What do you think?
Rate this book
Stalin's Englishman
Guy Burgess is the most important, complex and fascinating of 'The Cambridge Spies' - the group of British men recruited to pass intelligence to the Soviets during World War Two and the Cold War. Burgess's story takes us from his student days in 1930s Cambridge, where he was first approached by Soviet scouts, through his daring infiltration of the BBC and the British government, to his final escape to Russia and lonely, tragic-comic exile there.
In this definitive biography, Andrew Lownie uncovers the true depths of Burgess's penetration and betrayal of the British Intelligence Service. His close personal relationships with several high profile men and women are examined - including his friendship with Winston Churchill and his family. Through interviews with over 100 people who knew Burgess personally, many of whom have never spoken about him before, and the discovery of hitherto secret files on the Cambridge Spies, Andrew Lownie reveals a completely new and intriguing picture of Guy Burgess.
In this definitive biography, Andrew Lownie uncovers the true depths of Burgess's penetration and betrayal of the British Intelligence Service. His close personal relationships with several high profile men and women are examined - including his friendship with Winston Churchill and his family. Through interviews with over 100 people who knew Burgess personally, many of whom have never spoken about him before, and the discovery of hitherto secret files on the Cambridge Spies, Andrew Lownie reveals a completely new and intriguing picture of Guy Burgess.
448 pages, Paperback
First published September 10, 2015
203 people are currently reading
2420 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 162 reviews
July 25, 2023
This judicious and crackling bio of Guy Burgess, a notorious player among the Cambridge spy ring (Maclean, Philby, Blunt and dozens of others), helps us understand why England lost 2 World Wars and also created the unsolvable muddle in the mideast. If you went to the right schools, had the right accent and family ties, the UK Establishment protected you -- and you could spy with nary a worry. This bleak fact is rich, black comic material for Muriel Spark. None of the main spies went to jail. In the US, meantime, there was the Red Scare & blacklist, and spies were discommoded by the electric chair.
In the 1930s Cambridge was a hotbed of rebels, many of whom felt constricted by society, and were easily recruited to the Commie Cause as a protest against Nazi Germany, fascism, the Depression; they also had raging hormones and felt sexually repressed by British laws, especially after being initiated into same sex at public schools like Eton. Guy Burgess, stumped on his thesis, found the CP mixed social-sexual-political freedoms -- and was hooked, as were hundreds of others. (Flirting with the Left were Michael Redgrave, Dadie Rylands, Harold Nicholson, Oliver Messel, James Pope Hennessy, to name a few; and they all played musical beds w each other).
Burgess, who went through a handsome phase, is remembered as a selfish lout, rather coarse, but quick-witted, although the author is unable to cite examples, alas. Most recall that he had an interesting but undisciplined mind. He liked being outrageous and eccentric. He was a heavy drinker. A boyfriend says, "He had a thing for working-class men, but said anyone will do, from seventeen to seventy-five." Burgess manipulated himself through the BBC ranks, MI5, MI6, the British Foreign Office, making no secret of his Commie views (or sex adventures). That he was always protected is what stuns the reader.
Other members of the Cambridge (Commie) cells did not spy and lost their passions in 1939 with the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Why did Burgess stay the course? A spoilt child, explains the author, without a strong moral compass, he liked his clandestine role, which gave him a sense of worth. The final chunk is riveting : Burgess is assigned to the Brit embassy in DC, where Philby is also posted. The author, most annoyingly neglects to give the year(s), so it's easy to get lost....amid his cast of 100s. At his London farewell party before sailing to the US, Burgess was told, "Don't be too aggressively communist." Burgess replied: "I understand. I mustn't make a pass at Paul Robeson." Smugness and incompetence among ruling Brits are traits you remember from this historical biography of a traitor.
Burgess defected in 1951 and was unhappy and lonely in Russia until his death, at age 52, in 1963. He appears in novels, eg, "Don't Tell Alfred" by Nancy Mitford, and was played by Alan Bates in the TV movie, "An Englishman Abroad." His life, filled with Enablers, carries all the drama of fiction. I am reminded of Lord Lucan, who murdered his child's nanny by mistake and mysteriously disappeared, helped by friends. When asked what life in Russia was like, Burgess became lost in space, staring out a window. "My life ended when I left London," he said.
In the 1930s Cambridge was a hotbed of rebels, many of whom felt constricted by society, and were easily recruited to the Commie Cause as a protest against Nazi Germany, fascism, the Depression; they also had raging hormones and felt sexually repressed by British laws, especially after being initiated into same sex at public schools like Eton. Guy Burgess, stumped on his thesis, found the CP mixed social-sexual-political freedoms -- and was hooked, as were hundreds of others. (Flirting with the Left were Michael Redgrave, Dadie Rylands, Harold Nicholson, Oliver Messel, James Pope Hennessy, to name a few; and they all played musical beds w each other).
Burgess, who went through a handsome phase, is remembered as a selfish lout, rather coarse, but quick-witted, although the author is unable to cite examples, alas. Most recall that he had an interesting but undisciplined mind. He liked being outrageous and eccentric. He was a heavy drinker. A boyfriend says, "He had a thing for working-class men, but said anyone will do, from seventeen to seventy-five." Burgess manipulated himself through the BBC ranks, MI5, MI6, the British Foreign Office, making no secret of his Commie views (or sex adventures). That he was always protected is what stuns the reader.
Other members of the Cambridge (Commie) cells did not spy and lost their passions in 1939 with the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Why did Burgess stay the course? A spoilt child, explains the author, without a strong moral compass, he liked his clandestine role, which gave him a sense of worth. The final chunk is riveting : Burgess is assigned to the Brit embassy in DC, where Philby is also posted. The author, most annoyingly neglects to give the year(s), so it's easy to get lost....amid his cast of 100s. At his London farewell party before sailing to the US, Burgess was told, "Don't be too aggressively communist." Burgess replied: "I understand. I mustn't make a pass at Paul Robeson." Smugness and incompetence among ruling Brits are traits you remember from this historical biography of a traitor.
Burgess defected in 1951 and was unhappy and lonely in Russia until his death, at age 52, in 1963. He appears in novels, eg, "Don't Tell Alfred" by Nancy Mitford, and was played by Alan Bates in the TV movie, "An Englishman Abroad." His life, filled with Enablers, carries all the drama of fiction. I am reminded of Lord Lucan, who murdered his child's nanny by mistake and mysteriously disappeared, helped by friends. When asked what life in Russia was like, Burgess became lost in space, staring out a window. "My life ended when I left London," he said.
November 10, 2015
Intriguing, chilling, and colourful insight into the most famous Cold War espionage case.
Guy Burgess has often been thought as the least damaging of the Cambridge spies, however Andrew Lownie’s book argues strongly against this view.
Burgess himself is a complex person, charming and repulsive in equal measure, he was the consummate networker. Despite being drunk and openly gay at work when such activity was illegal the fact he wasn’t fired or found out earlier is astounding.
Lownie details Burgess’s formative years which goes some way to explain his decision to spy for the Soviets. The book is accessible, enjoyable and informative, however I did find some aspects difficult to follow, particularly keeping track of the seemingly endless list of Burgess’s lovers.
I recommend watching this excerpt of a rare TV interview with him when he was in Moscow which is mentioned in the book. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e36KM...
I find the Cambridge 5 case fascinating in that the "old boy network" of MI6 just couldn't comprehend that that one of their own (i.e of their class & upbringing) would spy for another country, which led them being able to continue for so long.
A fascinating read for anyone interested in espionage, the cold war and political motivation.
I received this book for free from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.
Guy Burgess has often been thought as the least damaging of the Cambridge spies, however Andrew Lownie’s book argues strongly against this view.
Burgess himself is a complex person, charming and repulsive in equal measure, he was the consummate networker. Despite being drunk and openly gay at work when such activity was illegal the fact he wasn’t fired or found out earlier is astounding.
Lownie details Burgess’s formative years which goes some way to explain his decision to spy for the Soviets. The book is accessible, enjoyable and informative, however I did find some aspects difficult to follow, particularly keeping track of the seemingly endless list of Burgess’s lovers.
I recommend watching this excerpt of a rare TV interview with him when he was in Moscow which is mentioned in the book. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e36KM...
I find the Cambridge 5 case fascinating in that the "old boy network" of MI6 just couldn't comprehend that that one of their own (i.e of their class & upbringing) would spy for another country, which led them being able to continue for so long.
A fascinating read for anyone interested in espionage, the cold war and political motivation.
I received this book for free from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.
August 15, 2020
I had a vague knowledge of the Cambridge spies, i think mostly i'd heard of them secondhand via John LeCarre. This excellent and very thorough book set me straight and filled in the gaps in my knowledge.
Most fascinating to me was the attempt to answer the question of why Burgess did what he did? What was his motivation?
The insights into the character and morals of Burgess were also fascinating. The man was a mess by any standards.
I can't help but wonder how many of today's campus communists would willingly betray their country given the chance? Their morals and characters are probably fairly similar to Burgess's in many ways.
