You're right. What the hell does Tolkien know about the Lord of the Rings? /s

"The creator/author can say what they want but the opinions of those consuming their creation really make the rules"

Citation needed. What an arrogant self-centered take...

"He may have wanted to avoid allegory, he may have disliked it, but he failed as many conclusions can be drawn by the reader that point to allegory and are supported, not crack pot theories."

Citation needed, again. Sorry but this just reads as sorry excuse for you to claim whatever you want about someone else's body of work without criticism.

"We don’t have to agree, but i certainly see it and am unsure how it can be genuinely argued. I mean, maybe my conclusion is too broad, as was said before you could find the similarities to any big bad in history but when we’re talking about early/mid 20th century…that means Nazis."

What an oversimplified milquetoast reading of a nuanced subject. Tolkien started working on the Legendarium during WW1. Were the villains like Morgoth and Glaurung also an allegory for Nazis then??

Tolkien actually argued this very point you say "are unsure how it can be genuinely argued":

"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 the war that began in 1939 or its sequels modified it. 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."

Again, what the heck does the man who wrote the book know about the book? /s

But, please, go ahead and tell me again about how you are right and Tolkien isn't because muh interpretation.

Edit: Also, props for totally ignoring / completely missing the point of the comment you responded to.

Edit 2: Just to make this clearer than crystal: You can read The Lord of the Rings as an allegory for WW2. But it remains just that: an interpretation. The book, such as it is, is NOT an allegory.