Where the **** Hitler comes into the equation beats me....

There are so many areas. I think it would be difficult to point to one individual.

Mind you ,with re to Envelopes post Quote "Alas he was Jewish"
I think we will definately see some Jewish names in there somewhere.
Einstein.....Science
Epstein......Sculpture.
Gert Stein.....Poetry
Albert Schweitzer....Humanities.
In fact if we delete the Jewish contestants, we seem to have lost most of the great cultural offerings of this century, let alone previous ones.
The introduction of the written word (Semetic tribes)
The introduction of the printed word (German Jews 1500's)
Sir Issac Newton ...Pricipa mathematica

Einstein....Oppenheimer...Max Plank (quantum Physics)..

Yehudi Menuhin..Yasha Heifitz..And a myriad of top quality musicians and composers.

Not to mention most of the great philosophers.

Then of course the film industry. Directors...Producers..and some of the great actors.

And finaly of course Jesus himself.

Most with the emphasis on CREATING.... NOT DESTROYING.

In that vain Hitler qualifies admirably. Consider that his actions/decisions literally shaped the world we live in. All of the people who dies that had he never lived would not have. The technology race that ensued during and after the war that still moves forward to this very day. Did we have the cold war before WWII? No, we had distrust but other than that everything was peaceful. The construction of the A-bomb was rushed because we thought the Germans were building one too and we didn't have the luxury of taking the chance that they weren't. We built and tested it first and the rest is history....till communist spies handed it over to the russians. Bingo, cold war.

Can anyone with any sense at all honestly say that Hitler didn't play a major role in effecting the course of human history, even though it was not in a positive sense? After all the question does state, "for better of for worse".

The fractured geopolitical state of Europe after the Great War led inevitably to World War II and thereby to the USA's rise to superpower status, the rebuilding and restructuring of Japan and Germany which allowed them to become the economic powerhouses of Asia and Europe respectively, the displacement of millions of Jews leading to the founding of Israel and redirected tensions in the Middle East, etc, etc.

An individual I had not even considered and fits ALL of the criteria perfectly.

>>Hitlers actions had a direct effect on
my family, but I still don't believe that he has actually influenced global history to any great extent. He was a failure.<<

Again are you serious?
If there was no Hitler there would be no WWII, no WWII then there would be none of or a delay of the after effects of the conflict, many of which have already been said in this thread. But heres another one. If Hitler did not exist, there would have been no Prime Minister Winston Churchill......

You're suggesting that Germany would still have lost the war if both Britain and America had not become involved, right?

Please just verify that that is what you believe.

No offense to Hitler but....Didn't he killed himself the moment he knew his own chit was going to hit the fan? Sore loser of the century, anyone? At best he’s a coward. Even his own military officers wanted to assassinate him.

Hitler’s best work was when he gathered a group of scientist and try to discredits Einstein’s work after he left Germany for the U.S. Einstein said if his theory was wrong Hitler only need one scientist to prove it. Hitler heard Einstein’s remark while shaving and that…ladies and gentlemen is how he got that stupid mustache. ouch hehe

I'm not being selective with any facts. I was argueing against your "facts" for the nomination of Churchill as person of the Century.

>>You're suggesting that Germany would still have lost the war if both Britain and America had not become involved, right? Please just verify that that is what you believe.<<