All in all an excellent book.
Most fascinating to me was the attempt to answer the question of why Burgess did what he did? What was his motivation?
The insights into the character and morals of Burgess were also fascinating. The man was a mess by any standards.
I can't help but wonder how many of today's campus communists would willingly betray their country given the chance? Their morals and characters are probably fairly similar to Burgess's in many ways.
All in all an excellent book.
September 13, 2016
If Andrew Lownie, wearing his agent's hat, had tried to flog this as a work of fiction I suspect some publishers would have rejected it as being too far-fetched; the reader would be unable to suspend disbelief. But it's fact, and likely to be as near the truth as is possible in the murky world of espionage. The research that has gone into this immensely readable book is prodigious and there are extensive quotes from a wide variety of sources. Burgess was a basically dreadful man with some attractive traits: an openly promiscuous homosexual when that was illegal; an immensely cultured man yet a slob; very bright, academically and emotionally, with a mind that continued to function while pickled with alcohol; excellent, witty company yet capable of gross rudeness; a committed communist, supportive of the Soviet Union, with a hedonistic, unashamedly upper-class lifestyle that was unalterably English; shambolic yet well enough organised to send suitcases full of classified material to his Soviet handlers. In exile in Russia he continued to sport his Old Etonian tie and looked forward to receiving Fortnum and Mason hampers from his mum. How could all that have happened? You should read a book I found amazing in more ways than one.
December 9, 2015
I always wondered about Burgess and I gleaned that he was a mess of a person - until now! I hav read the biog. and it tells me in a clear detailed manner that he was a very well educated but slovenly character who wielded his craft of soviet spying with finesse. His life after fleeing to Moscow was a comfortable but terribly lonely one; he was in love with his England and never settled to social life and language in Russia.
the book is very well written and is a 'page turner'.
the book is very well written and is a 'page turner'.
July 25, 2023
‘I’m a firm believer in communism, of course, but I don’t like the Russian communists. Oh, what a difference it would make if I was living among British communists. They are much nicer, more friendly people, you know. I am a foreigner here. They don’t understand me on so many matters’ ( Burgess talking to John Mossman during his exile in Moscow in 1961).
This book gives a fascinating insight into Burgess who spied for Russia. Built on a lot of source materials. He was a gregarious man, a promiscuous homosexual and a heavy drinker. That he escaped detection escapes me. He routinely extolled the virtues of communism whilst drunk or sober and even confessed to friends that he was a KGB agent. It is uncertain just how much damage he, Maclean, Philby and Blunt did with their espionage activities. The Russians believing at times that they were double agents. Also fascinating is how many Soviet spies Cambridge University turned out.
But that said, the picture of Burgess as an overweight, balding, scruffy and smelly individual who fooled the establishment still lingers after reading this excellent work.
This book gives a fascinating insight into Burgess who spied for Russia. Built on a lot of source materials. He was a gregarious man, a promiscuous homosexual and a heavy drinker. That he escaped detection escapes me. He routinely extolled the virtues of communism whilst drunk or sober and even confessed to friends that he was a KGB agent. It is uncertain just how much damage he, Maclean, Philby and Blunt did with their espionage activities. The Russians believing at times that they were double agents. Also fascinating is how many Soviet spies Cambridge University turned out.
But that said, the picture of Burgess as an overweight, balding, scruffy and smelly individual who fooled the establishment still lingers after reading this excellent work.
January 10, 2020
My first read of 2020 was a pleasant surprise in form of a Christmas gift from my dear wife. Probably would not have even found this book if she hadn't put it in my hands.
Quite a few reviews calls this 'boring', which is totally incomprehensible to me as it is a most fascinating biography of a quite fascinating man - who was actually a spy for the Soviet Union for quite many years and subsequently defected there. Which may be the cause of the misapprehension - it is not a spy thriller, it's a biography. Instead of covert assassinations, deceiving double and triple agents and James Bond, the fascination lies in different and unexpected things.
You'd think that you have decent ideas of how life and society worked in modern history; WW1 and 2 and certainly the cold war, but in truth I have yet to read a book describing these without a sense of unreality. As examples from this, Burgess was known to flaunting his homosexuality and for being awfully promiscuous - in 1930:s London - was there anyone more than me that thought that actually impossible and unheard of? He was also a seriously affected alcoholic and was known to berate western society (while praising communism and Soviet) when drunk - more or less flaunting his treason also, and this went on for decades(!)
The descriptions of the "other side" of the iron curtain also makes me wonder about what I thought I knew about that. Often it does not sound like it was that well structured, but that the ruler's decisions was actually way more random and up to single individuals than the planned workings of a well-oiled and evil machine. Which probably makes it scarier rather than better. (these kind of observations are common also when reading e.g. Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar)
Burgess, the man himself is more or less an enigma also, a suave English well-read gentleman - or a groping, offensive, unpleasant drunk, loud slob, betraying his country?
This fascination over how this came to be and let happen and about how different things were in a time not awfully long ago stayed with me the entire book and made it a very good read. Close to the end though, I found a couple of paragraphs that made me think that we've circled back:
For Burgess and others, their conversion had strong political roots, but most fellow members of the Cambridge cells did not spy for the Russians and indeed lost their communist fervour 1939 with the Nazi-Soviet Pact, in 1956 with the invasion of Hungary, or simply because they had to get on with the business of earning a living.
So why did Burgess stay the course? Partly because, having picked his football team, he loyally stuck with them through thick and thin, capable of all sorts of intellectual somersaults to keep in step with the changing situation.
This uncannily describes the current political situation of the west I think. People pick side and then digs down in trenches, refusing to admit that "their team", or anyone on it ever made a mistake - while the "adversary" do nothing but wrong. Perhaps not the best chosen path.
Quite a few reviews calls this 'boring', which is totally incomprehensible to me as it is a most fascinating biography of a quite fascinating man - who was actually a spy for the Soviet Union for quite many years and subsequently defected there. Which may be the cause of the misapprehension - it is not a spy thriller, it's a biography. Instead of covert assassinations, deceiving double and triple agents and James Bond, the fascination lies in different and unexpected things.
You'd think that you have decent ideas of how life and society worked in modern history; WW1 and 2 and certainly the cold war, but in truth I have yet to read a book describing these without a sense of unreality. As examples from this, Burgess was known to flaunting his homosexuality and for being awfully promiscuous - in 1930:s London - was there anyone more than me that thought that actually impossible and unheard of? He was also a seriously affected alcoholic and was known to berate western society (while praising communism and Soviet) when drunk - more or less flaunting his treason also, and this went on for decades(!)
The descriptions of the "other side" of the iron curtain also makes me wonder about what I thought I knew about that. Often it does not sound like it was that well structured, but that the ruler's decisions was actually way more random and up to single individuals than the planned workings of a well-oiled and evil machine. Which probably makes it scarier rather than better. (these kind of observations are common also when reading e.g. Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar)
Burgess, the man himself is more or less an enigma also, a suave English well-read gentleman - or a groping, offensive, unpleasant drunk, loud slob, betraying his country?
This fascination over how this came to be and let happen and about how different things were in a time not awfully long ago stayed with me the entire book and made it a very good read. Close to the end though, I found a couple of paragraphs that made me think that we've circled back:
For Burgess and others, their conversion had strong political roots, but most fellow members of the Cambridge cells did not spy for the Russians and indeed lost their communist fervour 1939 with the Nazi-Soviet Pact, in 1956 with the invasion of Hungary, or simply because they had to get on with the business of earning a living.
So why did Burgess stay the course? Partly because, having picked his football team, he loyally stuck with them through thick and thin, capable of all sorts of intellectual somersaults to keep in step with the changing situation.
This uncannily describes the current political situation of the west I think. People pick side and then digs down in trenches, refusing to admit that "their team", or anyone on it ever made a mistake - while the "adversary" do nothing but wrong. Perhaps not the best chosen path.
August 13, 2022
A wild wild ride. There are so many secrets held by really famous and powerful people that we just don’t know??? Crazy. This book is a great tool for thinking about the role of individuals and historical significance.
October 8, 2018
Review to follow. In the meantime, I refer to Sketchbook's review which reflects exactly what I felt about the biography.
November 23, 2016
I received a copy of Stalin's Englishman through Goodreads's First Reads in exchange for an honest review.
I am a sucker for a good spy story: thrilling espionage, exotic locales, and double agents. I am even more excited about a good spy story when it is true. Civil War spies, World War I spies, World War II spies... You name it, I'm interested. I knew nothing about the Cambridge Spy Ring until I watched a documentary about Kim Philby, The Spy Who Went Into The Cold. I was immediately intrigued, and so when I saw a giveaway for a novel about a member of the Ring, Guy Burgess, I entered.
