If it [WWII] had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then certainly the Ring should have been seized and used against Sauron; he should not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-dur 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.
So were the Hobbits becoming identified with others in Tolkien’s mind at this point? Did Chalmers Johnson read Tolkien?
I had understood that Tolkien was pretty adamant that LOTR was NOT contemporary political commentary. That elements of reality that would have made a strong impression on him influenced his fantasy is understandable, just as 1200 years of European fear of the “Turks” made Lewis’ Calormenes into dark-skinned folk of oriental habits. But I don’t think attempting to draw direct connections from the arc of Tolkien’s story to real-world 20th century events is legitimate in view of his own denials in that respect. Unless, that is, you want to make Tolkien out to be some kind of moral theorist or prophet while simultaneously maintaining that his own self-knowledge and understanding of his own work were egregiously deficient.
That is exactly what Tolkien is saying in the above quotation and the surrounding context. But his denial is loaded with statements that make me wonder.