Damn right I do. There is one overwhelming fact that nobody can really deny. Russia won WWII. They had HELP from Britain and America.
Russia did the most to stem the tide of Germany's expansion. They devoured more of Germany's military power and kept the bulk of the nazi war machine occupied for the longest time, bar none. The Battle of Britain, while always counted as a victory in British and Allied eyes, was in no way a defeat for Germany. The Luftwaffe was still very strong.
Also lets not forget, WWII in Europe was not essentially about Britain or America. It was about expansion into Russia. The Battle of Britain was not even a serious attempt at invasion. The fuhrer's directive No 17 states that "....if its necessary, carry out an invasion against her(Britain)." It was never seriously considered. Germany knew she could not realisticly launch an invasion, even if they did destroy the RAF completely. The Werhmacht was not designed for a cross channel attack. It was designed for a European based land war, nothing else. On top of that and the most important issue, they couldn't afford to waste the troops in occupation of the Island of Britain. They were needed for where? Russia.
America didn't get involved in the European land war until Operation Torch in Africa in late '42 and they had to go through several painful lessons ( a la Kasserine Pass in Feb '43 ) against the Germans before they and the British got the upper hand competely against the DAK. Their Air campaign didn't get started until '43. By this time Russia had inflicted one of the major defeats on Geramny in Stalingrad. And by the Summer of '43 Germany suffered at the battle of Kursk, after which it would never again regain the initiative on the Eastern Front. All across the front the Germans were withdrawing. This all happened BEFORE America got fully involved in the land war against Germany and before Britain got fully back on her feet again. By June '44 and Normandy there was in ratio terms very little resistance to the Allied landings. The reason for this was Three years of attrition on the Eastern Front.
So, to answer your question, yes I do believe Germany would have lost WWII, even if Britain and America had stayed neutral. It just would have taken longer, with a more protracted war.

>>In fact, hands up anyone around here who believes that the U.S and G.B had nothing to do with the defeat of Germany.<<

As to your deduction that "WWII in Europe was not essentially about Britain or America. It was about expansion into Russia." , that's B.S!
Hitlers goal was European domination. Those who did not submit to Nazi rule were to be destroyed. Without doubt, Russia was hit terribly by the Germans, and most of those casualties were civilian. Russia did not win the war, since most of the German/Russian fighting took place on Russian soil, and there were relatively few attacks against targets in Germany.
The U.K and the U.S did by far the most damage to Germany, and that was probably one of the most influencial factors that led to the end of the war.
Had Germany not been fighting the U.K/U.S they could have commited a much larger force to Russia earlier on. I don't know if Russia could have stopped the Germans or not, but I have my doubts. Keep in mind that Russian casualties were somewhere in the 26 million range (against Germany's 7 million), which suggests that the Germans (had they not encountered the near-arctic weather conditions) could have won a war of attrition.
Let's not forget that the British were instrumental in causing delays to the Nazi atomic weapons projects, which (had they been completed) would have been used against Russia for sure.

"If there was no Hitler there would be no WWII, no WWII then there would be none of or a delay of the after effects of the conflict, many of which have already been said in this thread."
Who are you to say that some of the 50+ million people killed in Hitlers war would not have invented things that are BETTER than what the Nazis invented. Amongst those casualties are sure to be some who could have changed our day to day lives in ways I can't even begin to imagine. It cannot be assumed that the world is a better place because WW2 happened.

Once again, the question, which keeps getting taken completely out of context.

"Time's qualification was: "TIME's Person of the Century is that person who, for better or "worse", most "influenced" the course of history over the past 100 years..."

In that vain consider somethings...

Churchill, Stalin, Roosvelt, Eisenhower would not have had a war to fight and be recognized as the great men they were had Hitler not started it in the first place.

Hitler "influenced" our history, the others reacted to his influence and in turn are considered great because of their actions as a response to Hitlers actions.

In this sense Hitler gets the nod as being "influential".

Einstein, while his theories did set the groundwork that led to the development of the A-bomb, would we have even built the thing had we not been fighting the war with a real fear the the germans were working towards building such a weapon? Again Hitler and his boys get the nod for influence in this area. Don't get me wrong Einstein was brilliant but as to how much what he did actually influenced everything that happened based on what he did personally, I question it. For those who want to use the nuclear program consider Lesli Groves who ran the Manhattan project and sorta coerced the scientists into building it for the us, even after we had the germans defeated...

Nikola Tesla, Edison, Bell...all great men who could probably wear the title as well because what they did has great impact on us today. The problem with picking them is that it is what has been done with their basic inventions and ideas. Telecommunications technology like everything else has advanced at an alarming pace, the pace was fueled why? Because of requirement of military superiority in the west(and east). All of that was due to the cold war, which sprung to life from what? Yep, Hitlers actions come back around to rear their dirty little head again...