Spy stories should thrilling. They should be exciting. They should not be so boring I want to throw the biography into a fire. Andrew Lownie completely dropped the ball when it comes to telling the story of Guy Burgess. Burgess was a double agent, a Soviet spy in a time of tense relations between Britain and the USSR, and a character in his own right. Those facts, however, get lost in Lownie's detail by detail recap of Burgess's life. It is just so dull. Lownie's source material is not dull, and neither is his subject so this is completely the fault of the author. He uses too much of his source material. I did not need every detail of Burgess's reading list. Instead, I would have preferred more background of the political climate of the time or of the formation of the Cambridge Spy Ring.
Stalin's Englishman is not for newcomers to the story of the Cambridge Spy Ring. Lownie assumes his readers know much more than they do, and so he leaves out details I would have liked to have. So much gets lost in the details here, and it was hard to keep all the people mentioned straight. I was also annoyed that there were no actual pictures of Burgess in the biography; instead, he includes Burgess's cartoons for some reason I can't discern.
What could save this biography? Major edits, tighter writing, and a sense of humor. There is no joy in this biography. It just reads like the writer is not interested at all in the subject, and it's hilarious to me because of how much research must have gone into this biography. No one writes a biography on someone they are not interested.
Not recommended! Find more interesting spy biographies. I know they exist.
I am a sucker for a good spy story: thrilling espionage, exotic locales, and double agents. I am even more excited about a good spy story when it is true. Civil War spies, World War I spies, World War II spies... You name it, I'm interested. I knew nothing about the Cambridge Spy Ring until I watched a documentary about Kim Philby, The Spy Who Went Into The Cold. I was immediately intrigued, and so when I saw a giveaway for a novel about a member of the Ring, Guy Burgess, I entered.
Spy stories should thrilling. They should be exciting. They should not be so boring I want to throw the biography into a fire. Andrew Lownie completely dropped the ball when it comes to telling the story of Guy Burgess. Burgess was a double agent, a Soviet spy in a time of tense relations between Britain and the USSR, and a character in his own right. Those facts, however, get lost in Lownie's detail by detail recap of Burgess's life. It is just so dull. Lownie's source material is not dull, and neither is his subject so this is completely the fault of the author. He uses too much of his source material. I did not need every detail of Burgess's reading list. Instead, I would have preferred more background of the political climate of the time or of the formation of the Cambridge Spy Ring.
Stalin's Englishman is not for newcomers to the story of the Cambridge Spy Ring. Lownie assumes his readers know much more than they do, and so he leaves out details I would have liked to have. So much gets lost in the details here, and it was hard to keep all the people mentioned straight. I was also annoyed that there were no actual pictures of Burgess in the biography; instead, he includes Burgess's cartoons for some reason I can't discern.
What could save this biography? Major edits, tighter writing, and a sense of humor. There is no joy in this biography. It just reads like the writer is not interested at all in the subject, and it's hilarious to me because of how much research must have gone into this biography. No one writes a biography on someone they are not interested.
Not recommended! Find more interesting spy biographies. I know they exist.
December 13, 2024
De când am citit Trilogia Karla de John le Carre în urmă cu douăzeci și cinci de ani sau poate chiar mai mult și am fost interesat să citesc și alte cărți despre spionii din timpul Războiului Rece, am fost convins că figura cea mai puternică dintre cei cinci spioni de la Cambridge a fost Kim Philby, cu atât mai mult cu cât l-am regăsit de nenumărate ori de atunci în opere de ficțiune sau de non-ficțiune. Philby este modelul trădătorului absolut, sau al perfidiei absolute, omul care și-a trădat patria, punându-se în slujba unuia dintre cei mai mari ticăloși ai tuturor timpurilor: Iosif Stalin. Spre comparație, rolul celorlalți patru - Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess, Anthony Blunt și John Cairncross - în lumea spionilor britanici aflați în slujba lui Stalin părea să fie unul relativ minor, cu excepția lui Maclean, ce avea acces la informații esențiale despre programul nuclear american și astfel trădarea sa nu a putut fi bagatelizată. Iată însă că autorul acestei cărți susține nu numai că rolul lui Guy Burgess nu a fost unul minor, ci, dimpotrivă, acesta a jucat un rol de primă mărime, fiind primul dintre cei cinci care reușește să aibă acces la structurile de putere britanice.
Într-adevăr, biografia lui Burgess este extraordinară, cu atât mai mult cu cât pare neverosimil că cineva din categoria socială și intelectuală căreia îi aparținea acesta ar putea să devină admiratorul fanatic al regimului lui Stalin. Însă lucrurile chiar așa au stat.
Guy Francis de Moncy Burgess s-a născut pe 16 aprilie 1911. A studiat la Eton: "fondată în 1440, Eton este școala establishmentului par excellence și este bazata pe cultul succesului". În această perioadă are loc episodul tragic și grotesc în același timp al morții tatălui său, care a făcut infarct în timp ce făcea dragoste cu soția sa, iar "băiatul a fost nevoit să separe cele două trupuri". Ulterior, Burgess nu va ezita să povestească acest moment într-un mod atât de detaliat încât va reuși să umple de dezgust audiența feminină. Dar nu dădea niciun semn că i-ar păsa de acest lucru. În 1930 Burgess începe studiile la Trinity College, Cambridge. "Trinity, fondat de Henric al VIII-lea în 1546, era cel mai grandios - se spunea că Dumnezeu absolvise la Trinity -, cel mai bogat și cel mai mare dintre colegiile din Cambridge". Prietenia lui Burgess cu istoricul și profesorul Steven Runciman datează din perioada 1932-1934 "și este aproape sigur că au devenit iubiți". În 1932 Burgess este ales membru al Societății Apostolilor, "una dintre cele mai cunoscute societăți secrete din lume", fondată în 1820: "Societatea Apostolilor era considerată o elită superintelectuală, selectând doar câțiva membri în fiecare an". Iată cine erau unii dintre membrii Societății Apostolilor din acea perioadă: istoricul G.M. Trevelyan, scriitorul E.M. Forster, economistul John Maynard Keynes, filosoful Ludwig Wittgenstein. Burgess devine din 1933 interesat de marxism. Partidul Comunist tocmai își schimba tactica, "respectiv de a recruta de preferință intelectuali, studenți mai ales, în loc de muncitori". Kim Philby și Donald Maclean erau deja comuniști, iar Burgess devine și el "parte a celulei comuniste și membru al CUSS.
În iunie 1934 Burgess vizitează Uniunea Sovietică. La Moscova el se întâlnește cu Nikolai Buharin, fost secretar al Cominternului și redactor la Pravda. Un detaliu interesant și într-un fel deloc șocant: ministrul educației, Lunacearski, îi arată o listă cu cărțile care erau traduse din engleză și franceză, iar Burgess îi spune să fie eliminată Călătorie la capătul nopții de Celine, deoarece este o "carte fascistă". Asta spune multe despre caracterul mizerabil al lui Burgess.
În 1934 Philby se întâlnește cu agentul care îl va recruta să spioneze în favoarea Uniunii Sovietice, Arnold Deutsch. Va primi numele de cod SOHNCHEN. Mai departe, Philby îl va recomanda pe Donald Maclean, al cărui nume de cod va fi WAISE, adică Orfanul. (Auto)recrutarea lui Burgess este absolut spectaculoasă, având în același timp darul de a ne îngrețoșa complet. Iată cum narează Philby acest eveniment: "S-a convins singur că... el fusese exclus de la ceva ezoteric și incitant. Așa că a început să ne bată la cap și nimeni nu se pricepea să bată pe cineva la cap mai eficient decât Burgess... Era posibil să fie mai periculos lăsat pe dinafară decât adus în interior. Astfel, s-a luat decizia de a fi recrutat. Trebuie să fi fost unul dintre foarte puținii oameni care au intrat cu forța în serviciile speciale sovietice". Uimitor, nu-i așa? Rămâi mut de uimire să vezi ce sunt unii dispuși să facă doar pentru a-și trăda țara.
În 1936 Anthony Blunt este convins de Burgess să spioneze în favoarea rușilor. Acesta l-a prezentat lui Deutsch. Blunt a primit numele de cod TONY. În 1937 Burgess îl recrutează pe John Cairncross. Numele de cod al lui Cairncross este MOLIERE.
Burgess este primul dintre spionii de la Cambridge care a obținut o slujbă în serviciile secrete britanice. Ulterior, îl va recomanda pe Kim Philby, ceea ce va face ca, "la șase luni de la declararea războiului, Centrul de la Moscova" să aibă "doi agenți plasați într-o ramură a serviciilor de informații britanice".
Autorul întreprinde și o analiză a caracterului spionului britanic, un fel de portret psihologic, ale cărui coordonate sunt încăpățânarea, nevoia de dominare a celorlalți, dar și de a fi mereu în centrul atenției, de a impresiona și de a deține controlul. Într-un fel, unele dintre aceste trăsături de caracter nu par a fi cele mai potrivite pentru a fi un bun spion, dar iată că aici au funcționat: "Cazul Burgess și Maclean a fost a treia lovitură suferită de securitatea americană din cauza britanicilor, după spionii Alan Nunn May și Klaus Fuchs, care furaseră secrete ale cercetării nucleare, iar aceștia începeau să simtă că întregul lor program nuclear era trădat de străini".
