Product Description

Among the more sensational espionage cases of the Cold War were those of Moscow's three British spies - Kim Philby, Donald Maclean, and Guy Burgess. In this riveting book, S. J. Hamrick draws on documentary evidence concealed for almost half a century in reconstructing the complex series of 1947-1951 events that led British intelligence to identify all three as Soviet agents. Basing his argument primarily on the Venona archive of broken Soviet codes released in 1995-1996 as well as on complementary Moscow and London sources, Hamrick refutes the myth of MI5's identification of Maclean as a Soviet agent in the spring of 1951. British intelligence knew far earlier that Maclean was Moscow's agent and concealed that knowledge in a 1949-1951 counterespionage operation that deceived Philby and Burgess. Hamrick also introduces compelling evidence of a 1949-1950 British disinformation initiative using Philby to mislead Moscow on Anglo-American retaliatory military capability in the event of Soviet aggression in Western Europe. Engagingly written and impressively documented, Deceiving the Deceivers breaks new ground in reinterpreting the final espionage years of three infamous spies and in clarifying fifty years of conjecture, confusion, and error in Anglo-American intelligence history.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #129551 in Books
• Published on: 2004-11-19
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Hardcover
• 320 pages

Review
"A major addition to intelligence literature." David Murphy, author of Battleground Berlin"

About the Author
S. J. Hamrick was a Foreign Service officer for more than two decades. In 1995-1996 he returned to the State Department as a senior policy adviser. As a young draftee he was assigned to the Army Counter Intelligence Corps. He has written seven novels under the pseudonym W. T. Tyler, including The Man Who Lost the War, The Ants of God, The Lion and the Jackal, Last Train from Berlin, and most recently The Consul's Wife.

Customer Reviews

Three-and-a-Half Stars.
Despite the fact that I cannot get enough on the subject of the Cambridge Spies, it took me nearly six months to plough through S.J. Hamrick's "Deceiving the Deceivers." It is not as if his thesis is not provocative: that SIS laid a trap for Burgess, Maclean, Philby, and Blunt. However, the author explores so many tangents that I frequently found it difficult to grasp the central thread of his narrative.

Certainly, the possibility that British Intelligence had set a trap for the Cambridge Spies is plausible. Such a scenario would explain why the sequence of events ceases to make any logical sense after the Volkov affair in 1945, when Kim Philby delays his arrival at Istanbul, to such an extent that the would-be Soviet defector, Konstantin Volkov, is apprehended by the Russians and--encased in bandages like a mummy--whisked off to Moscow and apparent oblivion. After this point, one is left with a series of anomalies: 1) Donald Maclean's unspeakable rampage in Cairo results (after a recuperative dose of psychoanalysis) in an appointment to the sensitive American Desk in the Foreign Office. 2) Guy Burgess, after running amok in Tangiers and blowing the cover of SIS officers left and right, is nevertheless appointed as third secretary to the British Embassy in Washington, arguably Britain's most important foreign post. 3) Burgess's drunken rumbustiousness in Washington succeeds in embarrassing his host, Kim Philby--who has hitherto been regarded as a respected first secretary to the British Embassy--so much so that not only Burgess but also Philby is declared PNG and sent home to London ASAP. The upshot is the ruination of one of the NKVD's (KGB's) most valuable agents and the eventual downfall of the entire Cambridge ring. The question that is raised--and not addressed by Hamrick--is whether SIS might have "turned" Burgess with the express objective of bringing down his friend Philby (After all, Burgess, when the going got rough, was reportedly ready to negotiate a hit on another pal, Goronwy Rees, so presumably he would not be adverse to bringing down Philby, if it meant saving his own skin). Despite Burgess' famous espousal of E.M. Forster's maxim, "if I had a choice between betraying a friend and betraying my country, I hope that I would have the guts to betray my country," Burgess could well have been promised an unimpeded escape with Maclean if he would embarrass Philby in Washington, which he certainly did. Of course, one will never know due to the British Official Secrets Act.

One would, however, like to have a bit more solid evidence to support Mr. Hamrick's intriguing hypothesis. He certainly raises some of the important questions, even though he does not--and likely cannot--provide the answers.