[Formendacil]

This cannot be symbolism directly intended by Tolkien (or any other symbolism for that matter) because he had a strong distaste for allegory, and explicitly denies it, as has already been noted by Child of the 7th Age.

The problem with symbolism, quite apart from the author's actual intent, is that you start looking at everything as a symbol of something, and lose sight of the fact that it is all a part of a story and world where it has it's own purpose to fulfill. Here are some reasons that I can come up with about why these things are as they had to be, within the context of the story, and thus negating any reason for them to be symbols.

Gondor --> A kingless kingdom --> Britain?

Gondor had to be kingless, because Aragorn's story was to become it's long-awaited king returning.
Isildur --> A king who gave fell due to temptation --> Edward

Someone had to take the Ring from Sauron. And that someone had to go on to lose it and not destroy it, and so make the story possible.
Denethor --> An ineffective "steward of the state --> Chamberlain

First of all, Denethor was far from ineffective. He was doing the best anyone could do under the circumstances, unlike Chamberlain. Secondly, Denethor's "ineffectiveness" in so far as it went, was due to personal grief and distorted knowledge from the Palantir, and was not due to ineptitude. That doesn't exactly negate the symbolism, but I think you'd be stretching it to say that Denethor was ineffective.
Faramir --> A true steward --> Churchill

So Chamberlain was Churchill's father? Faramir fulfilled Elrond's prediction of meeting unexpected friends along the road. It was then in character for him to remain on the side of Gandalf and Aragorn.
Seige of Gondor --> A great state seiged for many years --> Battle of Britain

The story included huge armies massing against a smaller state. Tolkien wasn't writing about death-seeking glory-idiots, hence a Siege was bound to happen. Again, dictated by the needs of the story, and not by symbolism.
Isengard --> A place of wisdom fallen into darkness --> Germany

Saruman begins as the plot device to make Frodo leave on his own. He has to be of great power to prevent Gandalf from helping Frodo. Thus, he becomes wise and a lord of Orks and men. Isengard, as his home, HAS to turn evil.
Uruk-Hai --> "Superior orc-men" --> Nazis

Right.... A race that is BORN evil represents a race that was forced into evil deeds by a madman and his fanatical followers... Besides which, Saruman (as already noted) HAD to be evil. In order to force the Fellowship through Moria, he HAD to present a major military threat. Orc-men was a convinient abomination that helps solidify him as total traitor and gives him a more fearsome army.


I could go on, but I think that you get my point. These choices in the story were made because they followed the logic of the story as far as it had gone, and in the direction Tolkien wanted to take it. The reasons given above are unlikely to have been on Tolkien's mind in anything near the way I have presented them. More likely, he was just writing a very good tale, and these are the elements that he mixed to make them. The real events of Britain in that era might have been a part of the "leaf-mould" of his imagination, and may have influenced where he decided to go, but he did not consciously intend to symbolise anything. As he noted himself, the better a story is written, the more allegorically applicable it will seem. This is only natural, since the better a story is written, the more like real life it will seem. That doesn't mean that it isn't still just a story. Maybe with lessons, but still a story first and foremost.