În mod cert, "Burgess era un spion motivat ideologic". Drogurile în combinație cu alcoolul și cu fumatul excesiv i-au ruinat sănătatea. Era un homosexual care nu își ascundea deloc orientarea sexuală și fidelitatea față de un partener nu era deloc punctul său forte. Iar faptul că ronțăia usturoi în permanenţă și era murdar nu aveau darul de a-l face cel mai atractiv om din univers. Și totuși, Burgess știa să se facă uneori plăcut, era un om cultivat și inteligent. Din păcate, faptul că s-a poziționat de partea greșită a istoriei, trădându-și țara în favoarea lui Stalin (în condițiile în care știa foarte bine că Stalin este un criminal la scară globală) nu are cum să ne trezească simpatia. Iar bilanțul aproximativ al faptelor sale de trădare este cumplit: numai "între 1941 și 1945 Burgess a trimis Centrului de la Moscova 4604 de documente", ceea ce înseamnă o medie de 2,5 documente pe zi sau poate chiar mai mult. Nu rețin ca în carte să ne fie oferit numărul exact al documentelor furnizate Moscovei în timpul Războiului Rece, dar, cu siguranță, acesta este foarte mare. Lectură plăcută!
Într-adevăr, biografia lui Burgess este extraordinară, cu atât mai mult cu cât pare neverosimil că cineva din categoria socială și intelectuală căreia îi aparținea acesta ar putea să devină admiratorul fanatic al regimului lui Stalin. Însă lucrurile chiar așa au stat.
Guy Francis de Moncy Burgess s-a născut pe 16 aprilie 1911. A studiat la Eton: "fondată în 1440, Eton este școala establishmentului par excellence și este bazata pe cultul succesului". În această perioadă are loc episodul tragic și grotesc în același timp al morții tatălui său, care a făcut infarct în timp ce făcea dragoste cu soția sa, iar "băiatul a fost nevoit să separe cele două trupuri". Ulterior, Burgess nu va ezita să povestească acest moment într-un mod atât de detaliat încât va reuși să umple de dezgust audiența feminină. Dar nu dădea niciun semn că i-ar păsa de acest lucru. În 1930 Burgess începe studiile la Trinity College, Cambridge. "Trinity, fondat de Henric al VIII-lea în 1546, era cel mai grandios - se spunea că Dumnezeu absolvise la Trinity -, cel mai bogat și cel mai mare dintre colegiile din Cambridge". Prietenia lui Burgess cu istoricul și profesorul Steven Runciman datează din perioada 1932-1934 "și este aproape sigur că au devenit iubiți". În 1932 Burgess este ales membru al Societății Apostolilor, "una dintre cele mai cunoscute societăți secrete din lume", fondată în 1820: "Societatea Apostolilor era considerată o elită superintelectuală, selectând doar câțiva membri în fiecare an". Iată cine erau unii dintre membrii Societății Apostolilor din acea perioadă: istoricul G.M. Trevelyan, scriitorul E.M. Forster, economistul John Maynard Keynes, filosoful Ludwig Wittgenstein. Burgess devine din 1933 interesat de marxism. Partidul Comunist tocmai își schimba tactica, "respectiv de a recruta de preferință intelectuali, studenți mai ales, în loc de muncitori". Kim Philby și Donald Maclean erau deja comuniști, iar Burgess devine și el "parte a celulei comuniste și membru al CUSS.
În iunie 1934 Burgess vizitează Uniunea Sovietică. La Moscova el se întâlnește cu Nikolai Buharin, fost secretar al Cominternului și redactor la Pravda. Un detaliu interesant și într-un fel deloc șocant: ministrul educației, Lunacearski, îi arată o listă cu cărțile care erau traduse din engleză și franceză, iar Burgess îi spune să fie eliminată Călătorie la capătul nopții de Celine, deoarece este o "carte fascistă". Asta spune multe despre caracterul mizerabil al lui Burgess.
În 1934 Philby se întâlnește cu agentul care îl va recruta să spioneze în favoarea Uniunii Sovietice, Arnold Deutsch. Va primi numele de cod SOHNCHEN. Mai departe, Philby îl va recomanda pe Donald Maclean, al cărui nume de cod va fi WAISE, adică Orfanul. (Auto)recrutarea lui Burgess este absolut spectaculoasă, având în același timp darul de a ne îngrețoșa complet. Iată cum narează Philby acest eveniment: "S-a convins singur că... el fusese exclus de la ceva ezoteric și incitant. Așa că a început să ne bată la cap și nimeni nu se pricepea să bată pe cineva la cap mai eficient decât Burgess... Era posibil să fie mai periculos lăsat pe dinafară decât adus în interior. Astfel, s-a luat decizia de a fi recrutat. Trebuie să fi fost unul dintre foarte puținii oameni care au intrat cu forța în serviciile speciale sovietice". Uimitor, nu-i așa? Rămâi mut de uimire să vezi ce sunt unii dispuși să facă doar pentru a-și trăda țara.
În 1936 Anthony Blunt este convins de Burgess să spioneze în favoarea rușilor. Acesta l-a prezentat lui Deutsch. Blunt a primit numele de cod TONY. În 1937 Burgess îl recrutează pe John Cairncross. Numele de cod al lui Cairncross este MOLIERE.
Burgess este primul dintre spionii de la Cambridge care a obținut o slujbă în serviciile secrete britanice. Ulterior, îl va recomanda pe Kim Philby, ceea ce va face ca, "la șase luni de la declararea războiului, Centrul de la Moscova" să aibă "doi agenți plasați într-o ramură a serviciilor de informații britanice".
Autorul întreprinde și o analiză a caracterului spionului britanic, un fel de portret psihologic, ale cărui coordonate sunt încăpățânarea, nevoia de dominare a celorlalți, dar și de a fi mereu în centrul atenției, de a impresiona și de a deține controlul. Într-un fel, unele dintre aceste trăsături de caracter nu par a fi cele mai potrivite pentru a fi un bun spion, dar iată că aici au funcționat: "Cazul Burgess și Maclean a fost a treia lovitură suferită de securitatea americană din cauza britanicilor, după spionii Alan Nunn May și Klaus Fuchs, care furaseră secrete ale cercetării nucleare, iar aceștia începeau să simtă că întregul lor program nuclear era trădat de străini".
În mod cert, "Burgess era un spion motivat ideologic". Drogurile în combinație cu alcoolul și cu fumatul excesiv i-au ruinat sănătatea. Era un homosexual care nu își ascundea deloc orientarea sexuală și fidelitatea față de un partener nu era deloc punctul său forte. Iar faptul că ronțăia usturoi în permanenţă și era murdar nu aveau darul de a-l face cel mai atractiv om din univers. Și totuși, Burgess știa să se facă uneori plăcut, era un om cultivat și inteligent. Din păcate, faptul că s-a poziționat de partea greșită a istoriei, trădându-și țara în favoarea lui Stalin (în condițiile în care știa foarte bine că Stalin este un criminal la scară globală) nu are cum să ne trezească simpatia. Iar bilanțul aproximativ al faptelor sale de trădare este cumplit: numai "între 1941 și 1945 Burgess a trimis Centrului de la Moscova 4604 de documente", ceea ce înseamnă o medie de 2,5 documente pe zi sau poate chiar mai mult. Nu rețin ca în carte să ne fie oferit numărul exact al documentelor furnizate Moscovei în timpul Războiului Rece, dar, cu siguranță, acesta este foarte mare. Lectură plăcută!
January 6, 2016
Having read numerous books about the Cambridge Spies both collectively and individually, I have to say that this tells me nothing particularly new about Burgess, his lifestyle or his motivations. However it is a fascinating read because of the huge level of detail it gives to his multitudinous relationships, both personal and professional. The fact that he got away with his treachery for so long given his almost daily drunken indiscretions is an indictment of the cosy complacency that existed within the British Secret Services at that time.As always, the most fascinating paradox is reading about the Old Etonian wandering around the grim proletarian landscape of Cold War Moscow, desperate for Western company and news from home. (Philby in exile became an expert on British County Cricket run stats to while away the monotonous hours). Burgess made sure he kept his tailor, and his shirt makers in London busy with orders home. He also waited impatiently for his mothers hampers from Fortnum and Masons to arrive. Burgess was a committed communist for sure. But it was always my opinion that in the early days, this particular generation of spies felt that a revolution was coming throughout Europe of which they were merely the vanguard. This would allow them to stay in Britain, and practice their ideology at home. By the time it became obvious that wasn't going to happen they were in too deep. Although Mi5 secretly admitted they probably didn't have enough evidence to convict Burgess (a fact which Burgess himself suspected), he never the less was unwilling to accept the risk or the shame of being unmasked while still living in London. In a rare interview with Canadian TV Burgess admitted to his interviewer off camera that his life ended when he left London. This is one of the very few things one feels is the honest truth when trying to interpret the mindset of this extraordinary and complex man. His years in exile were laced with frustration and no doubt deep disappointment which he attempted to conceal. The expectation that communism would defeat and eventually replace fascism in the European theatre simply failed to materialise leaving Burgess and his peers ideologically and geographically marooned. In the end, like Philby and McClean, it was hard not to feel pity at the promising lives, wasted on a pipe- dream.