Judge had it right though, if you wanted to change the world forever go back in history and kill the assassin of Archduke Ferdinand and see where the world would be today. Perhaps no WWI, no WWII, no cold war, no nukes....who knows.

One thing is certain Hitlers "influence" can't be dismissed no matter how bad he was.

Nearly every history discussion on these message boards ends up talking about the man. Heck, we talk more about Hitler than any other historical figure.

What seperates Hitler from the rest of would be people of the century is that we constantly think about him. We have gone as far as use him as a constant in our daily lives. You think of Hitler and you get your perfect image of evil. Whether or not Hitler was THE most vicious and cut throat of historys figures doesn't come into play. Hitler is something more tangible than the devil or (x) evil religious figure.

How many times in your life have you compared someone to Hitler in some degree?

If you think about it, Hitler is more used than any mathmatical equasion. You measure evil by how near or far away someone is to what you believe Hitler was.

There are a few things that I wish we could uninvent. Nuclear Weapons, Chemical Warefare, Kenny G., and the Universal constant of Hitler. Honestly this guy really isn't worth all the time we spend on him.

It seems to me that many of you are reading it but what you are hearing is "Who would you pick for person of the century?"

The question I hear is "Who do you think was the one person who had the most influence on the history of the last 100 years?"

The firt question is very broad and gives a great degree of freedom to the person electing to answer it. You can pick from a wide range of names and all would be appropriate candidates.

The second is much more direct and requires some thought, emotions will find no place in it's answer if it's to be answered with any degree of accuracy.

Actually I knew what I said had nothing to do with the topic. I just couldn't resist making fun of Hitler and anyone who adores the dude. :0)

The Russian government allowed him to publish his theory in his book because they didn’t see that his discovery was of any significant. Ouch man. :0)

Saw that on the history channel last night. Pretty fascinating stuff.

Nonsense, the "policy" of appeasement was well over before Sept. '39, nine months before Churchill was elected as Prime Minister, also there were many others in two main parties that was opposed to the appeasement stick of Chamberlain, Churchill wasn't even considered until crisis point had hit home, after the end of the "Phony War". And as its been said before this poll is about Most influential, for better or worse, on the century and as I have said before, without Hitler there would have NEVER been a Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Take this for example, written by his son...

'It is something of a paradox, but true nonetheless, that had it not been for Hitler and the Labour Party, Churchill would never have become Prime Minister of Great Britain. Despite a political career that had already spanned forty years, and his evident availability, the Conservative Party had shown no inclination to invite him to be their leader. Only in the hour of maximum peril -indeed on the very day, 10 May 1940, that Hitler launched his Blitzkrieg against France, Belgium and the Low Countries - did the British nation turn, almost too late, to Churchill.'

As for him being the reason for the Battle of Britain, this may be so, in your eyes. But I said he did ZERO TO WIN the battle of Britain. Churchill may have stood firm and said no to peace terms with Hitler, but he was definitely NOT alone on this opinion. He was intelligent enough to know that the Germans could never have launched a seaborne invasion against Britain with the royal navies dominance of the channel and also shrewd enough to utilise Hitler's reluctance to attack the British Empire, which he admired greatly.

>>As to your deduction that "WWII in Europe was not essentially about Britain or America. It was about expansion into Russia.", that's B.S! Hitler's goal was European domination. Those who did not submit to Nazi rule were to be destroyed.<<

Unfortunately its you who is talking B.S. Bonedome. NOWHERE in all I've read and studied about WWII have I ever seen documents of statements pointing to Hitlers 'goal' as being domination of Europe. It was ALWAYS about Russia. Lebensraum was about the expansion of Germany Eastwards. In the Thirties Hitler ordered that huge monuments be built on Germanys borders with France and said that in the West the Reich would go no further, no such monuments would be built in the East. The French invasion only became a priority after Sept 39 when France and Britain declared war on Germany, the plans for which were finalised in 1940. Britain was not even mentioned. It was however to be a model on which Hitler was to build his Empire.

