One brief comment I would make in response to this would be that although the horrors of WWII cannot be overstated, Tolkien was not naive to the truth of conflict prior to 1939. Having lived through the Great War of 1914-1918, and been aware of numerous contemporary smaller but equally bloody conflicts elsewhere in the world, he was only too aware of the truth of these matters.
Your point on the adoption of elements of Northern mythology by the propagandists of the Third Reich is well-drawn, and his bitter resentment of this is evident in the quote you provide and elsewhere.
Quote:
|
The prime diference between the pre- & post-LotR period is the war that intervened, & LotR reflects this - the early drafts are full of hope & optimism - an adventure for hobbits searching for more dragon gold - but as the horrors of the war become clearer Tolkien responds & produces a tale of loss & renunciation - of myth, of the past & its atavistic pull towards nationhood, blood & soil.
|
I do not think the change in his style, tone and import went through so clearly defined a switch from this. Much of the mythological background to Arda Marred and the Legendarium, and those parts specifically which deal with "loss & renunciation" were written well prior to WWII. Although LotR does see a marked shift in tone, there are some other explanations - although, as you will find elsewhere on the site, these inconsistencies of style form my major criticism of the work.
These explanations run from the mundanely deliberate - very naturally, Tolkien would want the scenes of the Shire and Old Forest to be markedly distinct from those epic scenes in Gondor and Mordor in RotK - to the sub-conscious - Tolkien had always intended to weave such a powerful tale, you can see it screaming to be released from all his earlier writings.