Read
October 21, 2015 On one hand, anyone with an interest in the 1930 to 1950s Cambridge/Moscow spy ring of Philby, Blunt, Maclean, Caincross and Burgess must wonder if there is anything left to say. On the other, there is such an evergreen fascination with the spies, the politics, the morality and the culture which fostered such a scandal, readers still wonder how it happened.
And after reading this book, I wonder how much has changed in the last 100 years.
Andrew Lownie is an expert biographer and tells his version from the centre – Guy Burgess. Drunk, gay, promiscuous, indiscreet, unkempt and ‘a natural liar’, Burgess is an extraordinary character, both outside and inside the establishment, equally charming and repulsive. In addition, the depiction of the social structure and strata of the times illuminates an intriguing (in every sense) set of circumstances which propelled such an individual into a position of alarming power. A portrait of a man, his time and social class.
What is added to a life already picked over and exposed is the hall of mirrors Burgess himself created. He batted for both sides, but neither trusted him. His background and education shaped a personality with an ego all his own. Duplicitous and charming, this man was a player, and one far more significant, according to Lownie, than previously assumed.
An absorbing read, strong on research and new perspectives, peppered with wit and humour, you emerge from this book enlightened and entertained by one man’s exceptional lives.
And after reading this book, I wonder how much has changed in the last 100 years.
Andrew Lownie is an expert biographer and tells his version from the centre – Guy Burgess. Drunk, gay, promiscuous, indiscreet, unkempt and ‘a natural liar’, Burgess is an extraordinary character, both outside and inside the establishment, equally charming and repulsive. In addition, the depiction of the social structure and strata of the times illuminates an intriguing (in every sense) set of circumstances which propelled such an individual into a position of alarming power. A portrait of a man, his time and social class.
What is added to a life already picked over and exposed is the hall of mirrors Burgess himself created. He batted for both sides, but neither trusted him. His background and education shaped a personality with an ego all his own. Duplicitous and charming, this man was a player, and one far more significant, according to Lownie, than previously assumed.
An absorbing read, strong on research and new perspectives, peppered with wit and humour, you emerge from this book enlightened and entertained by one man’s exceptional lives.
March 11, 2020
A flawed, uneven but ultimately, paradoxically, perhaps, satisfying read, you come away from this book with a mental picture of Burgess which, at the end of the day, is the least you can ask for from a biography.
A man very much of his time, Guy Burgess was an alcoholic Cambridge graduate of upper-class stock who, after flirting with communism during his time as a student, worked for a while as a double agent (at the BBC and foreign office at home and in the US) before finally moving/running away to Moscow where he died. He stuck his time in Russia out for a variety of reasons - idealism, enjoying being a naughty boy and sheer bloody-mindedness - but at heart he was an Englishman who never really went native with any conviction. Although he liked the idea of communism - British communism, discussed with others of his ilk - the real Russian variety he found somewhat difficult to swallow. But he'd made his bed and, shabby as it was, he lay in it until the end, often with company.
The book itself is an odd fish, thick as reading a writer's notes in parts, fascinating and fluid in others. It does a good job of telling us exactly what Burgess was up to most moments of his life but loses something in this close attention to often repetitive detail. Context and colour are missing, which is surprising given the debauched, riotous way Burgess lived life and the interesting times he lived through.
In sum, an odd one, book and subject.
A man very much of his time, Guy Burgess was an alcoholic Cambridge graduate of upper-class stock who, after flirting with communism during his time as a student, worked for a while as a double agent (at the BBC and foreign office at home and in the US) before finally moving/running away to Moscow where he died. He stuck his time in Russia out for a variety of reasons - idealism, enjoying being a naughty boy and sheer bloody-mindedness - but at heart he was an Englishman who never really went native with any conviction. Although he liked the idea of communism - British communism, discussed with others of his ilk - the real Russian variety he found somewhat difficult to swallow. But he'd made his bed and, shabby as it was, he lay in it until the end, often with company.
The book itself is an odd fish, thick as reading a writer's notes in parts, fascinating and fluid in others. It does a good job of telling us exactly what Burgess was up to most moments of his life but loses something in this close attention to often repetitive detail. Context and colour are missing, which is surprising given the debauched, riotous way Burgess lived life and the interesting times he lived through.
In sum, an odd one, book and subject.
May 3, 2025
Probably the best book to read if you are interested in the sordid? bizarre? tale of the privileged Englishmen who, while remaining quintessentially 'establishment' figures sold their souls, and their country to Stalin, Communism, the Soviet Union, etc. The reason this biography of Burgess is such a good place to start is because Burgess is both typical and atypical of those 'upper class' English traitors. Why? because he a convert to Marxism and recruited many of the others but, disturbingly, even the security services doubted that they Burgess could actually be found guilty of anything if he had ever come to trial. Unlike Philby, for example, you could not pin the deaths of others on him. At the time he probably passed on the most useful information was during WWII when Stalin was an ally. He definitely recruited people but in those days there was no crime of 'grooming' and men like Philby, MacClean or Blunt would have thought the concept of themselves being 'groomed' absurd.
The real fascination with Burgess is not that he spied for Stalin but that he was so obvious a security risk yet no one took him seriously. The delusions and self importance of that little clique of privately educated men who ran Britain for so long is staggering. That they all were probably, by WWII, more anti-American then pro-Soviet is often forgotten. They loathed America in all sorts of ways but what they really loathed was that America was richer and more powerful than England. Their day as masters of the universe was over.
Of course I am simplifying - but it is a fascinating story and that Burgess was at the centre of it for so long, and so obviously a 'a wrong un', yet never questioned is more interesting as a portrait of what was always rotten about the English class system.
The real fascination with Burgess is not that he spied for Stalin but that he was so obvious a security risk yet no one took him seriously. The delusions and self importance of that little clique of privately educated men who ran Britain for so long is staggering. That they all were probably, by WWII, more anti-American then pro-Soviet is often forgotten. They loathed America in all sorts of ways but what they really loathed was that America was richer and more powerful than England. Their day as masters of the universe was over.
Of course I am simplifying - but it is a fascinating story and that Burgess was at the centre of it for so long, and so obviously a 'a wrong un', yet never questioned is more interesting as a portrait of what was always rotten about the English class system.
September 28, 2025
Prior to reading Stalin's Englishman: Guy Burgess, the Cold War, and the Cambridge Spy Ring, I didn't know much about Guy Burgess. Indeed, what I did know about him, informed by novels like Winston's War and a work of non-fiction, A Spy among Friends: Kim Philby and the Great Betrayal, conjured up a Guy Burgess, who though highly intelligent, privileged, and engaging with just about anyone with whom he came into contact, was at times feckless, irresponsible, and invariably drunk. He came across as being more of an accidental spy than an effective one. Indeed, of all the men who made up the Cambridge Spy Ring, I felt that Burgess was the lightweight among them.
Well, after having read Stalin's Englishman, it became clear to me that there was much more to Guy Burgess than met the eye. Born in 1911, he was the son of a naval officer whose career stalled and a mother who doted on him. Guy, in turn, adored his mother. He had a private school education that encompassed Locker's Park (one of the best prep schools in the UK) and culminated with a stint at the Naval College at Dartmouth (where, despite his brilliance, he was not well-liked by his peers, and his homosexuality pretty much ensured that he wouldn't likely be able to have a naval career), Eton College (where he became a prefect), and Cambridge University (where his left-wing leanings precipitated his eventual recruitment as a Soviet spy).
What was surprising to learn was that Burgess never completed the requirements for a Cambridge degree (owing to illness), though he did tutor students at Cambridge, and looked destined for an academic career there until an academic stole his thunder by publishing a thesis on a subject Burgess had labored on for close to a year, expecting to publish a book on his findings that would solidify his academic credentials and firmly establish him as a scholar.
From the early 1930s onward, Burgess became more immersed in political matters. Late in 1935, he accepted a temporary position working for John Macnamara, a Conservative MP who was also a closet homosexual. During this time, Burgess passed himself off at the behest of his Soviet spymasters, as pro-fascist, and with his boss, made several visits to Germany to better assess the effects of Nazism there.
After completing his stint at Westminster, Burgess, after several failed attempts, got a job in 1937 with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) which involved selecting and interviewing potential speakers to give talks on the BBC on current affairs and cultural programs. Among the list of potential speakers with whom Burgess became well-acquainted was Winston Churchill, then a Conservative MP consigned to political oblivion because of his stand against Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policy. But though both men got on well, the radio broadcast never took place.
