Jennifer Woodward
Totalitarian Opportunism
Cataclysm, Nietzschean Thought and Cultural Trans­
formation in J. J. Connington’s Nordenholt’s Million (1923)
ABSTRACT
This	article	considers	J.	J.	Connington’s	1923	British	disaster	novel	Nordenholt’s Million 
as	a	response	to	its	British	inter-war	context	by	examining	the	novel’s	presentation	of	
cataclysm as an opportunity for social change. Nordenholt’s Million utilises an apoca-
lyptic	scenario	involving	soil	denitrification	as	a	means	of	offering	an	uncompromising	
critique of conventional government systems and its wider social context. Drawing 
upon	the	appeal	of	extreme	politics	and	displaying	affinities	with	Nietzschean	philos-
ophy	throughout,	Nordenholt’s Million emphasises the necessity of dictatorship during 
periods	of	social	and	economic	difficulty.	 It	uses	such	circumstances	to	champion	so-
cial transformation from what it presents as a state of contemporary decline towards a 
highly	efficient,	eugenically	constructed	post-apocalyptic	utopian	society.
KEYWORDS
Disaster	Fiction,	Apocalypse,	Literature,	Nietzsche,	Inter-war	Britain,	Eschatology,	Uto-
pia,	Science	Fiction
BIOGRAPHY
Jennifer Woodward is a senior lecturer in Film Studies and English Literature at Edge 
Hill	University,	UK.	Her	PhD	examined	British	Disaster	Science	Fiction	before	the	Sec-
ond	World	War	and	alongside	her	interests	in	speculative	fiction	and	adaptation	stud-
ies,	she	has	published	work	examining	disaster	novels	by	authors	such	as	Arthur	Conan	
Doyle	and	R.	C.	Sherriff.	She	is	also	on	the	editorial	committee	for	Gylphi	Press’s	SF	Story	
Worlds series.
J.	J.	Connington’s	1923	apocalyptic	novel	Nordenholt’s Million is one of sever-
al British catastrophe narratives written prior to the Second World War that 
use	disaster	as	a	means	to	envision	social	transfiguration	and	political	wish-ful-
filment	 fantasy.	 Such	narratives	 form	a	body	of	 secular-eschatology	 that	use	
disaster narratives to address contemporary social concerns and model social 
change.	Specifically,	Nordenholt’s Million uses a global cataclysm to champion 
www.jrfm.eu 2019, 5/2, 51–68 Totalitarian Opportunism | 51
DOI: 10.25364/05.05:2019.2.4
proto-fascist dictatorship as a solution to weak government and contempo-
rary	social	and	political	crises.	Displaying	affinities	with	Nietzschean	philosophy	
throughout,	it	argues	that	under	certain	conditions,	dictatorship,	brutality	and	
population	control	may	be	necessary,	even	advantageous,	for	the	construction	
of	a	highly	efficient,	eugenically	shaped	utopia.	Thus	the	text	offers	an	invalua-
ble	insight	into	the	ways	that	eschatological	narrative	structures	–	dealing	with	
endings	and	new	beginnings	–	have	been	adopted	by	secular	writers	to	present	
issues	around	morality,	social	transformation	and	“human	nature”.
The	novel	opens	with	the	significantly	named	narrator,	Flint,	visiting	Woth-
erspoon,	a	 scientific	“dabbler”	and	writer	 for	 the	popular	press.1 In contrast 
to the protagonist the highly competent multi-millionaire businessman Stanley 
Nordenholt,	Wotherspoon	is	inept,	focussed	more	on	his	writing	than	on	being	
a	proficient	experimenter	 in	his	studies	of	nitrifying	and	denitrifying	bacteria.	
When	an	unexplained	fireball	mutates	the	denitrifying	bacteria,	Wotherspoon	
is too inattentive to notice.2	In	short	order,	the	mutated	bacteria	cause	massive	
crop	failure	and	widespread	starvation.	Five	million	English	(rather	than	“Nor-
denholt’s	Million”,	which	 is	Nordenholt’s	recruiting	slogan)	are	saved	only	by	
Nordenholt’s	 foresight	 and	dynamic	 response,	 as	 he	 secures	 resources	 from	
America and embraces the calamity as an opportunity to take control of the 
situation in Britain.3	After	overthrowing	the	failing	British	government,	Nord-
enholt	establishes	himself	as	dictator,	selecting	those	who	are	to	survive	and	
relocating	them	to	a	“Nitrogen	Area”	in	the	Clyde	Valley.
Nordenholt’s	character	is	significant.	In	The Pattern of Expectation,	I.	F.	Clarke	
reads Nordenholt’s Million	as	the	source	of	a	particular	“variant	on	the	disaster	
story”,	the	“salvation	myth”,	which	relates	“how	a	man	of	genius,	usually	a	sci-
entist,	saves	a	remnant	of	humanity	and	lays	the	foundation	for	a	better	order	
of	existence”.4	Although	not	a	scientist,	Nordenholt	becomes	“the	architect”	
of	a	future	civilisation	planned	and	executed	by	Flint,	his	 friend,	and	Elsa,	his	
niece.5	As	the	narrative	progresses,	the	blight	not	only	precipitates	mass	star-
vation but also exposes the degenerative path on which the pre-cataclysmic 
society	had	embarked.	Hence,	Nordenholt’s	actions	in	the	Clyde	Valley	provide	
a remedy both for the blight and for what are presented as the regressive ten-
dencies	of	the	English.	At	the	novel’s	conclusion,	a	new	civilisation	emerges	and	
overcomes	what	the	text	has	framed	as	the	social,	political	and	economic	prob-
lems of post-war Britain.
1	 Connington	1923,	8.
2	 Connington	1923,	27.
3	 Connington	1923,	45–66.
4	 Clarke	1979, 229.
5	 Connington	1923,	146.
52 | Jennifer Woodward www.jrfm.eu 2019, 5/2, 51–68
The anti-democratic ideology actioned by Nordenholt and implemented 
throughout Nordenholt’s Million	aligns	it	with	what	Dan	Stone	defines	as	“ex-
tremes	of	Englishness”	thought.6	Exemplified	in	works	by	writers	and	scholars	
including	Oscar	Levy,	Anthony	Ludovici	and	Karl	Sanderson,	the	“extremes	of	
Englishness”	mindset	is	seen	in	their	works’	embracing	of	radicalism	and	illib-
eralism	in	relation	to	British	concerns.	Although	not	individually	fascist,	they	
come,	Stone	notes,	“very	close	to	satisfying	the	criteria	regarded	by	scholars	
as	 constituting	 fascism”.7	 They	 embrace	militarism,	 the	 defence	 of	 Empire,	
the	call	for	a	“masculine	renaissance”	and	eugenics,	and	demonstrate	an	en-
gagement with Nietzschean philosophy.8 Such thematic concerns indicate 
channels	of	reasoning	that	highlight	what	Stone	identifies	as	a	“provenance	
of	proto-fascist	ideas	in	Britain”	before	the	Second	World	War.9	Comparably,	
the response to the inter-war context evidenced in Nordenholt’s Million as-
serts	 that	 failing	 democratic	 governments	 and	 a	 lack	 of	National	 Efficiency	
can	only	be	remedied	by	fascist	politics,	a	solution	it	presents	without	irony	or	
satire	as	wholly	desirable.	The	political	content	of	the	novel,	which	champions	
autocracy,	appears	grounded	in	Nietzschean	thought	and	promotes	Nation-
al	Efficiency	and	eugenics, clearly	aligns	it	with	an	“extremes	of	Englishness”	
ideology. It addresses contemporary British anxieties regarding political sys-
tems,	 industry	 and	 industrial	 relations,	 and	 race	 and	 degeneration	 through	
a proto-fascist lens that sees dictatorship as the only viable response to ca-
tastrophe. 
