WWII Parallels

[Son of Fire]

Hey, I was just think9ng the other day and I know that JRR himself avidly claimed that hiss books were not allegory, but the Two Towers seems to be quite parallel to the events of WWII. Here are some parallels I drew:
Rohan=Poland
Isengard=Germany
Gondor=England
The Ents=USA
Mordor=Russia(?)
Anyway, this would make sense, seing that this was written in that time period.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but, there are no allegories. And maybe I might be a little less sure of this f you would explain your examples. Because I just can't see how Isengard=Germany, and Gondor=England, if England was constantly fighting Germany yet in TTT Gondor was fighting the forces of Mordor and not Isengard. Not only that, Germany took over Poland very early in the war, yet in TTT, Rohan fights (the forces of) Isengard and defeats them, so Rohan=Poland and Isengard=Germany does not make sense. And Russia was apart of the Allies, fighting Germany, but in TTT, Mordor does not have a coalition or an alliance with Rohan, Gondor, or the Ents.

And it doesn't make sense anyways because Tolkien said that this was not an allegory. Mordor and Sauron would make more sense as the nazis and Hitler, but again, it is not so. Sorry...

[davem]

Well, I think it depends how precisely you define 'allegory'. There must be some 'middle ground' where allegory blurs into 'applicability'. Tolkin himself said it was impossible for an author to be unaffected by the events going on around him. I think Tolkien was objecting to a straight, one to one, allegorical linking of LotR & WW2. But You can't deny a number of very close similarities between LotR & events in the 20th century, especially the wars, though maybe more WW1 than WW2.
Plus, I suspect Tolkien 'protested too much' when he said he hated Allegory. What's Leaf by Niggle if not allegory? He was also capable of using allegory in a very effective way, for instance with the Tower analogy in Monsters & Critics.

[Selmo]

I believe that Tolkien used the words "allegory" to mean something that is in the mind of the author and "applicabillity" to mean something that happens in the readers mind.
Lord of the Rings isn't an allegory of WWII. Many of the plot ideas were conceived before the war and all of them were in place long before the war ended.

We can all play games with "applicabillity".
My list of LoTR groups and WWII nations would be very different from Son of Fire's list.
I would equate Rohan with USA, who listened to the whispers of isolationism (=Wormtongue) and did nothing to help UK and France (=Gondor) against Germany (=Mordor) until their own interests were threatened by Mordor's ally Isengard (=Japan).

[Tony Puckett]

I agree with those parralells, Selmo, more than the past ones that were drawn up. However, I can see the Ents being the USA in a way, because they also entered the war when Isengard(Japan) threatened their own interests, and their entry into the war tipped the balance of the war. However, the Ents did not fight Mordor, only the Rohirrim. SO, I think the USA would be represented by BOTH the Ents and Rohan, but principly Rohan, as recently suggested. Also, I would see Gandalf as perhaps Dwight D. Eisenhower, leading the final "blitzcreig" to the gates of Mordor, like the American rush that broke the back of the German forces in Europe. How about it?

[Tony Puckett]

PS: I realize that Aragorn perhaps 'led' the charge to the Black Gate, but Gandalf set more plans in motion, that is why I did not mention Aragorn, even though he could perhaps also be seen as a parallel to Eisenhower, and Gandalf could have been Roosevelt, counseling with Theoden and aiding to get Rohan into the war.

[Aiwendil]

The very fact that no one can agree on what represents what seems to me to indicate that there is no allegory; if there were, the parallels would be far easier to make. If I were forced to try and find parallels, I'd say that Mordor=Germany and Isengard=Russia. And of course the infamous Ring=nuclear weapons.

But none of that is really valid. Tolkien said quite explicitly that the book was not an allegory. Either he was right or he was lying. And no matter how hard one tries, one cannot quite make the story fit World War II perfectly. Who is Gandalf? Or Frodo? Or Aragorn? If the Ring is nuclear weapons, why was it initially created by Mordor then lost and found by the 'allies'? None of it stands up to close scrutiny.