It was while with the BBC that Burgess - at the behest of the Soviets - managed to forge a friendship with the writer David Footman, known by the Soviets to also be working for MI-6 (the UK equivalent of the CIA). Thanks to Footman, Burgess was accepted into MI-6 on a probationary basis, performing a number of unpaid jobs for them. All the while, Burgess felt stifled and frustrated working for the BBC, tendering his resignation in November 1938. MI-6 was satisfied with the work Burgess had already performed for them and accepted him into its employ. He worked in Section D of MI-6, a newly established organization charged with investigating how enemies could be attacked other than by military means. (Burgess was responsible at this time for getting his fellow Cambridge compatriot Kim Philby into Section D, which served as the springboard for Philby's subsequent career in MI-6.) This entailed the development and use of propaganda and later espionage when Section D was later merged into the Special Operations Executive (SOE) in 1940. The SOE was Prime Minister Winston Churchill's brainchild for a spy network that would conduct espionage missions in German-occupied Europe, designed to, in Churchill's words "set Europe ablaze."
Burgess' association with Section D had ended by the end of 1940, leaving him temporarily without a job. Early in 1941, he managed to rejoin the BBC and simultaneously carry out freelance intelligence work for MI-6 and its domestic counterpart, MI-5. Burgess was also passing on to the Soviets as many government documents he had access to, which his handlers copied, with Burgess returning the originals before any suspicions could be aroused.
Furthermore, before the end of the war, Burgess got a job with the Foreign Office's news department as a press officer. Thereupon, he left the BBC for good. "Burgess saw almost all material produced by the Foreign Office, including telegraphic communications both decoded and encoded, with keys for decryption, which would have been valuable to his Soviet handlers".
Burgess would reach his greatest effectiveness as a spy after the Labour Party decisively won the 1945 General Election and formed a new government in the UK. His close friend, Hector McNeil, who was strongly anti-Communist and unsuspecting of Burgess' fealty to the Soviet Union, became a Minister of State at the Foreign Office. McNeil had a very high opinion of Burgess and took him on as part of his staff. Burgess worked for McNeil for 3 years, before being moved over to the Foreign Office's China desk in 1948.
Burgess' Foreign Office career would soon come to an ignominious end following his transfer in July 1950 to the U.S., where he worked in the British Embassy in Washington. He was very anti-American and was wholly distrustful of the U.S. and its foreign policies, especially in relation to the Soviet Union. From what I read, I think Burgess resented the rising power and influence of the U.S. and lamented (to some extent), the concurrent decline of British power and influence in the world.
While in Washington, Burgess learned that another fellow Cambridge spy, Donald Maclean (who had worked at the British Embassy in Washington between 1944 and 1948) was perilously close to having his cover blown. So, he - with some help from Philby who was then the MI-6 Washington chief- was able to get with Maclean, upon returning to the UK, and both defected to the Soviet Union in May 1951, barely escaping the reach of British authorities who wanted to question both men on their espionage activities.
The book also sheds light on the years Burgess spent in the Soviet Union, where he died in August 1963, age 52.
While I find Guy Burgess a rather unsavory character (he was known to be sloppy in his dressing habits at times, an outrageous drunk, and often sported dirty fingernails), there is no denying that he was "an agent of influence, most notably in the BBC and during his time on Far East affairs, where he helped shape British policy to recognize Communist China when America refused to, but also later in Moscow working on Soviet disinformation. Then there were all the agents he was responsible for recruiting --- Anthony Blunt, John Cairncross, Michael Straight [an American Burgess met during his time at Cambridge] --- and the agents they in turn had recruited and all the information they supplied to the Russians. And these are just the agents we know about."
Well, after having read Stalin's Englishman, it became clear to me that there was much more to Guy Burgess than met the eye. Born in 1911, he was the son of a naval officer whose career stalled and a mother who doted on him. Guy, in turn, adored his mother. He had a private school education that encompassed Locker's Park (one of the best prep schools in the UK) and culminated with a stint at the Naval College at Dartmouth (where, despite his brilliance, he was not well-liked by his peers, and his homosexuality pretty much ensured that he wouldn't likely be able to have a naval career), Eton College (where he became a prefect), and Cambridge University (where his left-wing leanings precipitated his eventual recruitment as a Soviet spy).
What was surprising to learn was that Burgess never completed the requirements for a Cambridge degree (owing to illness), though he did tutor students at Cambridge, and looked destined for an academic career there until an academic stole his thunder by publishing a thesis on a subject Burgess had labored on for close to a year, expecting to publish a book on his findings that would solidify his academic credentials and firmly establish him as a scholar.
From the early 1930s onward, Burgess became more immersed in political matters. Late in 1935, he accepted a temporary position working for John Macnamara, a Conservative MP who was also a closet homosexual. During this time, Burgess passed himself off at the behest of his Soviet spymasters, as pro-fascist, and with his boss, made several visits to Germany to better assess the effects of Nazism there.
After completing his stint at Westminster, Burgess, after several failed attempts, got a job in 1937 with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) which involved selecting and interviewing potential speakers to give talks on the BBC on current affairs and cultural programs. Among the list of potential speakers with whom Burgess became well-acquainted was Winston Churchill, then a Conservative MP consigned to political oblivion because of his stand against Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policy. But though both men got on well, the radio broadcast never took place.
It was while with the BBC that Burgess - at the behest of the Soviets - managed to forge a friendship with the writer David Footman, known by the Soviets to also be working for MI-6 (the UK equivalent of the CIA). Thanks to Footman, Burgess was accepted into MI-6 on a probationary basis, performing a number of unpaid jobs for them. All the while, Burgess felt stifled and frustrated working for the BBC, tendering his resignation in November 1938. MI-6 was satisfied with the work Burgess had already performed for them and accepted him into its employ. He worked in Section D of MI-6, a newly established organization charged with investigating how enemies could be attacked other than by military means. (Burgess was responsible at this time for getting his fellow Cambridge compatriot Kim Philby into Section D, which served as the springboard for Philby's subsequent career in MI-6.) This entailed the development and use of propaganda and later espionage when Section D was later merged into the Special Operations Executive (SOE) in 1940. The SOE was Prime Minister Winston Churchill's brainchild for a spy network that would conduct espionage missions in German-occupied Europe, designed to, in Churchill's words "set Europe ablaze."
Burgess' association with Section D had ended by the end of 1940, leaving him temporarily without a job. Early in 1941, he managed to rejoin the BBC and simultaneously carry out freelance intelligence work for MI-6 and its domestic counterpart, MI-5. Burgess was also passing on to the Soviets as many government documents he had access to, which his handlers copied, with Burgess returning the originals before any suspicions could be aroused.
Furthermore, before the end of the war, Burgess got a job with the Foreign Office's news department as a press officer. Thereupon, he left the BBC for good. "Burgess saw almost all material produced by the Foreign Office, including telegraphic communications both decoded and encoded, with keys for decryption, which would have been valuable to his Soviet handlers".
Burgess would reach his greatest effectiveness as a spy after the Labour Party decisively won the 1945 General Election and formed a new government in the UK. His close friend, Hector McNeil, who was strongly anti-Communist and unsuspecting of Burgess' fealty to the Soviet Union, became a Minister of State at the Foreign Office. McNeil had a very high opinion of Burgess and took him on as part of his staff. Burgess worked for McNeil for 3 years, before being moved over to the Foreign Office's China desk in 1948.
Burgess' Foreign Office career would soon come to an ignominious end following his transfer in July 1950 to the U.S., where he worked in the British Embassy in Washington. He was very anti-American and was wholly distrustful of the U.S. and its foreign policies, especially in relation to the Soviet Union. From what I read, I think Burgess resented the rising power and influence of the U.S. and lamented (to some extent), the concurrent decline of British power and influence in the world.
While in Washington, Burgess learned that another fellow Cambridge spy, Donald Maclean (who had worked at the British Embassy in Washington between 1944 and 1948) was perilously close to having his cover blown. So, he - with some help from Philby who was then the MI-6 Washington chief- was able to get with Maclean, upon returning to the UK, and both defected to the Soviet Union in May 1951, barely escaping the reach of British authorities who wanted to question both men on their espionage activities.
The book also sheds light on the years Burgess spent in the Soviet Union, where he died in August 1963, age 52.
While I find Guy Burgess a rather unsavory character (he was known to be sloppy in his dressing habits at times, an outrageous drunk, and often sported dirty fingernails), there is no denying that he was "an agent of influence, most notably in the BBC and during his time on Far East affairs, where he helped shape British policy to recognize Communist China when America refused to, but also later in Moscow working on Soviet disinformation. Then there were all the agents he was responsible for recruiting --- Anthony Blunt, John Cairncross, Michael Straight [an American Burgess met during his time at Cambridge] --- and the agents they in turn had recruited and all the information they supplied to the Russians. And these are just the agents we know about."
