[2] To achieve that end, Wells asserts that a socialist and scientifically planned world government would be needed to defend human rights.

[4] He was concerned that the Allies had no clear statement of aims for fighting the war and that this would lead to the continuation of the pre-existing balance of power.

[5] In the book, Wells argues that without a revolution in international affairs and the establishment of human rights, further destructive wars would be inevitable.

[8] His utopian exploration of concepts like technological change, evolution, identity and new forms of global governance has seen scholars describe him as 'the father of science fiction'.

[12] The scholar John Partington has argued that Wells 'promoted, years ahead of his time, many of the internationalist policies and realities of the post-1945 period'.

[13] Whilst Wells became more insistent with his support of international functionalism throughout his career, the publication of The New World Order was the first time he began to condemn other models of transnational government.

[15] His utopian fiction was also the subject of parody in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and George Orwell's Coming Up for Air.

[17] However, with the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany and fascism in Spain, both organisations became increasingly political in promoting humanist and pacifist causes.

[18] In October 1939, one month after Britain declared war on Nazi Germany, Wells initiated a public campaign to make human rights a point of international concern.

[20] The Times declined his proposal for a national debate into the subject,[c] but the Daily Herald gave Wells one page a day for a month to host the discussion.

[23] Beginning in November 1939, before the official publication of The New World Order, The Fortnightly Review magazine began serialising the book in four monthly instalments, ending February 1940.

[29] These forces included an arms race, economic stress, social upheaval and the continuation of the pre-existing balance of power.

[36]In the case of the Soviet political system, Wells argued that its form of socialism lacked respect for individual freedom.

[37] Wells asserted that the Soviets forgot that 'the more highly things are collectivised, the more necessary is a legal system embodying the Rights of Man'.

[24] From here, Wells begins to formalise how to achieve the collectivisation of world affairs: The new and complete Revolution can be defined in a very few words.

It is (a) outright world-socialism, scientifically planned and directed, plus (b) a sustained insistence upon law, law based on a fuller, more jealously conceived resentment of the personal Rights of Man, plus (c) the completest freedom of speech, criticism and publication, and sedulous expansion of the educational organisation to the ever-growing demands of the new order.

[43]To protect an individual's liberty under global socialism, Wells asserts that a set of human rights must become universal law and be the primary motive of peace negotiations at the conclusion of the war.

[47] Eliot responded to the conclusion of The Fortnightly Review's serialisation of The New World Order by writing an article for the New English Weekly.

[47] In this article, Eliot compared Wells to Winston Churchill, noting that both men shared a returning 'glare of prominence' once found earlier in their respective careers.

[47] Despite this tribute from Eliot, he would end his remarks on The New World Order by highlighting that Wells 'is walking very near the edge of despair' by wanting rapid change.

[47] The English priest William Inge, who was a close rival of Wells,[d] wrote a review of The New World Order in the scientific journal Nature.

[50] The American political scientist Charles E. Merriam reviewed The New World Order, stating that the book was 'well worth examination'.

[53] In his review, Merriam insisted that political experts should cultivate a more 'bold and venturesome Wellsian spirit' to solve 'the great problem of modernising the large sections of our social institutions now demanding intelligent reconsideration and re-adjustment'.

[53] The Times Literary Supplement (TLS) remarked that if The New World Order aimed to provide solutions to contemporary problems, then the book 'may seem jejune'.

[54] The TLS praised Wells for his analysis of world issues but thought that his recommendations to solve these problems were 'so general and vague that they are of little practical use'.

[59] Dr Or Rosenboim, an academic at the School of Arts and Social Sciences of City, University of London, provided a contemporary evaluation of Wells's conception of world order.

[60] Rosenboim further argued that 'under the auspices of the universality of science, the world state extended on a global scale the specific historical experience of Western civilisation, leaving no space for diversity, pluralism, or dissent'.

[60] The New World Order was one of 18 advisory texts used to prepare the first draft of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

[62] Specifically, the UNCHR highlighted the phrases 'a man comes into this world through no fault of his own' and that 'he is manifestly a joint inheritor of the accumulations of the past'.

[63] Scholars have suggested that the totality of Wells's campaign to author and proliferate works on human rights,[g] like The New World Order, needs to be considered when measuring his impact on the UDHR.