This book was easy to read, informative and somehow at the same time unsatisfying. The writer is either unwilling or unable to comprehend the mind set of the Cambridge spies, still less to draw any conclusions or lessons from the saga. Andrew Boyle is a competent journalist but nothing more. What he misses is what I would call the particularly British gullability towards anything which has established itself in the public eye as "Establishment". British poltiicians and people have always stood in awe of anyone whose profile is resolutely Establishment and cannot or will not believe ill of members of said establishment in the face of the most persuasive possible evidence. Also very British in my opinion, is a lack of interest in the psychology of the enemy, which makes it easy for spies to operate or any other kind of subversive activity in any given situation. For hundreds of thousands if not millions, the Russian revolution, whose true face as reported by the likes of Douglas Reid was ignored, was a new dawn for mankind. Negative reporting on the workers' paradise objectively served the intersts of reaction. Stalin was the prophet of a new humanity. British communists (in contrast to say French or even German ones) were wholly unable to comprehend how anyone could embrace national socialism with the same kind of blind fervour which had overwhelmed them, and for many of the same reasons, in their embrace of historical materialsm. On the one hand, there are those like Boyle, who condemn without understanding and on the other hand there are those whose understanding blinds them to the hypocrisy which these men harboured and the the damage which they caused.
There is no discussion here of the pressing question of what it means to be a traitor. The German language distinguishes, helpfully I think, between "Staatsverräter" (traitor to oen's country) and "Volksverräter" (traitor to one's people). Were "Lord Hawhaw" Ezra Pound, traitors for believing in fascism? Douglad Maclean for believing in communism? At the very least, there is a qualitative difference betweeen the ideological traitor and the mercenary one, for example the director of the "Bundesverfassungsschutz" (Committee for the Defence of the Constitution) Hans-Tiedge, who for years sold secrets to East Germany for a tidy sum of money and appeared to be without ideological conviction of any kind. Such distinctions are beyond Andrew Boyle's grasp.
Perhaps these criticisms are unfair, since Andrew Boyle's book makes no pretense of presuming to be more than a detailed factual account of the careeers of the Cambridge spies. As such this account is successful.