November 8, 2015
Fascinating biography of Guy Burgess, the third man (depending on how you're counting) of the Cambridge Spy Ring. Burgess is a remarkable person — capricious, waspish, totally self-centred, but also charming and brilliant. It's difficult not to be impressed at how his intellect manages to carry him to the BBC, MI5, MI6 and the Foreign Office despite his obvious and unhidden (quite the opposite) personality flaws. While it is arguable he could have reached much higher positions had he been less drunk and obnoxious at work, the fact that he managed to work effectively, and get away with his behaviour, is somewhat astounding.
Also astounding are the descriptions of the "establishment's" reaction to his defection — I was astonished that he was allowed to maintain accounts with banks, tailors, and bookstores in the UK. And that he could arrange to have his furniture shipped to him. And that people visiting Moscow would commonly visit. I assumed that his ostracization from society would have been more complete. This almost feels like he had just swapped clubs.
The book itself can be a little dry — the list-like details, particularly in the first third, could wash over me. But once things start moving it is really compelling. It seems that the history, character and influence of Burgess is much debated, with little agreement — this book is a good place to start to understand it.
Also astounding are the descriptions of the "establishment's" reaction to his defection — I was astonished that he was allowed to maintain accounts with banks, tailors, and bookstores in the UK. And that he could arrange to have his furniture shipped to him. And that people visiting Moscow would commonly visit. I assumed that his ostracization from society would have been more complete. This almost feels like he had just swapped clubs.
The book itself can be a little dry — the list-like details, particularly in the first third, could wash over me. But once things start moving it is really compelling. It seems that the history, character and influence of Burgess is much debated, with little agreement — this book is a good place to start to understand it.
February 6, 2017
4.5*
This biography of the notorious spy Guy Burgess recounts his life from birth through to premature death in Moscow, aged fifty-two in 1963. After spending his formative years at the naval college Dartmouth and Eton, Burgess attended Trinity College, Cambridge. It was there that he embraced communism and was allegedly recruited as a Soviet agent.
He went on to provide the Soviets with information throughout a career that encompassed stints in the BBC, Foreign Office and working as an intelligence officer. Ever the consummate networker, the charming, heavy drinking, unapologetic homosexual Burgess is portrayed as having been a paradoxical-existence-leading, Old-Etonian-tie-wearing fantasist. An indiscreet and relentless gossiper, it was his highly manipulative nature and integration in the ‘old boy’s network’ that allowed him to operate for so long.
Through fastidious research, extensive interviewing and interesting psychological insights, historian Lownie has created a compelling and revisionist account of the life of surely the most charismatic member of the ‘Cambridge Five’.
Despite the early chapters being rather slow going, this is an absorbing and adeptly crafted work that will appeal to many. This reader was intrigued by the author’s peculiar fixation with the purported deplorable state of his subject’s fingernails.
This biography of the notorious spy Guy Burgess recounts his life from birth through to premature death in Moscow, aged fifty-two in 1963. After spending his formative years at the naval college Dartmouth and Eton, Burgess attended Trinity College, Cambridge. It was there that he embraced communism and was allegedly recruited as a Soviet agent.
He went on to provide the Soviets with information throughout a career that encompassed stints in the BBC, Foreign Office and working as an intelligence officer. Ever the consummate networker, the charming, heavy drinking, unapologetic homosexual Burgess is portrayed as having been a paradoxical-existence-leading, Old-Etonian-tie-wearing fantasist. An indiscreet and relentless gossiper, it was his highly manipulative nature and integration in the ‘old boy’s network’ that allowed him to operate for so long.
Through fastidious research, extensive interviewing and interesting psychological insights, historian Lownie has created a compelling and revisionist account of the life of surely the most charismatic member of the ‘Cambridge Five’.
Despite the early chapters being rather slow going, this is an absorbing and adeptly crafted work that will appeal to many. This reader was intrigued by the author’s peculiar fixation with the purported deplorable state of his subject’s fingernails.
December 2, 2017
I enjoyed this, though I'm not sure I buy Lownie's assertion that of the Cambridge Spies, Burgess did the most damage. It's possible, but it's also impossible to tell. The Russians themselves had doubts about this drunken and wildly promiscuous party boy, and much of what Burgess gave them (suitcases full) wasn't even translated. Burgess was certainly in a position (multiple times) to supply the most sensitive communications and papers, so there will always be questions regarding the damage done. Perhaps the real danger that Burgess represented lay in the various sexual tales he could tell about important people within the relatively small world of the British upper crust (academia, intellectuals, Royals, etc.). Once Burgess defected, the British had no desire to see him come back and testify about anything. Being confined to Russia for the rest of his days was probably the most devastating sentence of all for this particular traitor. Self-clipped of his social butterfly wings, but with daily soakings in alcohol, he withered and died in a matter of years.
October 30, 2018
Great biography of a troubled but fascinating man. Much detail but it still reads like a thriller.
May 30, 2020
I do not understand all the great reviews and awards. I found it to be a poorly put together, boring book about an extraordinarily intelligent and interesting man. What a shame!
Lownie provides a very long laundry list of names -- just about anyone Burgess ever met. Many of them play no further role in the story after having been introduced, and if you try to keep track of them, you can go crazy. One person who I would have thought would deserve more than one or two mentions is Kim Philby. Burgess's defection had a direct effect on Philby's being found out, albeit some years later -- years in which he stewed and sweated. But there is no explanation at all about what happened to Philby after Burgess and Maclean went to Russia, except one short mention that he too ended up living there and didn't attend Burgess's funeral.
There are lots of contradictory descriptions quoted in the book. If you pay attention, you find that most (not all) of the negative ones were written after Burgess defected. I found Burgess to be a sympathetic person. He had his problems, but he was clearly brilliant and a marvelous conversationalist, and considered very good company by all his friends as well as those who thought he smelled too much of garlic. When he started out with Russia, it was to fight against fascism, something his own England was not yet prepared to do. Why he stayed with Russia? well, you would have to ask him because Lownie doesn't know, he can only guess, and you can decide for yourself if his guess is any better than yours.
Lownie provides a very long laundry list of names -- just about anyone Burgess ever met. Many of them play no further role in the story after having been introduced, and if you try to keep track of them, you can go crazy. One person who I would have thought would deserve more than one or two mentions is Kim Philby. Burgess's defection had a direct effect on Philby's being found out, albeit some years later -- years in which he stewed and sweated. But there is no explanation at all about what happened to Philby after Burgess and Maclean went to Russia, except one short mention that he too ended up living there and didn't attend Burgess's funeral.
There are lots of contradictory descriptions quoted in the book. If you pay attention, you find that most (not all) of the negative ones were written after Burgess defected. I found Burgess to be a sympathetic person. He had his problems, but he was clearly brilliant and a marvelous conversationalist, and considered very good company by all his friends as well as those who thought he smelled too much of garlic. When he started out with Russia, it was to fight against fascism, something his own England was not yet prepared to do. Why he stayed with Russia? well, you would have to ask him because Lownie doesn't know, he can only guess, and you can decide for yourself if his guess is any better than yours.
Read
July 11, 2016The full story of the Englishman who became a Soviet spy and fled to Russia in May 1951 with Donald Maclean. The author promises to reveal how and why this privileged, public school educated individual chose communism and Russia over England. But first the life which was punctuated with sexual licence (Burgess was homosexual) and excessive drinking from an early age. He was in many respects a total ass but a talented and bright one. Highly regarded by the Foreign Office from where he could have and should have been fired numerous times for wild behavior he moved from position to position acquiring a reputation for mostly wise political counsel. He worked for the Russians from 1933 turning over thousands of documents and if he wasn't more effective as a spy it was because the Russians couldn't believe the British would hire someone who had been an open communist at Cambridge. They never quite believed he wasn't a double agent. In a chapter near the end Lownie finally considers the question of why- why did Burgess become communist? It was a function of the time he lived in and also due to his personality. He was a politically-minded student of the 1930s looking for something large to believe in-as fascism loomed in Europe- and communism filled the void with Russia as the vehicle that would prove the inevitability of communist theory. Burgess latched on to this big idea and nothing ever shook him from it.
June 19, 2019
I wanted to like this book more than I did, because I find the whole subject of espionage, particularly as regards the Cold War, very interesting. And if you wanted to write a movie about an intriguing Cold War spy, you couldn't do much better than an openly homosexual, flamboyantly drunk, seemingly clumsy and careless upper class Englishman who became a communist in college and somehow became one of the most effective clandestine agents the Kremlin had in western Europe.
But in reality, the details of Guy Burgess's life were somewhat less interesting than I'd hoped, and I tired rather quickly of reading various accounts of Burgess as, alternately, 1.) an insufferable, boorish, disgusting wreck of a person and 2.) an amazingly intelligent, charismatic, kind, and overachieving individual. Seriously, it felt like I read quotes or letters from various people describing him as one, then on the very next page, another quote or letter from someone else describing him as the opposite, on and on, ad nauseam, for the entirety of the book.
Yes, Burgess was obviously a complicated, interesting man, and he did some rather incredible things in terms of making connections for both British and Soviet intelligence across Europe in service of bringing down the Third Reich, and ultimately I think this book is worthy of reading if one is interested in this subject, but I couldn't help but feel underwhelmed. Perhaps my expectations were too high.