Of course, it is possible to find applicability to World War II. In Tolkien's use of the terms, a work is allegorical when the story itself serves merely as a front or analogy to something else; the story is not the important thing. If LotR were an allegory it would be about World War II. If a work is applicable that means that, because it is a well-constructed and internally realistic story, there are inevitably themes found in the work that are also found in real life. The Ring does not represent nuclear power. But the Ring is an artifact with great power, and thus it bears a relation to all power, in any form.

[lindil]

None of it stands up to close scrutiny.

Agreed and with Gusto.

I am afraid this type of shallow speculation is deserving of a new term, 'quarter-baked'.

Seriously folks, at least see if the darn analogies hold up to even one level of application!

But of course it is undeniably true that Luxemborg represents the Druedain [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Bruce MacCulloch]

Keep in mind:

As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches: but its main theme was settled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and The Hobbit. The crucial chapter, 'The Shadow of the Past', is one of the oldest parts of the tale. It was written long before the foreshadow of 1939 had yet become a threat of inevitable disaster, and from that point the story would have developed along essentially the same lines, if that disaster had been averted. Its sources are things long before in mind, or in some cases already written, and little or nothing in it was modified by the war that began in 1939 or its sequels.
The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion. If it had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then certainly the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-dûr would not have been destroyed but occupied. Saruman, failing to get possession of the Ring, would in the confusion and treacheries of the time have found in Mordor the missing links in his own researches into Ring-lore, and before long he would have made a Great Ring of his own with which to challenge the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth. In that conflict both sides would have held hobbits in hatred and contempt: they would not long have survived even as slaves.
Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

- from the foreword toThe Lord of the Rings


There are no World War II parallels to be drawn. Is it asking so much to actually believe the Professor when he writes in reference to his own works?

[ April 01, 2003: Message edited by: Bruce MacCulloch ]

[Voralphion]

A few people have equated Isenguard with Russia. Don't you people know their history, Russia was on the side of the allies and was instrumental in defeating Germany. If there were one to one parallels with WWII (which I don't think there are), Isenguard would be an ally of Germany, Italy or Japan.

[Aiwendil]

A few people have equated Isenguard with Russia. Don't you people know their history, Russia was on the side of the allies and was instrumental in defeating Germany. If there were one to one parallels with WWII (which I don't think there are), Isenguard would be an ally of Germany, Italy or Japan.

I hope you don't think I was equating Isengard with Russia. My point was that LotR is not an allegory and therefore Isengard does not equate to Russia. But the rationale behind the equation is not mere ignorance of history; Isengard was originally a member of the 'allies' before being corrupted. While it's certainly true that Hitler did not corrupt Stalin into an alliance with him, Russia's early non-agression pact with Germany as well as the appearance of Cold War tensions at the end of the war could lead one (not I) to make the analogy. One might further say that Saruman's later corruption of the Shire, with talk of redistribution and bosses, was the influence of Soviet communism on England.

But please don't take this as an endorsement of an allegorical interpretation! I meant quite the opposite.

[Scott]

Bravo Aiwendil, you beat me to that historical snippet.

And in my opinion, whether one would claim The Lord of the Rings to be allegorical or not, it can still be possible to have paralells to the world wars. Every person no matter who they are are influenced in some way or another by the events surrounding their life and that helps to make them the people they are. Tolkien's life was affected by the world wars and it's reflected in his writings.

Even going on a more basic point, the War of the Ring is filled with didacticism and inarguably has characteristics of any or all war, whether directly relating it specifically to any one war (which I agree that it doesn't) or not. Anyone's literary interpretations are as true as another's as long as they can back them up.