ANTI-DEMOCRATIC	THOUGHT	IN	THE	NOVEL
What is clear from the European movement towards anti-democratic political 
ideologies	between	the	wars	 is	 that	 forceful,	decisive	 leadership	was	consid-
ered by many an appealing alternative to what were popularly perceived as in-
effective	modes	of	government.10 Richard Thurlow explains that many people 
saw	democracy	as	a	“fair	weather	system”	not	best	suited	to	times	of	social	
or	economic	difficulty.11 There was an increased sense that democratic govern-
ment pandered to the physically weakest and least intellectual in society.12 In 
6	 Stone	2002,	2–3.
7	 Stone	2002,	3.
8	 Stone	 (2002,	 passim) outlines how works by popular authors arose out of fears of decline 
in Edwardian Britain. They represent trends in thinking prior to the Second World War that 
resulted in the popularity of extreme views in British society more broadly.
9	 Stone	2002,	2–3.
10 Thurlow	1987,	8.
11 Thurlow	1987,	25.
12 Schapiro 1972,	8.
www.jrfm.eu 2019, 5/2, 51–68 Totalitarian Opportunism | 53
Britain,	the	appeal	of	such	ideas	emerged	in	the	context	of	post-war	political	
instability and social unrest and the economic crisis that would eventually lead 
to	the	Great	Depression	of	the	1930s.	Although	living	conditions	improved	af-
ter	the	war,	largely	due	to	advances	in	technology,	it	was	a	period	of	industrial	
discontent and economic decline arising from demobilisation and the return 
to a peacetime economy.13	Furthermore,	as	Thurlow	notes,	Britain’s	“political	
system had been unable to check the sharp decline in British power in the late 
Victorian	and	Edwardian	eras”.14 In Nordenholt’s Million that decline is averted 
by the rise of a totalitarian demagogue.
The	 novel	 is	 overtly	 critical	 of	 democratic	 government,	 representing	 it	 as	
weak,	self-serving	and	corrupt	–	a	criticism	of	the	political	turmoil	seen	in	suc-
cessive post-war British governments. Overt criticism of democracy begins 
when Flint is called to a meeting with Nordenholt and the government about 
the	impending	catastrophe.	The	Prime	Minister,	 looking	“worn	and	agitated”	
but	endeavouring	“to	assume	a	cheerful	and	confident	air”,	 is	revealed	to	be	
preoccupied with preserving and consolidating his political position.15 Without 
irony,	the	Prime	Minister	states	that	“nothing	could	be	more	fatal	than	a	gener-
al	election”.16	The	satire	is	not	lost	on	the	reader.	Conscious	of	the	electorate’s	
growing	unease	as	the	blight	spreads,	he	sees	the	crisis	requiring	a	public	rela-
tions exercise to pacify them. At no point does the Prime Minister comprehend 
the	apocalyptic	effects	of	the	mass	starvation	that	will	arise	from	denitrifying	
the	 soil.	His	 strategy	 is	 reactive	 rather	 than	proactive,	with	no	priority	given	
to	addressing	the	cause	of	the	growing	catastrophe.	Furthermore,	none	of	his	
measures	can	be	implemented	quickly,	since	his	cabinet	is	dispersed,	with	many	
members	 abroad	 and	 unable	 to	 return.	 Nordenholt’s	 condemnations	 of	 the	
government’s	reaction	are	overt.	Describing	their	plans	to	address	the	effects	
of	 the	ensuing	 cataclysm	as	“window	dressing	 […]	 to	pacify	 the	public”,	he	
recognises that politics is placed before action in their plans.17 Midway through 
the	meeting,	Flint	is	also	critical	of	the	government	response.	He	admits	that	“I	
had become more and more uneasy. Through it all ran the governing thought 
that	something	must	be	done,	which	was	true	enough;	but	the	thing	which	he	
proposed	to	do	[…]	was	to	persuade	the	country	that	all	was	well,	whereas	I	
felt	that	the	essential	matter	was	to	prepare	against	a	practical	calamity.”18 This 
practical	perspective	allies	Flint	with	Nordenholt,	a	man	of	decisive	action	and	
foresight who has already secured emergency food stocks and surrounded him-
13 Hamilton	1971,	xxii;	Thurlow	1987,	8;	Smith	1995,	169.
14 Thurlow	1987,	8.
15 Connington	1923,	45.
16 Connington	1923,	46.
17 Connington	1923,	52.
18 Connington	1923,	47.
54 | Jennifer Woodward www.jrfm.eu 2019, 5/2, 51–68
self by those most able to manage the crisis.19	As	such,	Nordenholt	fulfils	–	in	
fiction	at	least	–	what	Alastair	Hamilton	describes	as	the	1920s’	“craving	for	de-
cisiveness”	by	overthrowing	the	parliamentary	system	in	favour	of	what	is	pre-
sented as necessary (for human survival) and advantageous authoritarian rule.20 
In	its	distinction	between	governmental	prevarication	and	individual	action,	
the	novel	differentiates	sharply	between	feigned	and	genuine	authority.	As	Flint	
observes	Nordenholt,	he	notes	that	“while	the	Premier	counterfeited	power	in	
his	appearance,	this	unknown	[Nordenholt]	embodied	it”.21 His determination 
overwhelms	the	Prime	Minister,	who	“had	been	brought	face	to	face	with	re-
ality;	and	it	had	broken	him”.22	Accordingly,	his	dynamism	and	greater	intellect	
mean that he has already secured a plan for how to deal with the crisis and he 
gains complete control of the country by leaving the politicians little choice but 
to conform to his plans. Flint remarks:
I	realised	what	he	had	done.	By	sheer	force	of	personality	and	a	clear	mind,	he	had	
carried	us	along	with	him	and	secured	our	assent	to	a	scheme	which,	wildcat	though	
it	might	appear,	seemed	the	only	possible	way	out	of	the	crisis.	He	had	constituted	
himself	a	kind	of	dictator,	though	without	any	of	the	trappings	of	the	office;	and	no	
one dared oppose him. The cold brutality with which he had treated the politicians 
was	apparently	 justified;	 for	 I	now	saw	whither	 their	procrastination	would	have	
led us.23
Flint’s	perspective,	as	he	contrasts	Nordenholt	with	the	politicians,	echoes	the	
call	for	a	“masculine	renaissance”	associated	with	“extremes	of	Englishness”	
ideas and connotes fascist ideas of authoritarian leadership. Nordenholt is de-
picted	as	an	unopposable	and	necessary	force.	He	is	a	fictional	antidote	to	the	
real	British	politicians	who,	as	Thurlow	notes,	had	 failed	“to	create	a	 society	
that	had	adequately	compensated	for	the	horror	and	trauma	of	the	war	[and	
who]	produced	a	mood	of	frustrated	anger	which	tainted	the	utopian	cravings	
of	many	attracted	to	Fascism”.24	In	positioning	Nordenholt	as	a	saviour-figure,	
the novel acknowledges an increasingly popular contemporary conviction that 
strong leadership was necessary if the nation was to survive its post-war crises. 