But in reality, the details of Guy Burgess's life were somewhat less interesting than I'd hoped, and I tired rather quickly of reading various accounts of Burgess as, alternately, 1.) an insufferable, boorish, disgusting wreck of a person and 2.) an amazingly intelligent, charismatic, kind, and overachieving individual. Seriously, it felt like I read quotes or letters from various people describing him as one, then on the very next page, another quote or letter from someone else describing him as the opposite, on and on, ad nauseam, for the entirety of the book.
Yes, Burgess was obviously a complicated, interesting man, and he did some rather incredible things in terms of making connections for both British and Soviet intelligence across Europe in service of bringing down the Third Reich, and ultimately I think this book is worthy of reading if one is interested in this subject, but I couldn't help but feel underwhelmed. Perhaps my expectations were too high.
October 27, 2015
The Burgess and Maclean defection occurred while I was a seven-year-old and didn't mean much to me at the time, however, the actions of this ring of traitors have been in the news off and on throughout my life and has become an interest as it was later followed by the Profumo crisis. I found this book difficult to follow through his early years and there have been conflicting accounts of some of his life and when and why he chose the path that he did. Once Burgess moves to Washington and the defection takes place the book takes on a greater momentum and shows him as a rather sad and pathetic figure always seeking his former life in England. Surprisingly his homosexual activities in public never led to a criminaL arrest at the time. Overall I enjoyed this book.
December 31, 2015
Meticulously researched and painstakingly detailed, this account of Guy Burgess is required reading for anyone interested in the Cambridge Five, or indeed that era of the Cold War. There’s much to applaud in this exploration of Burgess, his friends and acquaintances, the politics of the time and his ultimate fate in the Soviet Union. There’s also quite a lot of repetition – if I read once more about how “dirty” Burgess was I think I would have screamed. I felt that the author felt he had to put into his book every single bit of his research – and perhaps a bit of editing would have made for a more compelling story. Nevertheless, it is in fact an excellent biography and perhaps I shouldn’t carp - better to have access to too much information rather than too little.
December 31, 2021
Most books about the Cambridge Spies tend to discount Guy Burgess as the least important and least damaging of the five, often reducing him to little more than a caricature in their portrayals. Lownie's biography, based on extensive research from a wide array of sources, paints a rather more multifaceted, balanced and deeply intriguing picture of its complex and flawed but fascinating subject. This thorough biography made for an excellent read.
June 30, 2020
Review of Stalin’s Englishman
I made a recent comment on social media about this book which said, “Andrew Lownie’s expansive insight into the life & times of Anthony Burgess sheds new light in the darkest corners of this louche’s existence. Having lived in this time period I would have enjoyed turning the key in the lock of his goal cell.” His cell, of course, turned out to be his remote isolation in Soviet Russia, the myopic Utopia of his fantasy cut off from all that he had previously enjoyed in his squalid life in the upper echelons of society and government in England.
Much has been written about Burgess and there can be no question as to his intellectual abilities at Cambridge and Eton as well as his proclivities toward homosexuality, but these writings are much like the flashlight on the end of a keychain. It illuminates pockets of detail in a small defined area. This author’s work is more of a treatise that systematically shines a massive searchlight on the man and his milieu or circle of influence in such a manner that enables it to look under every stone in Burgess’s courtyard of existence.
Burgess is shown to be a troubled individual stemming from his earlier familial relationships, and lack of acceptance by his peers at Eton and Cambridge, notwithstanding his very capable intellectual ability. He is shown as someone of slovenly habits, a heavy smoker, and an even heavier drinker, devoid of respect for authority or position but with immense charm and a conversationalist of supreme confidence.
As his leanings toward Marxism and communism grows and he is recruited by the KGB, his work at the BBC, with occasional intelligence work, and finally as an officer in the Foreign Office enables him to pass on an immense amount of intelligence to the Russians over many years. As a recruiter for the KGB he was able to bring others to his cause and of the so-called known Cambridge five, how many more there were we will never know. His solicitation of all kinds of men and boys from all segments of the population for his insatiable sexual appetite casts a dark shadow over those in authority who knew what he was up to but allowed it take place, is in itself, a blot on British history at the higher levels of government, notwithstanding the lapse in security.
I say this because in the same era, in fact, the year after Burgess fled the country, a true hero Alan Turing, commits suicide after Turing was prosecuted in 1952 for homosexual acts; the Labouchere Amendment of 1885 had mandated that "gross indecency" was a criminal offense in the UK. It is estimated that because of Turings’ wartime work he probably saved 14 million lives and possibly shortened the war by 2 years. How many lives may have been lost or even compromised by Burgess’s treachery we will never know.
I congratulate Andrew Lownie for his diligence and highly detailed examination of this subject and revealing the core of damage Burgess had done to Britain and its relationship with U.S, intelligence whose scar is probably still visible today.
David E. Huntley June 30, 2020
I made a recent comment on social media about this book which said, “Andrew Lownie’s expansive insight into the life & times of Anthony Burgess sheds new light in the darkest corners of this louche’s existence. Having lived in this time period I would have enjoyed turning the key in the lock of his goal cell.” His cell, of course, turned out to be his remote isolation in Soviet Russia, the myopic Utopia of his fantasy cut off from all that he had previously enjoyed in his squalid life in the upper echelons of society and government in England.
Much has been written about Burgess and there can be no question as to his intellectual abilities at Cambridge and Eton as well as his proclivities toward homosexuality, but these writings are much like the flashlight on the end of a keychain. It illuminates pockets of detail in a small defined area. This author’s work is more of a treatise that systematically shines a massive searchlight on the man and his milieu or circle of influence in such a manner that enables it to look under every stone in Burgess’s courtyard of existence.
Burgess is shown to be a troubled individual stemming from his earlier familial relationships, and lack of acceptance by his peers at Eton and Cambridge, notwithstanding his very capable intellectual ability. He is shown as someone of slovenly habits, a heavy smoker, and an even heavier drinker, devoid of respect for authority or position but with immense charm and a conversationalist of supreme confidence.
As his leanings toward Marxism and communism grows and he is recruited by the KGB, his work at the BBC, with occasional intelligence work, and finally as an officer in the Foreign Office enables him to pass on an immense amount of intelligence to the Russians over many years. As a recruiter for the KGB he was able to bring others to his cause and of the so-called known Cambridge five, how many more there were we will never know. His solicitation of all kinds of men and boys from all segments of the population for his insatiable sexual appetite casts a dark shadow over those in authority who knew what he was up to but allowed it take place, is in itself, a blot on British history at the higher levels of government, notwithstanding the lapse in security.
I say this because in the same era, in fact, the year after Burgess fled the country, a true hero Alan Turing, commits suicide after Turing was prosecuted in 1952 for homosexual acts; the Labouchere Amendment of 1885 had mandated that "gross indecency" was a criminal offense in the UK. It is estimated that because of Turings’ wartime work he probably saved 14 million lives and possibly shortened the war by 2 years. How many lives may have been lost or even compromised by Burgess’s treachery we will never know.
I congratulate Andrew Lownie for his diligence and highly detailed examination of this subject and revealing the core of damage Burgess had done to Britain and its relationship with U.S, intelligence whose scar is probably still visible today.
David E. Huntley June 30, 2020
June 27, 2025
This is a very well researched, structured and engagingly presented account of one of the most notorious spies of a notorious era. The ways that a seemingly shambolic, drunk and unserious man managed to deceive those in power to get to the heart of the establishment and then give its secrets away are astonishing to read.
Only not giving this 5 stars as for all the positives - Burgess himself is so repellent that it does put (this) reader off somewhat. Probably a bit unfair but I was relieved at the end not to be in his company anymore!
Only not giving this 5 stars as for all the positives - Burgess himself is so repellent that it does put (this) reader off somewhat. Probably a bit unfair but I was relieved at the end not to be in his company anymore!
January 10, 2021
3: Finished reading Stalin's Englishman by Andrew Lownie. A really interesting account of Guy Burgess, one of the main players in the Cambridge spy ring. What a tragi-comic character. Intelligent, drunk, loyal and disloyal all at once. Really I think a product of his upbringing, also an almost inevitable product of being homosexual in a time when it was illegal, therefore having to become used to lying and covering up in the face of authority from the get-go. I think he always wanted to be a part of the in-crowd but was never sure that he was. I also think he regretted defecting. I feel sort of sorry for him, and whilst I don't agree with what he did, I think society had a lot to answer for in contributing to him becoming that way. If you're going to make people illegal for who they love you're going to create a group of outsiders who will want to find an insider-status somewhere. Unfortunately Guy Burgess picked the wrong place. 4 stars, a lot of food for thought and a very interesting account.
January 13, 2018
This was a spy. Guy Burgess, at the heart of British foreign policy, gave away the crown jewels. For what? The obsessive impulse to help the soviets.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 162 reviews