[Son of Fire]

I was drawing parallels and not in the whole trilogy, but in the Two Towers. This book seems to represent that. A little know fact (at least here) is that Russia was on the axis side and switched to the allied side. Anyway, Japan does seem better. But Rohan could have been parallel to Rohan because they were attaced first and received little aid, thinking Germany their friend until the attack. Also, Mordor represents as a whole the industrial revolution in Tolkien's words, but Mordor does not do much in this book in the way of battle. Anyway, i think that the Ents were definitely similar to the USA because we were originally Isolationist and then (after we were encroached upon) became severely ****ed off and shied away from our unhastiness if you will, and attacked. These parallels are loose, I admit, but I meant only in Two Towers, not beyond. Also, Gondor was the powerhouse and they were drawm back and weakened until Rohan aided them, so I see the Rohan=USA as well. Anyway, this is juse my musings and thoughts, so no need to get offensive yall.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Oh, of course Tolkien was influenced by events in his lifetime. But influences and allegories are two very different things. The first is uncontrolled and Tolkien (or anyone else for that matter) has absolutely no control over, the latter, however, is the choice of the author; he and only he has control over it and any allegory in his work is a choce of his own. However, I think that we all know (if we didn't already) that there are no allegories in LotR.

Son of Fire:

know fact (at least here) is that Russia was on the axis side and switched to the allied side.

Actually, Russia was never on the side of the Axis. Russia fought Germany in WWI, but fropped out do to a social revolution which led to the leadership of Stalin and commmunism. In WWII, Russia and Germany did make a non-agression pact, but that does not mean that Russia is a part of the Axis. A (non-agression) pact is short term, and it's only function is to serve as a truce without having actually fought first. If Russia was a part of the Axis, then they would be allies with the Axis, especially Germany, because that's what the Axis was made up of- three countries that had an alliance with each other. An alliance is long term and it is much stronger than a pact. Besides that, Hitler and Stalin hated each other and their own forms of government- facist/communist. They (form of gov't) are very similar, but a line can be drawn between the two.

Well, given all that, why would Russia and Germany form a pact. If Russia was planning on becoming part of the axis, then they would have made an alliance, but they didn't. They made a pact because they needed time, and so did Germany. Read into a history book for more info, but the fact of the matter is that Russia was never a part of the Axis.

But Rohan could have been parallel to Rohan because they were attaced first and received little aid, thinking Germany their friend until the attack.

Rohan parallel to Rohan. I think you had a typo but meant Russia. And you mean Germany is still Isengard, right? Well, if so, Poland was attacked first, to get to Russia, which would be Rohan.

i think that the Ents were definitely similar to the USA because we were originally Isolationist and then (after we were encroached upon) became severely ****ed off and shied away from our unhastiness if you will, and attacked.

We never got into WWII because we were encroached upon, and actually, we were never encroached upon before we entered. We got in the war mainly to eliminate the threat of Hitler and facism, and by doing so, eliminateing the threat of Hitler eventually coming after the US.

[ April 02, 2003: Message edited by: MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie ]

[the witch king]

I dont think there are many parallels between ww2 and lotr, i think the only way most of you are finding them is by twisting history, come on russia a part of the axis?!?!?!?!?

[ April 02, 2003: Message edited by: the witch king ]

[lindil]

Russia was on the axis side and switched to the allied side.

I am no History major, but the story I heard was that Stalin had signed non-agression pact with Germany [which Hitler foolishly but providentially violated].

A non-agression pact is not the same thing as being allied with it.


Sorry if I came across as harsh up above, but I am really stunned at an attmpt to maintain 'LotR as WWII allegory; in the face of overwhlming evidence to the contrary, and a complete lack of evidence in favor.

Maybe Estelyn will mercifully interven...

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

We never got into WWII because we were encroached upon, and actually, we were never encroached upon before we entered.