Once	Nordenholt	has	established	his	survivors	in	the	Clyde	Valley,	the	novel’s	
rejection	of	democracy	is	explicit:	he	sends	the	politicians	back	to	their	constit-
uencies to starve.25
19 Connington	1923,	52–65.
20 Hamilton	1971,	259.
21 Connington	1923,	50.
22 Connington	1923,	59.
23 Connington	1923,	65.
24 Thurlow	1987,	25.
25 Connington	1923,	72;	106–107.
www.jrfm.eu 2019, 5/2, 51–68 Totalitarian Opportunism | 55
When	he	declares	himself	dictator,	Nordenholt	clearly	has	a	long-term	vision	
that	goes	far	beyond	the	immediate	crisis.	In	contrast	to	the	novel’s	self-serv-
ing	politicians,	Nordenholt	works	for	the	survival	and	control	of	a	minority	of	
the	population:	a	eugenic	selection	of	Britain’s	most	talented	and	hard-work-
ing	people.	 The	 remainder	are	 sacrificed	 to	 the	blight.	Without	Nordenholt’s	
dictatorship,	 the	novel	suggests,	 there	can	be	no	effective	action,	survival	or	
progress;	the	country,	and	the	population,	requires	a	guiding,	driving	force,	an	
architect	and	overseer,	embodied	by	Nordenholt	himself.
THE NIETZSCHEAN IDEA OF THE ÜBERMENSCH AND 
NORDENHOLT’S MILLION
The	 “extremes	 of	 Englishness”	 ideology	 found	within	Nordenholt’s Million is 
embodied	to	a	significant	degree	by	Nordenholt	himself.	His	characterisation	
draws upon a number of Nietzsche-derived ideas that were in the popular cul-
tural	consciousness	in	the	first	part	of	the	twentieth	century.	Anti-democratic	
political	 ideologies	gained	 increasing	popularity	 in	 the	 inter-war	 years,	 a	 fact	
reflected	 in	 the	 rise	of	 fascism	across	Europe	 following	 the	 First	World	War.	
What	is	clear	from	this	movement	towards	autocracy	is	that	forceful,	decisive	
leadership was considered an appealing alternative to what were increasingly 
perceived	as	 ineffective	modes	of	government.	Both	 in	Europe	and	 in	Britain	
fascism came to be regarded as a positive force that would allow for the crea-
tion of a new society following the experience of the First World War.26 In Brit-
ain,	a	growing	number	of	thinkers	were	echoing	the	anti-democratic	sentiments	
emerging across Europe.27	 By	 adopting	a	 “history	of	 ideas”	 approach,	 Stone	
demonstrates that such disillusionment with democracy was evident in fascist 
impulses in Britain. These fascist impulses are readily observable in Nordenholt’s 
Million.	Indeed,	an	intellectual	recourse	to	extreme	responses	as	means	of	re-
solving	problems	was	not	uncommon,	making	Nordenholt’s Million’s	depiction	
of	extreme	measures	to	achieve	wish	fulfilment	perhaps	appealing	to	contem-
porary readers. 
Presented	as	an	ideal	leader,	Nordenholt	has	much	in	common	with	the	idea	
of the Nietzschean Übermensch, whose popularity had grown through this pe-
riod of post-war instability.	Within	the	text,	society	is	presented	as	something	
to	be	driven	and	shaped,	to	be	managed	and,	at	times	of	crisis,	manipulated	for	
its	long-term	benefit	by	such	a	leader.	Richard	Overy	explains	that	the	idea	of	
a	“New	Order”	based	on	authoritarian	rule	and	active,	decisive	government	in	
which	a	dictatorship	is	better	suited	to	representing	a	nation	was	influenced	by	
26 Thurlow	1987, 25.
27 Thurlow	1987, 8.
56 | Jennifer Woodward www.jrfm.eu 2019, 5/2, 51–68
“fashionable	 ideas	of	personality	and	charisma,	derived	from	a	misreading	of	
Nietzsche’s	 idea	of	 the	 ‘superman’	 as	 a	political	phenomenon”.28 Fundamen-
tal to this is the fact that in Nordenholt’s Million clear distinctions are made 
between	“types”	of	people:	the	sacrificed	majority,	workers	for	the	Nitrogen	
Area,	Nordenholt’s	“gang”	and	Nordenholt	himself.	 Such	distinctions	can	be	
read	 in	Nietzschean	terms.	As	Richard	Schacht	explains,	Nietzsche	“takes	hu-
man	beings	to	fall	into	one	or	other	of	two	radically	different	and	widely	dispa-
rate	groups,	one	very	numerous	and	occupying	‘the	human	lowlands,’	and	the	
other,	‘very	small	in	number,’	constituting	‘a	higher,	brighter	humanity’	stand-
ing	far	‘above’	the	rest”.29	Essentially,	although	Nietzsche	states	in	Thus Spake 
Zarathustra that	“mankind	is	a	rope,	tied	between	animal	and	Overman”,30 in-
dicating	a	spectrum	of	human	development,	he	broadly	distinguishes	between	
“higher”	and	“lower”	types	of	individuals	in	terms	of	their	power	and	ability.31
In Nordenholt’s Million the creation of the Nitrogen Area facilitates the sepa-
ration	of	the	“higher”	and	“lower”	types.	While	the	workers	have	been	subject	
to	eugenically	intended	selection	–	they	are	those	deemed	“most	fitted	to	sur-
vive”	out	of	the	“human	lowlands”	–	those	who	work	directly	for	Nordenholt	
are distinguished by their exceptional abilities.32	They	represent,	in	Nietzschean	
terms,	 “higher”	 types	“in	 relation	 to	 the	general	 run	of	mankind”.33 Schacht 
notes	 that	 in	Nietzsche’s	writings	 the	Übermensch is the apotheosis of these 
“higher”	types.34 While the Übermensch	is	only	prophesied	in	Nietzsche’s	work,	
he	is	realised	in	Nordenholt	himself.	He	is	described	as	“Jagannatha”	and	a	“Ti-
tan”	worshipped	by	his	“gang”.35	He	is	established	as	“above”	the	rest	of	the	
population.	Furthermore,	while	“Nordenholt’s	gang”	represent	“higher”	men	
who have the potential to develop into the Übermensch,	Nordenholt	 is a fully 
realised	“higher	man”:	an	exceptional	individual	guided	by	his	own	will	and	mas-
tery over himself.36	His	characterisation	as	the	apotheosis	of	the	“higher	type”	
of	man	ensures	that	he	 is	a	formidable	dictator.	As	Flint	remarks,	while	work	
progresses in the Nitrogen Area:
behind	us,	seated	at	the	nucleus	of	that	complex	web	of	activities,	there	was	Nord-
enholt	…	the	presence	of	that	cool	 intelligence	behind	us	had	a	moral	effect	upon	
our	minds.	He	never	lessened	our	initiative,	never	showed	any	sign	of	vexation	when	
