What do you think?
Rate this book
The Bedbug: Klop Ustinov - Britain's Most Ingenious Spy
Klop ('Bedbug') Ustinov (1892–1962) was an MI5 secret agent tasked, not with killing, but with bemusing and beguiling his enemies into revealing their deepest, darkest secrets. Through the Russian revolution, two World Wars and the Cold War, Klop bluffed and tricked his way into the confidence of everyone from Soviet commissars to a Gestapo Gruppenführer. Journalist Peter Day tells the epic tale of an agent whose missions remained obscured by his socializing and womanizing.
352 pages, Paperback
First published July 9, 2015
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
June 19, 2026
A biography of Jona “Klop” Ustinov, originally a German national who became an MI6 agent after taking British nationality in the 1930s. He was the father of the well-known actor and raconteur Peter Ustinov.
Jona was born in the city of Jaffa in 1892, when it was part of the Ottoman Empire. His father, a collector of antiquities, was Russian-born and bred, but had converted from Orthodoxy to Protestantism and had become a naturalised citizen of the Kingdom of Wurttemberg. He had married a German woman called Magdalena Hall. Her father was a Polish Jew who had converted to Christianity, and her mother was half-German and half-Ethiopian. Jona’s parents moved to Russia in 1913, taking his younger sister with them. When WW1 broke out, Jona volunteered to fight for Germany, a country he barely knew but of which he was extremely proud. The cover photo was taken during that war, and shows him in a German Army greatcoat and sporting an army haircut.
Jona intensely disliked his given name and from about 1920 onwards he went by the nickname of “Klop,” apparently the Russian for “bedbug.” The name was bestowed on him by his Russian wife, the artist Nadia Benois, due to his tendency to appear in people’s beds, specifically other women’s beds. Klop met Nadia in Russia after the end of the war, where he had gone to try to re-contact his family.
After WW1 Klop worked in the German embassy in London, but he quickly came into conflict with the Nazis when they came to power. He was required to prove he was of “Aryan descent,” clearly an impossibility for him. In 1935 he defected to Great Britain, and he worked for MI6 until his retirement in the late 1950s.
Klop was a man of gregarious inclinations and some charm. He had an ability to put people at ease and get them talking, always useful talents for someone involved in espionage. This book is actually quite gossipy. There is a lot of name-dropping about who attended whose dinner parties. You get a sense of the British establishment and aristocracy as a very closed environment, with a restricted membership and where everyone knew each other.
I read quite a few books on espionage. I don’t know why, though I sometimes think it’s because I would be the world’s worst secret agent. As with other books on the subject, this one tells a labyrinthine tale of people double-crossing and betraying each other. I don’t know how anyone makes their way in such an environment, but I suppose someone has to!
Reading the book, I felt there was a lack of hard evidence about much of Klop Ustinov’s career in MI6. Presumably some material has not been declassified, or no longer exists. The author is therefore forced to make inferences based on circumstantial evidence and/or hearsay. It’s interesting stuff, but I don’t think he has made the case that Ustinov was “Britain’s most ingenious spy,” as suggested by the subtitle. I also noticed a seeming error when the author made reference to Hugo Bleicher, a German WW2 counter-intelligence agent who did considerable damage to the French resistance. The author refers to him as a “Gestapo officer,” whereas other accounts I have read describe him as a sergeant in the Abwehr. Some might argue, “Gestapo…Abwehr – tomayto, tomahto” but I think historians should get these details correct.
A readable account. Klop Ustinov did lead a varied and colourful life. It seems Peter Ustinov resented him over his dalliances with other women. We all have our faults, I suppose.
Jona was born in the city of Jaffa in 1892, when it was part of the Ottoman Empire. His father, a collector of antiquities, was Russian-born and bred, but had converted from Orthodoxy to Protestantism and had become a naturalised citizen of the Kingdom of Wurttemberg. He had married a German woman called Magdalena Hall. Her father was a Polish Jew who had converted to Christianity, and her mother was half-German and half-Ethiopian. Jona’s parents moved to Russia in 1913, taking his younger sister with them. When WW1 broke out, Jona volunteered to fight for Germany, a country he barely knew but of which he was extremely proud. The cover photo was taken during that war, and shows him in a German Army greatcoat and sporting an army haircut.
Jona intensely disliked his given name and from about 1920 onwards he went by the nickname of “Klop,” apparently the Russian for “bedbug.” The name was bestowed on him by his Russian wife, the artist Nadia Benois, due to his tendency to appear in people’s beds, specifically other women’s beds. Klop met Nadia in Russia after the end of the war, where he had gone to try to re-contact his family.
After WW1 Klop worked in the German embassy in London, but he quickly came into conflict with the Nazis when they came to power. He was required to prove he was of “Aryan descent,” clearly an impossibility for him. In 1935 he defected to Great Britain, and he worked for MI6 until his retirement in the late 1950s.
Klop was a man of gregarious inclinations and some charm. He had an ability to put people at ease and get them talking, always useful talents for someone involved in espionage. This book is actually quite gossipy. There is a lot of name-dropping about who attended whose dinner parties. You get a sense of the British establishment and aristocracy as a very closed environment, with a restricted membership and where everyone knew each other.