The United States was dragged kicking and screaming into the Second World War: before the attack on Pearl Harbor American public opinion was against direct involvement, although Roosevelt was personally in favour. War was declared the day after the attack, suddenly with overwhelming popular support, and Germany and Italy declared war on the United States three days later, fulfilling treaty obligations to Japan. Anyone who tells you that U.S. involvement was an idealistic crusade against fascist tyranny is an idiot: in the East it was a direct response to an act of war, in the West the Axis powers initiated hostilities. Lindil is entirely correct in stating that Germany and Russia had signed a mutual non-aggression pact (the 'Pact of Steel'), which is not the same thing as an alliance. Hitler and Stalin hated one another, and National Socialism was vehemently opposed to Communism (fear of a Communist coup was the prime motivation for many of Hitler's wealthy financial backers). It was a joke of a treaty that was guaranteed to fail.

All of which doesn't have much to do with the issue, which is that Tolkien himself explicitly denied any analogies with the Second World War in the foreword to the second edition (included in all legal impressions since 1966). For the benefit of those who haven't got round to reading the foreword yet, here are a couple of quotations:

The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion. If it had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then surely the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad Dûr would not have been destroyed but occupied. Saruman, failing to get possession of the Ring, would in the confusion and treacheries of the time have found in Mordor the missing links in his own researches into Ring-lore, and before long he would have made a Great Ring of his own with which to challenge the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth.

An author cannot, of course, remain wholly unaffected by his experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous. It is also false, though naturally attractive, when the lives of an author and critic have overlapped, to suppose that the movements of thought or the events of times common to both were necessarily the most powerful influences.

I could go on, but it doesn't seem a valuable use of my time. There are no parallels between the events in The Lord of the Rings and those of the Second World War: even the most cursory examination of Tolkien's foreword would have shown this, and explained why this thread is entirely pointless.

[Son of Fire]

The parallels themselves do exist, and let me say it again, I HAD NO INTENTION OF CALLING THIS AN ALLEGORY, but was simply pointing out similarityies. Also i meant Rohan=Poland not Rohan=Rohan, my bad.

[lindil]

I apologize for the use of the word allegory, Son of Fire, but I am afraid there are no serious parallels to be found either [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img], other than the most basic forms of applicability such as: Hitler is bad, Sauron is bad. America and England were good Rohan and Gondor were good.

And none of these simplistic parallels play out any further if you try and follow the supposed relationships.

Welcome to the Downs Son of Fire - regardless of the WWII biz. I think you caught a few of us at our most prickly - there have been quite a few applicability/allegory tiffs lately it seems so you may have found the corn on the toes of the wights...

[ April 02, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Aiwendil]

but I am afraid there are no real parallels to be foune either

Well . . . "parallels" is an ambiguous word.

Not valid are statements of the sort: "The Ring represents nuclear power" or "Rohan represents the U.S.A."

Valid indeed are statements of the sort: "The theme of power and corruption that is illustrated by the Ring can also be seen with nuclear power" or "the theme of one nation coming to the aid of another in a time of need can be seen in both Rohan and the U.S.A."

Then, once we are examining this kind of non-allegorical statement, we must address dissimilarities and discrepancies in the application of the theme, like the fact that Rohan came to the aid of Gondor in fulfillment of an ancient oath whereas the U.S. came to the aid of the Allies because it had been attacked.

Words like "parallel" or "analogous" suggest the first kind of statment (allegorical), but could conceivably be meant to indicate the second.

[Iarwain]

It's funny to watch how often threads like these are created, discussed to no apparent end, and then abandoned. So far most of the one's I've read have had unique starting topics, but are all drawn into the debate over allegory. Quite Humorous.

Iarwain

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

before the attack on Pearl Harbor

Thank you Squatter for correcting me, I completely forgot about Pearl harbor. The US was attacked, however, some specualte that FDR did know about the attack before hand. We don't know if this is true or not, but if so, he let Japan attack us to gain public support, because for a long time before that, the people wanted isolation. And using Pearl Harbor was a way of getting to Germany (the main power of the Axis) through Japan. Pearl Harbor was to gain public support, but it was not the reason for the US evetering the war. I remember now what it was. American banks and major companies had given loans to England. If England is defeated, the banks and companies would lose a you-know-what-load of money, and most likely go bankrupt. If they went bankrupt, then that would destroy the US's ecenomy. So, the US had to get in, and do it before England fails. They needed a reason and public opinion, and Pearl Harbor was the answer. And of course, a major reason of the war was to defeat facism and Hitler. Another reason, however less significant, was that Germany attempted to have Mexico join the Axis. Germany promised Mexico lands back that the US had taken, like Texas for instance. The US found out about this and was extremely angry at the fact that Hitler tried this, to take the war on the soil of US lands. However, and certainly benefical for the US, Mexico did not join.