28 Overy	2007,	68.
29 Nietzsche	1968,	4:1053–4:1067.
30 Nietzsche	2006,	Thus	Spake	Zarathustra, 1:4.
31 Schacht	2002,	381.
32 Connington	1923,	61
33 See	Schacht	2002,	340.	
34 Schacht	2002,	349.
35 Connington	1923,	259;	199;	237.
36 See	Nietzsche	2002,	1:19	and	Diethe	2007,	128.
www.jrfm.eu 2019, 5/2, 51–68 Totalitarian Opportunism | 57
things began to go wrong. He treated us as colleagues though we knew that he was 
our	master.	And	under	his	examination,	difficulties	seemed	to	fade	away	in	our	hands.37
At	the	centre	of	his	web	of	plans,	Nordenholt’s	detached	“cool	intelligence	be-
hind”	them	is	a	driving	force.	He	is	both	architect	and	overseer	of	the	new	soci-
ety	he	is	shaping.	Without	his	dictatorship,	the	text	suggests,	there	will	be	no	ef-
fective	action,	survival	or	progress.	Thus,	his	role	is	to	achieve	a	transfigurative	
vision	in	society,	which	culminates	in	his	founding	of	a	Nietzschean-type	aristoc-
racy	at	the	wish-fulfilment	conclusion	of	the	novel.	As	a	result	of	his	legacy,	the	
book concludes with the prospect of humanity progressing toward something 
analogous to the Übermensch,	and	the	alternate	possibility	of	human	decline	if	
Nordenholt’s	legacy	is	not	preserved.	
In	 his	 assumption	 and	 articulation	 of	 power,	 Nordenholt	 displays	 what	
Nietzsche	identifies	as	a	“master	morality”	that	is	above	the	“herd	instinct”	that	
characterises	conventional	morality.	Accordingly,	in	his	reshaping	of	economic,	
political	and	financial	landscapes,	his	execution	of	this	“master	morality”	associ-
ates	him	with	the	“higher”	type	of	man	who,	like	“the	noble	type	of	man,	regards	
himself	as	a	determiner	of	values;	he	does	not	require	to	be	approved	of”.38 His 
intolerance of those he recognises as lazy or inadequate is essential to his ca-
pacity	to	drive	the	population	according	to	his	will	–	to	achieve	a	wish-fulfilment	
society	–	after	the	cataclysm.	In	his	ruthless	manipulation	of	others	and	his	out-
right	rejection	of	democracy,	Nordenholt	stands	in	opposition	to	Judeo-Christian	
morality. This Judeo-Christian morality is attributed by Nietzsche to the general 
population	and	sustains	what	he	calls	“slave	morality”	and	its	“[q]ualities	that	
serve	to	alleviate	existence	for	suffering	people	[…];	pity,	the	obliging,	helpful	
hand,	the	warm	heart,	patience,	industriousness,	humility,	and	friendliness	[…].	
Here	we	have	 the	point	of	origin	 for	 that	 famous	opposition	between	 ‘good’	
and	‘evil’.”39	According	to	Nietzsche,	those	living	under	“slave	morality”	view	the	
powerful	with	dread	and	assume	them	to	be	evil.	Conversely,	according	to	“mas-
ter	morality”,	it	is	the	“good”	man	who	arouses	fear	and	seeks	to	do	what	may	
conventionally be perceived as evil.40	As	Abir	Taha	confirms,	Nietzschean	philoso-
phy	was	a	“revolt	against	the	entire	humanist	tradition	of	the	West:	Judeo-Chris-
tianity”.41	For	Nietzsche,	the	“slave	morality”	creates	a	“herd	animal”	whose	po-
sition	is	perpetuated	not	only	by	religion	but	also	by	the	democratic	movement,	
which	he	sees	as	“the	inheritance	of	the	Christian	movement.”42
37 Connington	1923,	95–96.
38 Nietzsche	2002,	9:260.
39 Nietzsche	2002,	9:260.
40 Nietzsche	2002,	9:260.
41	 Taha	2005,	68.
42 Nietzsche	2002,	5:202.
58 | Jennifer Woodward www.jrfm.eu 2019, 5/2, 51–68
Aligning	 himself	 with	 a	 comparably	 Nietzschean	 view	 of	 democracy	 “not	
only	as	a	degenerating	form	of	political	organisation,	but	as	equivalent	to	a	de-
generating,	a	waning,	type	of	man,	as	 involving	his	mediocritizing	and	depre-
cation”,	Nordenholt	champions	the	rebellion	against	a	morality	that	promotes	
the	“herding	 instinct”.	He	does	so	by	elevating	himself	and	 those	who	work	
directly	under	him	above	the	societal	“herd”.43 Nietzsche contends that equali-
ty	stifles	the	most	capable	–	those	who	are	potentially	“higher	types”.	Schacht	
summarises	 this	perspective	 in	Nietzsche’s	work,	 stating	 that	Nietzsche	“dis-
cerns	an	order	of	rank	amongst	human	beings”	and	“acknowledges	their	differ-
ent	capabilities”.44	Hence,	Nietzsche	contends	that	for	humankind	to	develop	
it	is	essential	to	“maintain	the	order	of	rank	in	the	world”,	and	to	even	widen	
the	differences	between	the	strata.45	Thus	“higher	types”	can	only	be	fostered	
when	their	“separation	from	the	herd	is	sufficiently	great	to	establish	a	‘pathos	
of	distance’,	a	‘disdain	for	the	concerns	of	the	herd’.”46 
Whereas	for	Nietzsche	“higher	types”	are	usually	overcome	by	the	medioc-
rity	of	the	herd,	Nordenholt	facilitates	their	elevation.	Both	prior	to	the	blight	
(by	sponsoring	those	he	included	in	his	“gang”)	and	during	the	catastrophe,	his	
primary	role	involves	cultivating	“the	greatest	possibilities	among	the	few	who	
have	it	 in	them	to	be	exceptions	to	the	rule”.47 In the future that Nordenholt 
is	creating,	there	 is	no	place	for	the	“mediocre”	man.	The	union	leaders	Nor-
denholt	 identifies	as	unwelcome	 in	 the	Clyde	Valley,	 the	 religious	zealot	 that	
distracts	 the	population	 from	work	by	offering	 them	 false	 hopes	 and	whom	
Nordenholt	has	killed	and	the	government	officials	who	offer	platitudes	to	gain	
popularity	with	the	masses	are	all	identified	with	the	“slave	morality”	associat-
ed	with	the	“herding	animal”.48	Their	removal	from	the	Nitrogen	Area	reflects	
the	end	of	what	the	novel	presents	as	the	perpetuation	of	the	“mediocre	man”,	
and	is	essential	to	the	way	the	book	achieves	its	wish-fulfilment	transfiguration.
Nietzsche argued that a morality that endorsed the herding instinct encour-
aged	a	false	sense	of	universalism,	tending	to	promote	pity	for	the	weak	rather	
than	respect	for	the	strong.	That	is,	it	endorses	the	morality	that	praises	medi-
ocre	men	and	says,	“be	like	them!	Become	mediocre!”49	For	Nietzsche,	the	only	
hope for future progress comes instead from a will to power:
To	teach	man	the	future	of	humanity	as	his	WILL,	as	depending	on	human	will,	and	
to make preparation for vast hazardous enterprises and collective attempt to put an 
43 Nietzsche	2002,	5:203.
44 Schacht	2002,	327.
45 Nietzsche	2002,	7:219.	Also	see	Schacht	2002,	327.
46 Schacht	2002,	338.
47 Schacht	2002,	386.
48 Connington	1923,	92;	258;	51.
49 Nietzsche	2002,	9:262.
www.jrfm.eu 2019, 5/2, 51–68 Totalitarian Opportunism | 59
end to the rightful rule of folly and chance which has hitherto gone by the name of 
“history”.50
Nordenholt’s	 characterisation	echoes	 such	a	will	 to	power.	Reflecting	on	his	
drive,	he	echoes	Nietzsche	when	he	remarks,	“There’s	that	element	of	risk	at	
the	 back	 of	 all	 real	 enjoyment,	 to	my	mind.”51	 Establishing	 himself	 “above”	
the	“mediocre	man”,	Nordenholt	stands	ready	for	the	“vast	hazardous	enter-
prises	and	collective	attempt”	that	will	ensure	civilisation	endures	and	evolves	
post-catastrophe	according	to	his	“WILL”.
