists even after being taken over by Stalin. Even during the show trials of the 1930's where so many of the original revolutionaries were branded as agents of capitalism and executed, many on the left still maintained the Soviet Union was still the world's best hope.

It was only when Stalin made his pact with Hitler in 1939 when so many leftists changed their minds. But leftists went on to emulate Marxist-Leninist revolutions in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba and elsewhere where they maintained the "true" principles they believed in were actually being applied. There was a time in the 1970's where even some noncommunist liberals said that it seemed no country could ever become capitalistic again after the Marxist-Leninists took over.

Of course with each successful revolution, one witnessed the same pattern. Initially there was ecstasy among the true believers: finally a country was to be governed the way they would govern. But then, as atrocities were committed, individual leftists would start to question if these countries were really becoming workers' paradises just as Bertrand Russell had done in 1920. Most would still justify the abuses as necessary evils, but slowly the disillusionment would grow and lead to a search for a new idealistic revolution.

Lenin's influence rapidly faded with the collapse of the Soviet Union. It became apparent to almost everyone that his particular vision of a planned economy simply did not work. And few revolutionary movements nowadays emulate What Is To Be Done anymore.

So IMO the rise and fall of Lenin's influence is the big story of the 20th century.

[hgc]

The fun of a topic like this is that it's entirely subjective. But then, who can deny...

[leftysergeant]

FDR. He defeated Hitler and totally re-shaped a nation so that it actually worked.

Hitler lost a war and destroyed his nation.

Winners matter more than losers.

Consider, for a moment, that all the GOP is doing is trying to undo what FDR did for the middle class because it inconveniences the wealthy.

[Ian Osborne]

Winners matter more than losers.

Not if the loser was more influential. You could argue that without Hitler, there wouldn't have been a war for FDR (and others) to win.

[latent aaaack]

What about the thing of the century? Or place of the century? Five second sound of the century? Attention-whore magazine of the century? I would like to throw Ferdinand von Zeppelin out as having the mustache of the century.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/Zeppelin/DI48G1.jpg

[rjh01]

WW2 led to the re-shaping of Europe, the foundation of Israel.
Hitler also killed millions of people.

[rtalman]

What about the thing of the century?
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/ATA/24371MV~The-Thing-Posters.jpg

[CptColumbo]

What about the thing of the century? May I suggest?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/56/Thething1982poster.jpg/387px-

[leftysergeant]

Not if the loser was more influential. You could argue that without Hitler, there wouldn't have been a war for FDR (and others) to win.

Hitler was insignificant when FDR became president. FDR was out to rebuild America after the collapse of laissez-faire capitalism. The choices were to reform capitalism to restore social equity or to go communist or facist. FDR took the reform path. Even that moderate measure offended the cry-baby capitalists, thus the Smedley Butler affair.

That FDR did not exact a draconian revenge on the capitalists, and that he did so much to rebuild America's potential and thus enabled the mobilization that defeated Hitler made America a super-power without enslaving the working people or despoiling the environment utterly.

What America was, prior to 1980, was a benefit of the Roosevelt reforms.

[Ian Osborne]

Hitler was insignificant when FDR became president.

Try going to Europe and saying that. If you're having trouble finding it, let me know and I'll point it out to you on a world map. That's the map that has the countries that aren't America on it too...

[leftysergeant]

When FDR was elected, Hitler was trying to make his ideas work. They never did, really. FDR's ideas did work, right out of the box, the Hitler's shame. They were still working until the reactionaries convinvced enough whiney babies that government was, per se, evil, back in 1980.

[Darth Rotor]

When FDR was elected, Hitler was trying to make his ideas work. They never did, really. FDR's ideas did work, right out of the box, the Hitler's shame. They were still working until the reactionaries convinvced enough whiney babies that government was, per se, evil, back in 1980.
Government is a necessary evil, the core question is how much of it is necessary. What roles are required? This, of course, has kept political scientists busy, and a few of them published, for generations.

I consider the current rhetoric about privatization of highways ludicrous. Even Ike figured that one out: highways are critical national and state infrastructure that enables a whole host of goodness.

Oh, no, I may have just summoned shanek with that remark.

Sorry.

DR

[Gregoire]

Hitler was insignificant when FDR became president. FDR was out to rebuild America after the collapse of laissez-faire capitalism. The choices were to reform capitalism to restore social equity or to go communist or facist. FDR took the reform path. Even that moderate measure offended the cry-baby capitalists, thus the Smedley Butler affair.

That FDR did not exact a draconian revenge on the capitalists, and that he did so much to rebuild America's potential and thus enabled the mobilization that defeated Hitler made America a super-power without enslaving the working people or despoiling the environment utterly.