And don't worry Son of Fire, we know what you mean now. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Legolas]

It's funny to watch how often threads like these are created, discussed to no apparent end, and then abandoned. So far most of the one's I've read have had unique starting topics, but are all drawn into the debate over allegory. Quite Humorous.

About as interesting as your purely speculative threads, eh mate? [img]smilies/cool.gif[/img]

[ April 03, 2003: Message edited by: Legolas ]

[Iarwain]

Sometimes, but not usually. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Speculation makes a better, longer lived discussion. It allows sufficient room for the topic to be adjusted according to the discussion. The lack of utter clarity in a topic post can make people much more interesting and more interested than compared to a thread about a strict topic (subjects for such threads are running very low, and I haven't thought of one in a while...).

But anyway, most things on this forum are fun or interesting (the ones that I participate in at least [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ), so it's all good. What I find particuliarly humorous about this thread is that I saw an almost exact replica of this discussion take place a few months back. The thread was something about numerology in the books. It too took an inevitable turn into the Allegory discussion, and the conversation stopped soon after...

Iarwain

[Balin999]

If the Ring is nuclear weapons, why was it initially created by Mordor then lost and found by the 'allies'?

First of all, I don't think the books have anything to do with WW II, allthough there are certain similarities.

But, following the above quote, once I heard that actually Japan was trying to bring radioactive material to Germany via a submarine, and that the US caught the submarine, took the Uran or Putonium and made their own nuclear bomb and attacked Japan with it.
I don't know if this story is true, but if it is, it could be the explanation to the above question. On the other hand, I don't think that Tolkien could have known about the radioactive material, so my information is pretty useless. (Good work, Balin [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img])

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

We had three atom bombs towards the end of the second world war, at least one of them was plutonium and at least one was uranium, the third was either of the two. We used one as a test and then two on Japan.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

OK, this thread was very close to being off-topic from the start, but the last posts have nothing at all to do with Tolkien. Please delete your off-topic posts and post on-topic if you want this thread to stay open. Thanks!

[Son of Fire]

Okay, we were not able to produce plutonium until the late 50s. This thread is getting pretty dead because we all have our points of view, and I think we all agree that there is no alegory, but there are some events in TTT the book that closely parallel WWII, but maybe we'd better agree to disagree. I would gladly remove my unrelated post, by the way, if I knew how.

[Gryphon Hall]

A quote, if I may, from Tolkien himself, taken from the Foreword to the Lord of the Rings itself, slightly edited to make it more in the context of the original discussion:

As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. . . . It [the story Lord of the Rings] was written long before the forshadow of 1939 had yet become a threat of inevitable disaster [the start of World War II], and from that point the story would have developed along essentially the same lines, if that disaster had been averted [that is, even if there was no war]. Its sources are things long before in mind, or in some cases already written, and little or nothing in it was modified by the war that began in 1939 [World War II] or its sequels [that is, the Korean War and probably the Vietnam War].

The real war [WWII] does not resemble the legendary war [The War of the Ring] in its process or its conclusion. If it [WWII] had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then certainly the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron . . . . it has been supposed by some that the 'The Scouring of the Shire' reflects the situation in England at the time when I was finishing my tale [near the end of the war, after all the bombs that Germany can drop reduced a lot of England into, he-he [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img], Ent-size potholes]. It does not

<div align=right>From Tolkien's Foreword to the revised edition of the Lord of the Rings</div>

There is, of course, more. You will have to read the foreword yourself (it's in the 'Fellowship of the Ring' for those of you who have the 'divided' copies).

