Sloys, it's a different book and a different author.

Excellent! Let me talk to you about Khrushchev's book, and you tell me about Akhmadulina's poems. I claim that Khrushchev's book says this and that, and you object: no, Homizuri's book says something else! Who is this Homizuri, that his words should be an indisputable truth? Does God speak through him? But Khrushchev's book is the book of an ideologist of communism and socialism, and he certainly knew what the political system of the USSR was called and how socialism differed from communism.

However, why argue? Go to China and experience the communist regime firsthand.

You know, my dear, I'm already tired of your constant "sending away." You go... even to the Institute for Noble Maidens, learn to be polite to girls and to opponents in general.

Added after 8 minutes

Tolkien's first part was the only one published, I know that for sure. Although I don't know about the rest... I'm just saying that I don't know that history very well.

So, if the first part was published, what grounds are there to say that the second and third were banned by censorship? It is quite possible that they were simply not translated because Tolkien's work was not very popular in our country at that time, and translating an unpopular book was considered unnecessary.
By the way, no matter how much I admire Tolkien, frankly speaking, the widespread fascination with "The Lord of the Rings" is an escape from reality. People are now fascinated not so much by the book itself, but by the world created by Tolkien. And this has certain features of escapism.