Strength	 of	 will	 is	 fundamental	 to	 Nordenholt’s	 leadership	 and	 echoes	
Nietzsche’s	conception	of	the	“freedom	of	will”	in	which	“a	person	who	wills 
[…]	commands	something	inside	himself	that	obeys”	and	as	such	is	an	excep-
tional individual.52 The Nietzschean will to power is characterised by an individ-
ual’s	mastery	over	oneself,	which	also	“gives	him	mastery	over	circumstances,	
over	nature”	and	elevates	him	above	“all	more	short-willed	and	unreliable	crea-
tures”.53	 While	 Nietzsche’s	 writings	 are	 largely	 existentialist,	 in	Nordenholt’s 
Million	such	will	to	power	is	used,	in	crisis	at	least,	for	mastery	over	others.	Con-
sciously overcoming his own self-doubts by pushing himself as far as possible 
to	establish	mastery	over	himself,	Nordenholt’s	self-mastery	extends	to	a	fas-
cination	with	an	individual’s	“breaking	strain”,	a	philosophy	which	enables	him	
to	gauge	the	commitment,	 tendencies	and	abilities	of	others.54 Through Nor-
denholt’s	 psychological	 understanding	 and	manipulation,	 the	 novel	 links	 the	
wish-fulfilment	achieved	at	its	conclusion	with	the	ability	to	mould	and	devel-
op	other	people.	Accordingly,	Nordenholt’s	ability	to	recognise	the	“breaking	
strain”	of	those	around	him	enables	him	to	designate	some	“human	beings	as	
‘higher’	in	relation	to	the	general	run	of	mankind”.55	As	a	result,	through	Nor-
denholt,	the	cataclysm	will	not	only	be	survived;	it	will	also	be	employed	as	a	
means	of	eradicating	contemporary	socio-cultural	and	political	systems,	of	facil-
itating eugenic selection and establishing social restructuring. The distinctions 
of	 rank	 between	 “higher”	 and	 “lower”	 peoples,	 established	 by	 Nordenholt	
and	maintained	by	Flint	after	Nordenholt’s	death,	while	based	on	Nietzschean	
classifications	are,	however,	un-Nietzschean	in	terms	of	their	delivery	(via	Nor-
denholt’s	decision	to	 let	45	million	die).	 Indeed,	Nordenholt’s	position	as	ma-
nipulator and decision maker has more in common with the interpretation of 
Nietzsche’s	work	that	would	famously	be	associated	with	Nazism.
50 Nietzsche	2002,	5:203.
51 Connington	1923,	70.
52 Nietzsche	2002,	1:19.
53 Nietzsche	2006,	On	the	Genealogy	of	Morality,	II:2.
54 Connington	1923,	72–75.
55 Schacht	2002,	340.
60 | Jennifer Woodward www.jrfm.eu 2019, 5/2, 51–68
In Thus Spake Zarathustra,	Nietzsche	argues	that	the	main	lesson	of	history	
is that at exceptional times a man of destiny would use his will to rise above 
the herd of ordinary men.56	Clearly,	Nordenholt	is	drawn	as	such	a	man,	emerg-
ing	at	an	exceptional	time	of	crisis	to	found	a	dictatorship	driven	by	a	“master	
morality”,	which	 is	presented	as	essential	 to	progress.	As	Clarke	points	out,	
in	post-First	World	War	Britain,	the	“old	faith	in	humanity	had	given	way	to	a	
belief	in	the	powers	of	an	exceptional	individual,	a	saviour	far	above	the	rest	
of	 the	 community	 in	determination	and	 intelligence,	who	 is	 the	only	 concili-
ate	means	of	achieving	 the	 ‘ideal	 state’”.57 In its advocacy of dictatorship as 
a	means	of	 efficient	 government,	Nordenholt’s Million indicates that survival 
and cultural transformation can only be achieved through a drive towards Na-
tional	 Efficiency	 untrammelled	 by	 conventional	morality.	 The	 appeal	 for	 the	
reader	comes	 from	 identification	not	with	 the	starving	millions	or	even	with	
the	Clyde	workers	suffering	to	fulfil	Nordenholt’s	plans,	but	with	the	survivors	
enjoying	new,	post-catastrophe	luxuries.	Thus,	the	text	offers	an	exaggeration	
of	the	wish-fulfilment	fantasies	found	in	many	“cosy	catastrophe”	science-fic-
tion disaster novels which focus on survival and rebuilding over the tragedy of 
cataclysm,	by	presenting	the	case	for	selection	and	efficiency	to	enable	social	
change.58 
THE NATIONAL EFFICIENCY MOVEMENT 
Stone	 argues	 that	 the	 National	 Efficiency	 movement	 influenced	 many	 “ex-
tremes	of	Englishness”	texts,	which	sought	to	respond	to	fears	of	degenera-
tion.59	 Indeed,	National	Efficiency	and	eugenics	were	both	offered	as	popular	
solutions to contemporary political and social crises.60 In accordance with the 
movement,	Nordenholt’s Million emphasises the importance of reinvigorating 
industrial	 production,	 creating	 new	 housing	 and	 rejecting	 the	 capitalist	 sys-
tem	existing	before	the	blight.	Freed	from	capitalist	ideology,	survivors	are	no	
longer	compelled	to	consider	loss	of	profits	over	mass	starvation	and	thus	work	
collectively towards social responsibility.
Once	the	crisis	has	passed,	industrial	production	is	maintained	in	a	rebuilding	
programme	that	ensures	full	employment.	The	emphasis	on	National	Efficien-
cy	contrasts	directly	with	the	situation	in	the	Britain	of	the	early	1920s,	which	
was	defined	by	industrial	decline,	economic	downturn	and	increased	unemploy-
56 Eatwell	1995,	8.
57 Clarke	1979,	230.
58 Aldiss/Wingrove	2001,	279.
59 Stone	2002,	10;	116.
60 Stone	2002,	6–7.
www.jrfm.eu 2019, 5/2, 51–68 Totalitarian Opportunism | 61
ment.61	Labour	strikes	led	to	the	loss	of	85	million	working	days	in	1921	alone.62 
These	 strikes	 had	 started	 in	 1919	 on	 the	 Clyde,	where	mass	 demonstrations	
were	held	in	favour	of	a	40-hour	week.	In	response,	the	government	mobilised	
the military and civilian volunteers to break up demonstrations.63 This oppres-
sive	response	to	strikers	is	significant	to	Nordenholt’s Million, which utilises such 
contemporary events to make its case for political and cultural transformation. 