I read quite a few books on espionage. I don’t know why, though I sometimes think it’s because I would be the world’s worst secret agent. As with other books on the subject, this one tells a labyrinthine tale of people double-crossing and betraying each other. I don’t know how anyone makes their way in such an environment, but I suppose someone has to!
Reading the book, I felt there was a lack of hard evidence about much of Klop Ustinov’s career in MI6. Presumably some material has not been declassified, or no longer exists. The author is therefore forced to make inferences based on circumstantial evidence and/or hearsay. It’s interesting stuff, but I don’t think he has made the case that Ustinov was “Britain’s most ingenious spy,” as suggested by the subtitle. I also noticed a seeming error when the author made reference to Hugo Bleicher, a German WW2 counter-intelligence agent who did considerable damage to the French resistance. The author refers to him as a “Gestapo officer,” whereas other accounts I have read describe him as a sergeant in the Abwehr. Some might argue, “Gestapo…Abwehr – tomayto, tomahto” but I think historians should get these details correct.
A readable account. Klop Ustinov did lead a varied and colourful life. It seems Peter Ustinov resented him over his dalliances with other women. We all have our faults, I suppose.
February 20, 2024
A biography of Peter Ustinov's father, who just by being a pleasant fellow managed to be one of the most successful spies of his time, even though he didn't seem to do a whole lot to hide it.
Very interesting.
Very interesting.
February 9, 2023
As histories and/or biographies of espionage and/or spies I can not fault Mr. Day for the excellence of his writing and research. What I find lacking, even in excellent books like Mr. Day's is the perspective of the historian of an era rather then a sub plot - which is what ultimately histories of espionage and spying are.
It is good to know what traitors like Philby were doing while they worked for the security services. But it whatever they were instructed to do, whatever information they passed on, it is extraordinarily difficult to draw lines of causality between them, the information they passed on and the decisions of their ultimate political masters. That Philby did all he could to sabotage attempts by some German generals in 1938 to indicate to British politicians that they were opposed to Hitler doesn't mean that without him Britain would have helped engineer a army coup against Hitler rather than sign the shameful Munich agreement. Chamberlain and others were determined not to fight and the British were doubtful/suspicious of the German approaches.
Also, although it is great fun for those who like counterfactual history, the idea that British government would have actively become involved in a German army coup against is bordering on the absurd. There were way to many questions about reliability and how could anyone be sure that the whole thing wasn't a trick to embarrass Britain? The fact that the German Generals were unwilling to act without UK involvement shows how little committment they had. If you want to overthrow a government you have assume responsibility you have to have the courage and determination. They clearly didn't have it and I doubt even if they had launched a coup it would succeeded. You can't view this has a lost opportunity to stop Hitler, you only know that with hindsight. Without it you are simply asking for regime change such as I and most people I know regret that USA indulged in so frequently in the post WWII years.
Espionage effectiveness and the relevance of material supplies by agents is notoriously hard to quantify in importance at the time and in terms of the historical record. Rarely can you safely conclude that spying has been effective, except in those instances were it is what politicians want to hear. Stalin refused to believe to believe numerous warnings from his spies about the immediacy of a German invasion. How much influence Philby had must be viewed through the information we now have that the Soviets never trusted, even after his defection and on throughout his exile and until his death, they were always suspicious and thought he was to-good-to-be-true, believing he was a double agent and everything he told them part of an elaborate double-blind. What can't be doubted is that Philby sent dozens, maybe a few hundred men and also their extended families to either immediate or lingering deaths, when he betrayed the details of CIA drops of trained foriegn agents back into their home countries. Those men and their families should always be remembered when spies and treachery are discussed. What spies actually accomplish may be doubted - but they do get people killed.
All that is a bit of a diversion from the subject of this book. Klop Ustinov, father of the more famous Peter, was an extraordinary character and this is as excellent a life as it probably possible to write. Unlike more modern agents Klop kept his secrets and did talk much or write anything about what he did. This book is to praised because of the skill and knowledge of Mr. Day in handling material that could to easily have degenerated into speculative fantasy. But my over all reservations remain.
It is good to know what traitors like Philby were doing while they worked for the security services. But it whatever they were instructed to do, whatever information they passed on, it is extraordinarily difficult to draw lines of causality between them, the information they passed on and the decisions of their ultimate political masters. That Philby did all he could to sabotage attempts by some German generals in 1938 to indicate to British politicians that they were opposed to Hitler doesn't mean that without him Britain would have helped engineer a army coup against Hitler rather than sign the shameful Munich agreement. Chamberlain and others were determined not to fight and the British were doubtful/suspicious of the German approaches.
Also, although it is great fun for those who like counterfactual history, the idea that British government would have actively become involved in a German army coup against is bordering on the absurd. There were way to many questions about reliability and how could anyone be sure that the whole thing wasn't a trick to embarrass Britain? The fact that the German Generals were unwilling to act without UK involvement shows how little committment they had. If you want to overthrow a government you have assume responsibility you have to have the courage and determination. They clearly didn't have it and I doubt even if they had launched a coup it would succeeded. You can't view this has a lost opportunity to stop Hitler, you only know that with hindsight. Without it you are simply asking for regime change such as I and most people I know regret that USA indulged in so frequently in the post WWII years.
