Scan barcode
avrilhj's review against another edition
5.0
Is one meant to feel quite so sympathetic towards a traitor? I absolutely understand the Cambridge Spies feeling in the 1930s that the only way to fight fascism was with communism, and so supporting the USSR on that basis, but to continue the spying after Stalin’s purges, and the pact with Hitler, and the Iron Curtin descending across Europe? Surely by the time Burgess and Maclean defected they would have known that the USSR was as totalitarian as Nazi Germany? But did Burgess ever truly intend to defect? He said he didn’t, and was apparently upset at Moscow not allowing him to return to the UK, since he was sure he would have been able to stand up to interrogation.
Lownie, in summing up Burgess’ impact, suggests that it was his influence and relationships that were most important, the people he recruited to spy, and those they recruited, and that he was the glue that kept the Cambridge Spies together. His defection, along with Maclean, also caused huge problems between the UK and the USA when the latter discovered just how slack the former’s intelligence services were.
As an explanation for his treachery, Lownie places more emphasis on the importance of Burgess wanting to discover secrets and exercise covert power than on his homosexuality, because he says Burgess felt no shame in being homosexual. But I do think that being homosexual in a time when it was officially illegal, and yet when people like Burgess were able to get away with something that was a crime because of the hypocrisy of the class system, must have influenced his attitude to secrets and compartmentalised lives. Surely?
One things this biography makes very clear is how badly the UK was served by the ‘old school tie’ attitude, of which Burgess took constant advantage as he wore his Old Etonians tie everywhere.
I am aware that my sympathy for Burgess comes partly from his sexuality, and partly because I have seen him played by Benedict Cumberbatch and Tom Hollander. But having read this biography I am still slightly sympathetic. Maybe it’s the Australian in me wanting the British Establishment to receive a good kicking?
Lownie, in summing up Burgess’ impact, suggests that it was his influence and relationships that were most important, the people he recruited to spy, and those they recruited, and that he was the glue that kept the Cambridge Spies together. His defection, along with Maclean, also caused huge problems between the UK and the USA when the latter discovered just how slack the former’s intelligence services were.
As an explanation for his treachery, Lownie places more emphasis on the importance of Burgess wanting to discover secrets and exercise covert power than on his homosexuality, because he says Burgess felt no shame in being homosexual. But I do think that being homosexual in a time when it was officially illegal, and yet when people like Burgess were able to get away with something that was a crime because of the hypocrisy of the class system, must have influenced his attitude to secrets and compartmentalised lives. Surely?
One things this biography makes very clear is how badly the UK was served by the ‘old school tie’ attitude, of which Burgess took constant advantage as he wore his Old Etonians tie everywhere.
I am aware that my sympathy for Burgess comes partly from his sexuality, and partly because I have seen him played by Benedict Cumberbatch and Tom Hollander. But having read this biography I am still slightly sympathetic. Maybe it’s the Australian in me wanting the British Establishment to receive a good kicking?
lscurran's review
3.0
Only really became interesting at the end, not particularly describing the content of what Burgess may have leaked, only intimating at what he COULD have leaked. Origins of NATO etc which Burgess could have leaked and had access to...but what he may have done is unknown.
erictlee's review
5.0
Like many people, I grew up thinking that the West had the best secret agents — James Bond being the most famous (fictional) example. It was only later on that I discovered the incredible successes of Soviet spies, most famously Kim Philby. It turns out that in many ways, Guy Burgess, a friend of Philby’s and a fellow member of the “Cambridge 5” spy ring, may have been even more important.
For years, Burgess operated at the very heart of the British government, including a stint in its Secret Intelligence Service (MI6). A loyal Communist, he handed over thousands of top secret documents to his Soviet handlers. In 1951, when the cover of one his colleagues was about to be blown, he decided — seemingly on a whim — to end a very successful career as a spy and rushed off to Moscow. And there he lived for another decade until he died, desperately missing the life he left behind in England, but being provided with regular hampers from London’s Fortnum and Mason as well as clothing from exclusive shops on Jermyn Street. British visitors to Moscow often agreed to meet him, including Graham Greene on one occasion.
Andrew Lownie spent some thirty years researching this book, and it shows. It is a brilliant, detailed account of a strangely interesting — and much-loved — man. Lownie raises the question of how it was possible for Burgess (and for that matter, Philby and the others) to loyally support Stalin after the revelations about the Moscow trials and the 1939 Hitler-Stalin pact. Somehow, they all managed to square that circle.
Highly recommended.
For years, Burgess operated at the very heart of the British government, including a stint in its Secret Intelligence Service (MI6). A loyal Communist, he handed over thousands of top secret documents to his Soviet handlers. In 1951, when the cover of one his colleagues was about to be blown, he decided — seemingly on a whim — to end a very successful career as a spy and rushed off to Moscow. And there he lived for another decade until he died, desperately missing the life he left behind in England, but being provided with regular hampers from London’s Fortnum and Mason as well as clothing from exclusive shops on Jermyn Street. British visitors to Moscow often agreed to meet him, including Graham Greene on one occasion.
Andrew Lownie spent some thirty years researching this book, and it shows. It is a brilliant, detailed account of a strangely interesting — and much-loved — man. Lownie raises the question of how it was possible for Burgess (and for that matter, Philby and the others) to loyally support Stalin after the revelations about the Moscow trials and the 1939 Hitler-Stalin pact. Somehow, they all managed to square that circle.
Highly recommended.
courtney_rex's review against another edition
adventurous
funny
informative
reflective
medium-paced
3.5
gautamsing's review against another edition
5.0
On June 7, 1951 perhaps the biggest spy scandal in history broke. Guy Burgess (and Donald Maclean), insiders of the British establishment had disappeared 2 weeks ago, presumed to be on their way to Russia. The West didn’t know where they were, and the Russians were silent. The fact that it was clearly assumed they had fled to Russia (as they had), begs the question, if there was a known doubt on their loyalties, why were they in the government, let alone in intelligence?
Mr Lownie’s lovely book tells us why, as well as taking us through Guy Burgess’s fascinating life.
The people Burgess knew personally or met covers half my bookshelf of famous authors and people. John Maynard Keynes, Isaiah Berlin, WH Auden, EM Forster, Dylan Tomas, Christopher Ishwerwood, Lucian Freud, George Orwell, James (now Jan) Morris, Winston and Randolph Churchill, Graham Greene, Michael Redgrave, Eric Hobsbaum, Edward Cruikshank, Harold Nicholson, James Pope-Hennessey, Steven Runciman, Cyril Connolly, Victor Rothschild. There was of course the rest of infamous Cambridge 5, Donald Maclean, Kim Philby, Anthony Blunt, Cairncross.
Educated at Dartmouth, Eton, Trinity in Cambridge, a member of the Apostles (a part member being Bertrand Russell), he had it all. And he used it all, to pass on thousands of documents, telegrams, minutes of the Cabinet and the Imperial General staff, to the Russians.
Why did he do it? Like many spies he didn’t consider himself a traitor. He said there is no such thing as a European policy, and you’ve either got to choose America or Russia.
The reason he survived so long given his open communist leaning was the close knit British establishment where almost everyone seemed to be tainted. In fact when a White paper was finally submitted at the Commons, it was called the “Whitewash” paper.
His 12 years in Russia were very lonely. He missed London and his friends terribly, and said his life had ended when he left London. Drinking himself to death, the end came in 1963 when he was just 52.
When his brother Nigel went to buy a ticket for Moscow to go to his funeral, the agent at Thomas Cook hesitated when he saw the name, and asked “Single or Return”?
Mr Lownie’s lovely book tells us why, as well as taking us through Guy Burgess’s fascinating life.
The people Burgess knew personally or met covers half my bookshelf of famous authors and people. John Maynard Keynes, Isaiah Berlin, WH Auden, EM Forster, Dylan Tomas, Christopher Ishwerwood, Lucian Freud, George Orwell, James (now Jan) Morris, Winston and Randolph Churchill, Graham Greene, Michael Redgrave, Eric Hobsbaum, Edward Cruikshank, Harold Nicholson, James Pope-Hennessey, Steven Runciman, Cyril Connolly, Victor Rothschild. There was of course the rest of infamous Cambridge 5, Donald Maclean, Kim Philby, Anthony Blunt, Cairncross.
Educated at Dartmouth, Eton, Trinity in Cambridge, a member of the Apostles (a part member being Bertrand Russell), he had it all. And he used it all, to pass on thousands of documents, telegrams, minutes of the Cabinet and the Imperial General staff, to the Russians.
Why did he do it? Like many spies he didn’t consider himself a traitor. He said there is no such thing as a European policy, and you’ve either got to choose America or Russia.
The reason he survived so long given his open communist leaning was the close knit British establishment where almost everyone seemed to be tainted. In fact when a White paper was finally submitted at the Commons, it was called the “Whitewash” paper.
His 12 years in Russia were very lonely. He missed London and his friends terribly, and said his life had ended when he left London. Drinking himself to death, the end came in 1963 when he was just 52.
When his brother Nigel went to buy a ticket for Moscow to go to his funeral, the agent at Thomas Cook hesitated when he saw the name, and asked “Single or Return”?
galinette's review against another edition
3.0
Interesting subject, the writing was a bit heavy from time to time.
ndsr's review against another edition
5.0
An absolutely masterpiece of modern biography. The amount of work put into the research for this book is overwhelming, and if the level of detail is sometimes too high, that is the worst that can be said for this book. Lownie documents in careful detail, and, rather than speculating or interpreting events, includes numerous accounts with conflicting points of view. This is an example of what modern biography should strive to do, and certainly must be the authoritative biography of a figure who has been written about extensively already.
More...