Alluding positively to actions taken against Clyde Valley strikers under the De-
fence	of	the	Realm	Act	and	overtly	critical	of	the	strike’s	context,	in	which	post-
war	rebuilding	was	occurring	only	slowly,	the	novel	justifies	action	against	an-
yone refusing to work hard. Nordenholt allows no unionisation in his Nitrogen 
Area	and	to	achieve	a	suitable	level	of	efficiency	continues	his	manipulation	of	
the population.64 
Using a rhetoric of fear and fairness Nordenholt manoeuvres the population 
towards	policing	itself	for	maximum	efficiency.	He	asks	the	workers,	“Is	it	right	
that a man who will not strain himself in the common service should reap what 
he	has	not	sown?	[…]	Or	do	you	believe	this	community	should	rid	itself	of	par-
asites?	I	leave	myself	entirely	in	your	hands	in	the	matter.”65	Behind	the	rhetoric,	
Nordenholt’s	motives	are	clear:	“I	shall	deal	with	them	–	and	I	shall	do	it	by	the	
hand	of	 their	own	 fellows”,	he	admits.	By	 this	 strategy,	Nordenholt	quashes	
disputes	over	pay	and	ruthlessly	enforced	long	working	hours,	and	terror	be-
comes	a	means	of	securing	National	Efficiency.	As	Flint	observes,	“For	the	first	
time,	 fear	 in	more	than	one	form	had	entered	the	Nitrogen	Area.”66 Norden-
holt’s	strategy	ensures	that	the	Clyde	Valley	population	has	no	sympathy	for	the	
condemned while at the same time it exonerates him from blame. At no point 
in	 its	description	of	Nordenholt’s	 tyrannical	behaviour	does	 the	novel	hint	at	
irony:	his	actions	are	presented	as	entirely	pragmatic,	a	“higher	morality”	that	
emphasises the necessity of terror as a strategy in the control of population and 
the	securing	of	National	Efficiency.
Any	objections	the	reader	may	have	regarding	the	means	by	which	Norden-
holt	secures	his	achievements	are	mitigated	by	the	novel’s	framing	his	actions	
as	necessary	and	rational,	and	by	its	treatment	of	his	niece	Elsa’s	opposition	to	
his	selection	of	5	million	survivors.	In	a	key	argument	between	Elsa	and	Flint,	
the	emotional	and	logical	implications	of	Nordenholt’s	actions	are	evaluated.67 
Drawing	on	conventional	gender	binaries	of	the	emotional,	empathetic	female	
61 Taylor	2001,	145.
62 Taylor	2001,	163.
63 Rubinstein	2003,	110.
64 Connington	1923,	92.
65 Connington	1923,	111.
66 Connington	1923,	112.
67 Connington	1923,	220–230.
62 | Jennifer Woodward www.jrfm.eu 2019, 5/2, 51–68
versus	 the	 logical,	 pragmatic	male,	 the	 text	dramatizes	 their	oppositional	 in-
terpretations of events. While Elsa can only see starving millions and think of 
dying	children,	Flint	explains	 that	allowing	most	of	 the	population	 to	die	en-
sures some can be saved.68	During	their	debate,	Elsa	 is	shown	as	 illogical	and	
emotional,	unsuited	to	making	what	are	presented	as	rational	choices	in	a	time	
of	crisis.	In	this	way,	the	text	associates	opposition	to	Nordenholt’s	actions	with	
a	naïve,	illogical	and	emotional	response	rather	than	reasoned	thought.	Elsa’s	
standpoint,	whilst	ostensibly	appealing,	actually	serves	to	strengthen	the	prag-
matic position taken by Nordenholt and Flint.
Nordenholt’s	banishment	of	the	unskilled	and	the	unwilling	from	his	Clyde	
area is a social Darwinist strategy that accelerates the natural winnowing of the 
population	begun	by	the	disaster	and	extended	by	the	virulent	influenza	that	
follows the blight. Early in the novel Nordenholt remarks that it was nature that 
passed sentence on humanity and in this context his own extreme responses 
are necessary in an extreme situation and are no worse than the ruthlessness 
of nature itself.69	With	such	justifications	Nordenholt	does	not	shy	away	from	
utilising violence and manipulation to achieve his aims. His propaganda cam-
paign,	for	example,	is	designed	to	raise	and	then	shatter	the	hopes	of	the	pop-
ulation in order to crush dissent and render the population fractured and fright-
ened. The novel presents the use of propaganda for the purposes of terror as 
necessary	–	a	manifestation	of	his	“master	morality”	–	rather	than	cruel.	Once	
the	immediate	danger	has	passed,	the	anti-democratic	ideology	of	the	novel	is	
maintained and naturalised: democracy is not restored. Nordenholt tells Flint 
that	in	the	Nitrogen	Area	there	is	“no	gabble	about	democracy,	no	laws	a	man	
can’t	understand”.70	Thus,	Nordenholt’s Million promotes autocratic leadership 
as	essential	for,	and	central	to,	its	own	form	of	social	progress.	As	is	common	
amongst	 pre-war	 secular	 disaster	 novels,	 catastrophe	 facilitates	what	 is	 pre-
sented as positive social change.71	Following	the	cataclysm,	Nordenholt’s	direc-
tion	of	the	“collective	attempts	in	rearing	and	educating”	results	in	“children	
who	throng	[the	streets	of	the	newly	built	cities]	happier	and	more	intelligent	
than	their	fathers	in	their	day”.	These	children	“are	also	part	of	our	work”,	Flint	
explains,	“taught	and	trained	in	the	ideals	that	inspired	us”.72 Their education 
signals	the	ongoing	social	aims	of	Nordenholt’s	legacy.	
68 Connington	1923,	220–223.
69 Connington	1923,	62.
70 Connington	1923,	138.
71 Woodward	2017,	43–47,	provides	an	overview	of	how	pre-war	science	fiction	disaster	novels	
used	imagined	cataclysms	to	realise	wish-fulfilment	fantasies.
72 Connington	1923,	198.
www.jrfm.eu 2019, 5/2, 51–68 Totalitarian Opportunism | 63
DEGENERATION AND EUGENICS AS THEMES WITHIN 
NORDENHOLT’S MILLION
Contemporaneous	fears	of	degeneration	are	central	to	the	novel’s	advocacy	of	
population	selection	and	the	necessity	for	control	of	that	population	by	“high-
er	men”.73	 Importantly,	the	threat	to	human	survival	and	development	 is	not	
only	external,	in	the	form	of	the	blight,	but	also	internal,	arising	from	what	the	
text presents as the nature of humanity. Nordenholt sends Flint to London to 
understand human nature deprived of the veneer of civilisation. This insight is 
invaluable	for	developing	Flint’s	recognition	of	the	need	for	controlling	the	sur-
viving population until it can be shaped into a less-base people. Nordenholt tells 
him,	“I	want	you	to	see	what	it	[human	nature]	amounts	to	when	you	take	off	
the	leash.	Of	course	the	brute	is	the	basis.”74	Accordingly,	an	entire	chapter	of	
Nordenholt’s Million is dedicated to educating Flint by emphasising the fragility 
of	civilisation.	As	Nicholas	Ruddick	notes,	this	chapter	–	“Nuit	Blanche”,	with	
its	sense	of	a	night	that	is	never	fully	dark	–	is	a	“phantasmagoria	of	embodied	
anxieties”,	chief	among	which	is	the	vision	of	humanity	consumed	in	crisis	by	
its baser instincts.75	 “Nuit	Blanche”	charts	 Flint’s	 journey	amongst	a	 starving	
population	turning	to	cannibalism,	ritualism	and	barbarism	and,	as	such,	com-
ments	critically	on	human	nature	and	the	tenuous	façade	of	civilisation.	Flint’s	
passage into the Thanatotic burning landscape of London highlights the horrors 
“at	the	roots	of	humanity”	and	draws	attention	to	humanity’s	links	to	its	animal	
ancestry.	Flint	laments	that	the	“trail	of	the	brute’s	over	everything”	and	on	his	
return,	Nordenholt	emphasises	that	this	must	be	taken	 into	account	as	plans	
are made for the future development of civilisation.76
Cumulatively	the	encounters	during	“Nuit	Blanche”	emphasise	that	the	ca-
tastrophe	has	exposed	people’s	hidden	natures.	The	collapse	of	 law	and	the	
onset	of	mass	starvation	outside	the	Nitrogen	Area	create	unrepressed,	animal-
istic individuals. As a result of his experiences of barbarity during his long night 
in	London,	Flint	understands	that	“the	old	civilisation	went	its	way,	healthy	on	
the	surface,	full	of	life	and	vigour	[…]	yet	all	the	while,	at	the	back	of	it	there	
lurked	in	the	odd	corners	the	brutal	 instincts,	darting	into	view	at	times	for	a	
moment	and	then	returning	into	the	darkness	which	was	their	home”.77 While 
these	traits	are	associated	with	the	entire	population	(just	as	they	had	been	in	
H.	G.	Wells’s	1898	disaster	novel	The War of the Worlds in its subtler treatment 
of	the	same	ideas),	here	they	are	linked	directly	with	foreigners	(a	Jew	stere-
73 See	Stone	2002,	passim and MacKenzie	1990,	150.
74 Connington	1923,	149.
75 Ruddick	1994,	117.
76 Connington	1923,	182.
77 Connington	1923,	181.
64 | Jennifer Woodward www.jrfm.eu 2019, 5/2, 51–68
otypically	obsessed	with	gold,	a	German	“colony”	that	has	crucified	a	victim,	
and	a	“gigantic	Negro”	practising	Voodoo)	and	a	decadent	aristocracy	 (Lady	
Angela,	a	degenerate	aristocrat	described	as	“rotten	to	the	core”).78 As Ruddick 
notes,	 London	 is	 populated	by	 those	who	“have	been	masquerading	 as	 civi-
lised	human	beings”,	suggesting	that	“For	Connington	[…]	the	new	urgency	for	
survival	in	the	moral	ruins	of	the	post-war	necessitates	a	hunt	for	scapegoats,	
rather than a period of introspection that might locate and confront the source 
of	the	catastrophe	within.”79	However,	it	is	in	its	introspection,	its	attempt	to	
“locate	and	confront	the	source	of	the	catastrophe	within”,	that	Nordenholt’s 
Million	provides	scapegoats	in	order	to	justify	its	eugenic	agenda	and	achieve	its	
wish-fulfilment	conclusion.
The	implicit	eugenic	objective	of	Nordenholt’s	strategy	is	the	elimination	of	
those	 judged	to	be	degenerate:	the	 lazy,	the	weak,	foreigners	and	the	upper	
class.	However,	as	“Nuit	Blanche”	makes	clear,	another	form	of	selection	is	cru-
cial	to	Nordenholt’s	plans:	selection	based	upon	efficiency	is	also	fundamental.	
Eugenics is not associated solely with selecting the best people as progenitors 
of	future	generations;	it	also	informs	how	different	vocations	are	classified	as	
worthy or unworthy.
VOCATION,	EFFICIENCY	AND	ELITISM	
The vocations Nordenholt’s Million	presents	as	most	valuable	are	practical,	par-
ticularly relating to industry and science. Although Nordenholt is a businessman 
rather	than	a	scientist,	his	decisions	and	actions	are	predicated	on	National	Ef-
ficiency	and	scientific	rationalism	and	he	gathers	scientists	around	him	in	order	
to	facilitate	his	actions	as	saviour,	and	initiator,	of	the	novel’s	overall	wish-ful-
filment	 rebirth	 fantasy.	 Indeed,	 the	 catastrophe	 is	 overcome	by	 scientific	 in-
novation	and	the	sacrifice	of	selfless	scientists.	The	“better	order”	offered	by	
Nordenholt’s Million is based on a society governed by a dictator whose policies 
are	implemented	by	a	scientific	and	industrial	elite	composed	of	the	most	com-
mitted	and	productive	in	society.	In	this	respect,	the	text	is	a	departure	from	
Nietzschean thinking. Where for Nietzsche great importance is placed on artis-
tic	creativity	in	relation	to	“higher	men”,	here	scientific	discovery	and	efficiency	
are	central	to	the	creation	of	“higher	types”.	Progress,	the	novel	affirms,	is	se-
cured	by	the	elevation	of	the	competent	in	order	to	shape	an	efficiency-based	
society.	As	Martin	Pugh	notes,	champions	of	National	Efficiency	complained	of	
the decay of parliamentary systems and the incompetence of mature party pol-
iticians in tackling complex issues. They sought to reduce the role of parliament 
78 Connington	1923,	159–178.
79 Ruddick	1994,	117.
www.jrfm.eu 2019, 5/2, 51–68 Totalitarian Opportunism | 65
by replacing elected authorities with experts and successful entrepreneurs 
“capable	of	promoting	the	national	 interest”.80 This strategy is precisely that 
adopted	by	Nordenholt.	The	key	quality	of	those	he	enlists	into	his	elite	“was	
efficiency”,	resulting	in	an	aristocracy	formed	from	the	“super-excellence	of	the	
human	material	in	which	he	[Nordenholt]	had	dealt”.81
Unconcerned	 with	 egalitarianism,	 the	 novel	 offers a clear distinction be-
tween an emergent aristocracy and the general population. The leaders and 
masses do not mix.82	As	in	Nietzsche’s	works,	both	the	“herd”	and	the	“higher”	
types	are	necessary	elements	of	 society,	but	 their	 separation	–	a	“pathos	of	
distance”	–	is	essential.	If	the	“higher”	is	sufficiently	distanced	from	the	“herd”,	
they may bring about the enhancement of life.83 This Nietzschean aristocratic 
division is akin to the separation at the conclusion of Nordenholt’s Million. Nord-
enholt’s	aristocracy	resides	in	the	new	city	of	Asgard,	named	after	the	realm	of	
the	Norse	gods,	where	the	elite	design	the	cities	of	the	future.	These	cities	are	
built	with	the	skill	and	sweat	of	the	labouring	class,	whose	attention	and	ener-
gy are syphoned into their construction.84	They	are	utopian	places,	combining	
practicality	with	beauty.	Flint	refers	to	the	“faint	and	perfumed	breezes	bring-
ing	their	subtropical	warmth	as	they	blow	across	the	valley;	and	[he	says]	I	hear,	
faint	and	afar,	the	sounds	of	music	mingling	with	the	rustling	of	trees”.85 The 
suggestion	of	warmth,	beauty	and	sweet-smelling	air	in	these	final	descriptions	
creates from an eschatological perspective a perversion of the idea of a New 
Jerusalem.	More	secularly,	it	is	a	utopian	vision	that	forms	a	further	justification	
for	the	novel’s	advocacy	of	totalitarianism.	