>>The U.K and the U.S did by far the most damage to Germany, and that was probably one of the most influential factors that led to the end of the war. Had Germany not been fighting the U.K/U.S they could have committed a much larger force to Russia earlier on.<<

The U.K.s "damage" was very minimal until '44 after D-day. By this time Russia had already done most of the hard work. Their tactics were completely wrong for fighting Rommel in Africa and only after the influx of American troops in late '42 did the odds become to great for the Afrika Korps to handle, they were already fighting more than 2/1 odds before the Americans arrived. Their night terror bombing of civilian populations can only be seen as a failure as it did not break the public's morale one iota.
The only substantial damage the U.S. did to Germany before '44, after three years of Crippling war on the Eastern Front, was with their daylight bombing, which in fact had very little lasting effect until they started targeting Ballbaring plants and synthetic oil and rubber planes en masse. For all their bombing of the aircraft industry production was still over 44.000 in '44, the Highest it had been in the entire war, and that was just single engine fighters. The Italian Campaign was indeed fast, but again the Germans were always at a disadvantage because of the sheer odds stacked against them. Even with the huge odds in the Western Allies favor they still had been held off quite considerably. The reason for this is because MOST of the German war machine was fighting the Russians, thousands of miles away. The fact is Germany fielded only the minimal amount of troops and equipment to fight the British and Americans in the Western Theatres before '44 and the still fought very, very well. Think about it, with one corps of men and a load of pretty ineffectual Italians, Rommel still managed to hold off and drive back the British.

>>I don't know if Russia could have stopped the Germans or not, but I have my doubts. Keep in mind that Russian casualties were somewhere in the 26 million range (against Germany's 7 million), which suggests that the Germans (had they not encountered the near-arctic weather conditions) could have won a war of attrition.<<

Most definitive records of WWII casualty list state that Russia lost about 21.000.000 people or so, but undoubtedly this is higher. Over 13.000.000 of these were military deaths. When you taken into account that there was over 25.000.000 people still in the Red Army in late '44 this is still a war winning number. Germany lost over 3.250.000 military casualties and at it's height had just over 12.000.000 in its army in '44. Germany could NOT afford the attrition rate it was having on the Eastern Front, Russia could. Russia did the most without a shadow of a doubt to win WWII in Europe. NOT the British and NOT the Americans

>>Let's not forget that the British were instrumental in causing delays to the Nazi atomic weapons projects, which (had they been completed) would have been used against Russia for sure.<<

True the British had a good deal to do with the destruction of the Hard water plant in Norway, but it was found out after the war that Germany was in fact so far behind the Americans in the atomic race that it would have taken years for them to realistically complete one even if the various attacks had still taken place

>>"If there was no Hitler there would be no WWII, no WWII then there would be none of or a delay of the after effects of the conflict, many of which have already been said in this thread." Who are you to say that some of the 50+ million people killed in Hitlers war would not have invented things that are BETTER than what the Nazis invented. Amongst those casualties are sure to be some who could have changed our day to day lives in ways I can't even begin to imagine.<<

I'm not for one second stating that. It could very well be that one of the many victims of WWII could have been a wonderful human being....

>>It cannot be assumed that the world is a better place because WW2 happened.<<

Upon reading some of the answers giving "Craper" the title of "man of the century", I wonder more and more whether my presence here is warranted.

I must have made a big mistake. Anyone giving creed to this abomination should travel a bit and heed that thing's legacy... or read for that matter.

I can kid around as much as the next guy but I will not do so in the presence of a neo Nazi, people like you turn my stomach.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

The SR-71 is not a stealth aircraft like F117 or B1. I think the only stealthy part it has is in the leading edge of its wing which has some sort of slots that bounce the radar beam away or something like that.

The SR-71 on a mission flew 3 times the speed of sound and at 80,000 feet. You can’t be stealthy traveling above the speed of sound because of the tremendous heat generate on the a/c skin and some other forces. That’s why the F117 and B1 don’t have afterburners and can’t travel faster than the speed of sound. :0)