Yeah, I know it's a good thing to agree to disagree and all that. There would always be boring discussions if we can't do that. However, Tolkien was very clear about the entire World War II thing, and I just wanted to remind one of that.

Anyway, Pax and good cheer to all. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

The Ents=USA
Mordor=Russia(?)

Well, if you say that, then you are suggesting that my parents were Mordorians, before they came to Fangorn and made friends with the Ents, so now I am a little orc growing up in Treebeard's forest. [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

[Gryphon Hall]

I would have to apologize to [b]Bruce MacCulloch[b] and The Squatter of Amon Rûdh, because they really quoted the Foreword first in their posts. I commited the sin of not reading the entire discussion through. I apologize.

It is, uhm, notable though that inspite of posts with these quotes showing Tolkien saying, in effect, 'Look, WWII did not influence my writing, even if I admit that even I can be influenced. You see, I wrote all of this before WWII can influence me. Or even then, even if WWII never happened, the LotR will still show up the way you read it,' we still have discussions, and examples, on parallels.

I agree, though, that parallels does not automatically mean allegory. To risk being Off-topic here, one can draw parallels between the current war and the Vietnam War, but it doesn't mean that that is allegory.

Yet, c'mon! Isn't it kinda futile to still insist that there is some sort of 'one-to-one' correspondence in LotR and WWII? There are the good guys, there are the bad guys. There are the winners, there are the losers. There were the allies, there were the allies of the enemy. I could go on.

As I said, it is really good to agree to disagree. But seeing parallels where it is only superficially and arbitrarily there (at best) or is practically non-existent is, well, fun (I have to admit) but not really honest.

Pax. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[ April 07, 2003: Message edited by: Gryphon Hall ]

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I think that C.S. Lewis probably said it best:

These things were not devised to reflect any particular situation in the real world. It was the other way round; real events began, horribly, to conform to the pattern he had freely invented.

Some, then, did recognise that there were parallels with real events, although as has been said most of them are only applicable in a very general sense. Tolkien's own application of his work to the world he inhabited was expressed to those attending a "Hobbit party" in Rotterdam in 1958:

I look East, West, North and South, and I do not see Sauron; but I see that Saruman has many descendents. We Hobbits have against them no magic weapons. Yet, my gentlehobbits, I give you this toast: To the Hobbits. May they outlast the Sarumans and see spring again in the trees.

Tolkien had already described the Second World War as "The first War of the Machines" in a letter to Christopher Tolkien, and if anything his attitude to it had been ambivalent. He regarded the real victors in the struggle to be mechanism and materialism; globalisation and loss of national identity for all countries involved; forces that remind me very much of Saruman. He said, as the Red Army drew within sixty miles of Berlin:

The destruction of Germany, be it 100 times merited, is one of the most appalling world catastrophes.

His reaction to nuclear weapons was one of great trepidation, although by this late stage the nature of the One Ring was already long-established:

The news today about 'Atomic bombs' is so horrifying one is stunned. The utter folly of these lunatic physicists to consent to do such work for war purposes: calmly plotting the destruction of the world! Such explosives in men's hands, while their moral and intellectual status is declining, is about as useful as giving out firearms to all inmates of a gaol and then saying that you hope 'this will ensure peace'.

He also told Christopher Tolkien that in his opinion the Second World War had been lost.

When we compare these views with the rather more positive outcome of The Lord of the Rings, it becomes much easier to see why no parallel can be more than superficial: the situations of the Ents, and of Rohan and Gondor are general ones, applicable as much to individual people as to countries, and to more than one historical situation. That seems to me the main objection to this search for correlations in the Second World War: it really tells us nothing about Tolkien, his work or the war itself, which as I have said above he regarded largely with despair.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

OK, it looks like there is nothing new and not likely anything Tolkien-related coming up on this thread, so I'm closing it.