The new cities of Nordenholt’s Million	 constitute	 a	wish-fulfilment	 fantasy	 of	
urban	efficiency	and	hygiene	for	the	survivors	involved	in	Nordenholt’s	remak-
ing	of	Britain.	The	city	of	the	inter-war	years,	as	Thomas	Linehan	reveals,	was	
a	 place	 of	 “squalor,	 deprivation	 and	 disease,	 poisoned	 environments	 which	
brutalised	the	inhabitants,	destroyed	their	health	and	invariably	imperilled	the	
survival	of	 the	 race”.86	This	was	hardly	 the	country	fit	“for	heroes	 to	 live	 in”	
promoted	by	Lloyd	George	in	1918,	and	by	1923,	and	the	publication	of	Norden-
holt’s Million,	there	was	no	sign	that	his	vision	was	going	to	be	achieved.87 Ac-
cordingly,	 informed	by	post-war	zeitgeist,	Nordenholt’s Million advocates pro-
80 Pugh	2006,	15.
81 Connington	1923,	236–237.
82 Connington	1923,	112.
83 Schacht	2002,	338.
84 Connington	1923,	283.
85 Connington	1923,	286.
86 Linehan 2000,	248.
87 Pugh	2009,	60.
66 | Jennifer Woodward www.jrfm.eu 2019, 5/2, 51–68
to-fascist ideas while drawing on eugenic perspectives for the improvement of 
humanity.	Although	it	finds	radically	different	expression,	the	post-First	World	
War disenchantment evident in Nordenholt’s Million would also permeate Syd-
ney	Fowler	Wright’s	inter-war	disaster	novels	Deluge	(1927)	and	Dawn (1929),	
although,	 unlike	Nordenholt’s Million,	 they advocate	 a	 complete	 rejection	 of	
modernity in favour of a re-assertive middle-class patriarchy controlling the 
land,	working	classes	and	women.	Nordenholt’s Million’s	non-democratic,	high-
ly	efficient	utopia	built	on	the	subjugation	of	the	few	and	the	sacrifice	of	the	
many is informed by a desire to overcome and where necessary oppress what 
it	perceives	as	“human	nature”.	In	keeping	with	its	“extremes	of	Englishness”	
themes,	strong	leadership	is	shown	as	necessary	in	the	novel’s	emphasis	on	the	
benefits	of	dictatorial	rule.	Such	a	positive	representation	of	dictatorship,	even	
one	apparently	 justified	by	catastrophe,	could	only	have	been	written	before	
the	Second	World	War.	Nevertheless,	it	reveals	how	it	is	possible	for	some	to	ac-
cept	an	isolationist,	anti-democratic	and	anti-liberal	environment	as	a	desirable	
means of overcoming contemporary social and economic anxieties. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aldiss,	Brian	/	Wingrove,	David,	2001	[1986],	Trillion	Year	Spree,	North	Yorkshire:	House	of	Stratus.
Clarke,	Ignatius	F.,	1979,	The	Pattern	of	Expectation,	1644–2001,	New	York:	Basic.
Connington,	J.	J.	(Alfred	Walter	Stewart),	1923	[1946],	Nordenholt’s	Million,	Harmondsworth:	Pen-
guin	Books,	2nd	ed.
Diethe,	Carol,	2007,	Historical	Dictionary	of	Nietzscheanism,	Lanham,	MD/Toronto/Plymouth:	Scare-
crow Press.
Eatwell,	Roger,	1995,	Fascism:	A	History,	London:	Chatto	&	Windus.
Hamilton,	Alastair,	1971,	The	Appeal	of	Fascism:	A	Study	of	Intellectuals	and	Fascism,	1919–1945,	
London / New York: Macmillan.
Linehan,	Thomas,	2000,	British	Fascism,	1918–39:	Parties,	Ideology	and	Culture,	Manchester:	Man-
chester University Press.
MacKenzie,	John	M.,	1990,	Imperialism	and	the	Natural	World,	Manchester:	Manchester	University	
Press.
Nietzsche,	Friedrich,	1968,	The	Will	to	Power,	edited	and	translated	by	Walter	Kaufmann,	New	York:	
Vintage Books. 
Nietzsche,	Friedrich,	2002,	Beyond	Good	and	Evil,	edited	by	Rolf-Peter	Hortsmann	and	translated	by	
Judith	Norman,	Cambridge:	Cambridge	University	Press.
Nietzsche,	Friedrich,	2006,	Thus	Spake	Zarathustra,	edited	by	Robert	Pippin,	translated	by	Adrien	
Del	Caro,	Cambridge:	Cambridge	University	Press.
Nietzsche,	Friedrich,	2006,	On	the	Genealogy	of	Morality,	edited	by	Keith	Ansell-Pearson,	translated	
by	Carol	Dieth,	Cambridge:	Cambridge	University	Press.
Overy,	Richard	J.,	2007,	The	Interwar	Crisis	1919–1939,	London	/	New	York:	Longman.
Pugh,	Martin,	2006,	“Hurrah	for	the	Blackshirts!”	Fascists	and	Fascism	in	Britain	between	the	Wars,	
London: Pimlico.
Pugh,	Martin,	2009,	We	Danced	All	Night:	A	Social	History	of	Britain	between	the	Wars,	London:	Vintage.
Rubinstein,	William	D.,	2003,	Twentieth-Century	Britain:	A	Political	History,	Basingstoke:	Palgrave	
Macmillan.
www.jrfm.eu 2019, 5/2, 51–68 Totalitarian Opportunism | 67
Ruddick,	Nicholas,	1994,	The	Ultimate	Island,	Westport,	CT:	Greenwood	Press.
Schacht,	Richard,	2002,	Nietzsche,	London	/	New	York:	Routledge.
Schapiro,	Leonard,	1972,	Totalitarianism.	London:	Pall	Mall	Press.
Smith,	Malcolm,	1995,	“The	War	and	British	Culture”,	in:	Constantine,	Stephen	/	Kirby,	Maurice	W.	/	
Rose,	Mary	B.	(eds.),	The	First	World	War	in	British	History,	London:	E.	Arnold,	168–83.
Stone,	Dan,	2002,	Breeding	Superman:	Nietzsche,	Race	and	Eugenics	 in	Edwardian	and	 Interwar	
Britain,	Liverpool:	Liverpool	University	Press.
Taha,	Abir,	2005,	Nietzsche,	Prophet	of	Nazism:	The	Cult	of	the	Superman,	Bloomington,	IN:	Author	
House.
Taylor,	Alan	J.	P.,	2001,	English	History	1914–1945,	Oxford:	Oxford	University	Press.
Thurlow,	Richard,	1987,	Fascism	in	Britain:	A	History,	1918–1985,	Oxford:	Blackwell.
Wells,	H.	G.,	1976,	The	War	of	the	Worlds,	London:	Heinemann.
Woodward,	Jennifer,	2017,	R.	C.	Sherriff’s	The	Hopkins	Manuscript	(1939)	and	Transformative	Disas-
ter	Fiction,	Foundation:	The	International	Review	of	Science	Fiction	127,	43–57.
68 | Jennifer Woodward www.jrfm.eu 2019, 5/2, 51–68