I believe FDR definitely saved America from a revolution that could have turned the USA into Communist or Fascist state. However, his economic programs did not end the depression; that was done by world war 2. (I have seen statistics reporting unemployment was still 17% in 1939.)

And as far as the United States defeating Nazi Germany, I think most Europeans have a different take on this from what you hear in this country. The Europeans I have met say they think the USSR defeated the Nazis with the help of the other allies and not the other way around. If you study how many fewer German divisions were on its western front versus its eastern front, that argument very understandible. (I apologize I do not have those numbers at my fingertips.)

So I still stand by my previous post and think Lenin was the Man of the Century.

[Ranillon]

And as far as the United States defeating Nazi Germany, I think most Europeans have a different take on this from what you hear in this country. The Europeans I have met say they think the USSR defeated the Nazis with the help of the other allies and not the other way around. If you study how many fewer German divisions were on its western front versus its eastern front, that argument very understandible. (I apologize I do not have those numbers at my fingertips.)


Yes and no, I'd argue. Yes, the Soviet Union did do the lion's share of the heavy lifting when it came to defeating the Nazis. You can see that just in the casualty statistics -- more Russians died during the siege of Leningrad, for example, than Americans and British did for the whole war combined. The cost in lives was in fact so terrible that the Soviets in effect replaced their entire army every year.

That said, the Soviets nevertheless benefited quite a bit from the aid of the British and most especially Americans. For instance, the latter all but outfitted the Soviet supply system (minus the trains). The Allies also provided a lot of other material, including many weapons (Example: The Soviets had a bunch of Sherman tank divisions -- a tank they liked, BTW).

More indirectly the Allied Bombing offensive forced the Luftwaffe to concentrate on home defense thus greatly aiding eventual Soviet air supremacy. Likewise, while small in comparison to the Eastern Front the British/American efforts in Africa, Italy, and eventually France drew off a significant amount of German forces.

I don't think it can be said that the Soviets could have ever lost the war, but you can make a reasonably good argument that the aid the Allies gave them allowed the Soviets to win the war. At the very least it would have taken them a lot longer to be victorious and at a higher cost. Without Allied participation Stalin might very well have opted for a negotiated peace.

[Gregoire]

Yes and no, I'd argue. Yes, the Soviet Union did do the lion's share of the heavy lifting when it came to defeating the Nazis. You can see that just in the casualty statistics -- more Russians died during the siege of Leningrad, for example, than Americans and British did for the whole war combined. The cost in lives was in fact so terrible that the Soviets in effect replaced their entire army every year.

That said, the Soviets nevertheless benefited quite a bit from the aid of the British and most especially Americans. For instance, the latter all but outfitted the Soviet supply system (minus the trains). The Allies also provided a lot of other material, including many weapons (Example: The Soviets had a bunch of Sherman tank divisions -- a tank they liked, BTW).

More indirectly the Allied Bombing offensive forced the Luftwaffe to concentrate on home defense thus greatly aiding eventual Soviet air supremacy. Likewise, while small in comparison to the Eastern Front the British/American efforts in Africa, Italy, and eventually France drew off a significant amount of German forces.

I don't think it can be said that the Soviets could have ever lost the war, but you can make a reasonably good argument that the aid the Allies gave them allowed the Soviets to win the war. At the very least it would have taken them a lot longer to be victorious and at a higher cost. Without Allied participation Stalin might very well have opted for a negotiated peace.


Thanks for your response and all the details you have provided. :)

I certainly would never want to minimize the contributions of the United States or any of the other allies in defeating Hitler. But you so often hear in America how the United States defeated Hitler in terms which suggest that most of the work was done by the US with help from the allies. This is how LeftySeargent's post came across to me in his discussion of FDR.

From reading your post, it seems to me that we actually both agree that this was not the case.

And as I tried to make clear in my original post, just because I think the rise and fall of Lenin's influence is the story of the 20th Century, I do not endorse him a likable figure or as someone to be admired. Similarly, just as I can appreciate the tremendous sacrifices of the citizens of the Soviet Union to defeat Hitler, I would never deny that Stalin was indeed a horrible human being.

[Ian Osborne]

And as I tried to make clear in my original post, just because I think the rise and fall of Lenin's influence is the story of the 20th Century, I do not endorse him a likable figure or as someone to be admired. Similarly, just as I can appreciate the tremendous sacrifices of the citizens of the Soviet Union to defeat Hitler, I would never deny that Stalin was indeed a horrible human being.

As we're talking about the Time magazine nomination, you wouldn't have to. The magazine stresses it's not an award or an indication of merit, but a reflection on who's been most influential.