Espionage effectiveness and the relevance of material supplies by agents is notoriously hard to quantify in importance at the time and in terms of the historical record. Rarely can you safely conclude that spying has been effective, except in those instances were it is what politicians want to hear. Stalin refused to believe to believe numerous warnings from his spies about the immediacy of a German invasion. How much influence Philby had must be viewed through the information we now have that the Soviets never trusted, even after his defection and on throughout his exile and until his death, they were always suspicious and thought he was to-good-to-be-true, believing he was a double agent and everything he told them part of an elaborate double-blind. What can't be doubted is that Philby sent dozens, maybe a few hundred men and also their extended families to either immediate or lingering deaths, when he betrayed the details of CIA drops of trained foriegn agents back into their home countries. Those men and their families should always be remembered when spies and treachery are discussed. What spies actually accomplish may be doubted - but they do get people killed.
All that is a bit of a diversion from the subject of this book. Klop Ustinov, father of the more famous Peter, was an extraordinary character and this is as excellent a life as it probably possible to write. Unlike more modern agents Klop kept his secrets and did talk much or write anything about what he did. This book is to praised because of the skill and knowledge of Mr. Day in handling material that could to easily have degenerated into speculative fantasy. But my over all reservations remain.
December 5, 2023
What a life he led.
This has to be a film.
A cracking read: I'm reading this and thinking he has to survive to the end of the book, but at the same time thinking he's going to get caught!
This has to be a film.
A cracking read: I'm reading this and thinking he has to survive to the end of the book, but at the same time thinking he's going to get caught!
May 7, 2023
An incredulous tale and a thoroughly enjoyable read. Can it all be the truth and nothing but the truth? I doubt it. We've had a few 'not so true' written by the journalist profession up for review of late.
Journalists, hmmmmm...
"Peter Day (the author of this remarkable biography) has forty years' experience in journalism, including more than a decade as a senior reporter and newsdesk executive for the Mail on Sunday. Since turning freelance he has specialised in archive research, breaking exclusive stories on politics, royalty, military history and espionage."
Can this be as close to the truth as the author was able? Errrrrrr...
Page 5:
"All of these [a great many] people have helped me get closer to the truth about an elusive subject but cannot be held responsible for errors and misapprehensions. It has always to be borne in mind that the original source for much of what follows was two world champion raconteurs, Klop and his son Peter, and they may, just occasionally, have been guilty of that failing so often attributed to journalists – not letting the facts get in the way of a good story."
From then on, it all bode well with me. I'm happy the author did try to get at the truth and, for me, he's made a spiffing job of telling it.
I do admire the likes of Klop and Co. It was different time, a time that needed such people.
Journalists, hmmmmm...
"Peter Day (the author of this remarkable biography) has forty years' experience in journalism, including more than a decade as a senior reporter and newsdesk executive for the Mail on Sunday. Since turning freelance he has specialised in archive research, breaking exclusive stories on politics, royalty, military history and espionage."
Can this be as close to the truth as the author was able? Errrrrrr...
Page 5:
"All of these [a great many] people have helped me get closer to the truth about an elusive subject but cannot be held responsible for errors and misapprehensions. It has always to be borne in mind that the original source for much of what follows was two world champion raconteurs, Klop and his son Peter, and they may, just occasionally, have been guilty of that failing so often attributed to journalists – not letting the facts get in the way of a good story."
From then on, it all bode well with me. I'm happy the author did try to get at the truth and, for me, he's made a spiffing job of telling it.
I do admire the likes of Klop and Co. It was different time, a time that needed such people.
December 5, 2017
Actor, director, storyteller and humorist Peter Ustinov's father was in some ways an even more colorful character than his son. He was a charmer, womaniser, art dealer, international bon vivant and a spy.
Nicknamed The Bedbug by his wife (an artist, who still lived with him his whole life) he negotiated the labyrinth of intrigue from post-WWI, through WWII, and into the Cold War. This is his story in all its complexity and tortuous detail. A thoroughly entertaining peek into the clandestine world of intrigue within intrigue. - BH.
Nicknamed The Bedbug by his wife (an artist, who still lived with him his whole life) he negotiated the labyrinth of intrigue from post-WWI, through WWII, and into the Cold War. This is his story in all its complexity and tortuous detail. A thoroughly entertaining peek into the clandestine world of intrigue within intrigue. - BH.
January 11, 2025
I just could not finish. This book is so terribly written and edited (not-edited?) as some pub talk. Throwing in 3-4 unrelated new names to the story per page.
September 23, 2018
So much of the book was taken up with the stories of other people other than Klop. Sad that he didn’t even get a pension after all he contributed to the Allied side.
May 12, 2025
The man spent almost his entire adult life on a tight rope. Hats off. A remarkable story.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews