Talk:Guy Burgess

Novel, spycraft
He was in ROLD novelizaiton. - His Soviet cryptonym was Hicks. C 08:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal life
Does his sexual preference need to be included in the leader? Obviously he has been subsequently celebrated as one of the homosexual members of the C5, but is it so important as to warrant inclusion in the first paragraph?Cravenmonket 01:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is important to include this information because it meant that he was a member of a corrupt clique and was open to blackmail.Miletus (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This was not in the introduction, but rather, "in the memories of his peers" section, but I removed it:
 * "Brian confided me that his equipment was gargantuan - <>, which might account for his success in certain ambiguous quarters"


 * It was a poorly sourced quote of a quote. He was a homosexual, but that sort of material is not encyclopedic content. --FeralOink (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Just for future reference: it is clear that Burgess was not blackmailed about his homosexuality.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Moonlit flight
(flit: clarification)

After he was unmasked as a double agent, Burgess moved to Moscow on a moonlit flight with Donald Maclean this should read 'Moonlight-Flit'. Meaning that they ran away in the night. (flit is past tense of fly), meaning that they furtively left their lodgings, during the night, with all bills and accounts unpaid. ie swindlers.Miletus (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What's a moonlit flight? Any relation to a moonlight flit? Why not just say he escaped or fled to Moscow or some such? Flapdragon 13:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC) see above.Miletus (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Burgess vs. James Callaghan
If there was a Plymouth Vs. Portsmouth competition on who ruined Britain the most, who would win? Even if Burgess is no match, I already feel proud to be born in Plymouth.--82.134.28.194 (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC) This is more apt than anything in the article. Like James Callaghan, Ernie Bevin is a massively overated figure dependent on advice and instinct, The so called great on the left are often like Paul Keating (NSW) just those too stupid to take much of an independent line. Bevin, Callaghan, Burgess and Healey just about sank the RN completely and the key figures in the decline of Britain and the West. This wiki article is just the standard post defection line. When the diplomats disappeared, everything changed. Burgess a spy, unthinkable. Guy was as English as the, Bulldog, Churchill, Nelson and the GWR King. You see Guy Burgess was not really just a spy or even primarily that. Burgess was actu7allu a major agent of influence and a very significant political and government policy who was really one of the most important people in the Attlee Ministry. Burgess despatch to Washington partly relates to the outbreak of war on the Korean Peninsular and the asssesments of Guy burgess of the likely response of Truman and General MacArthur and General Curtis Le May were key to the developing British policy and also of Russia, China and NK. Burgess assessment that ultimately MacArthur was controllable was key to everything that happened. Burgess was one of the most powerful and dedicated government figures in Britain in the 1940s and even later in hte Soviet Union was a significant adviser to Kruschev and to the Russian Navy on intelligence matters and targets. The primary facts about Burgess are neither his decline or his gayness, He was avery dangerous poiitician, aent of influence and gay and bi sexual weapon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.253.57 (talk) 09:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Legacy
I have removed the "Legacy" section. It contained a random collection of bits of information that weren't really about his legacy, but just had been published a long time later. I've redistributed them to where they fit in the chronology.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Accident at club
Previous uncited text said it was the Royal Automobile Club; according to Andrew Lownie it was the Romilly Club. There might be some difference in versions, but I don't think it matters.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Chronology
I have removed this as it was unreferenced and seem to be an unnecessary duplication.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Expansion
I've been researching Burgess, on and off, for the past eighteen months and have recently made good progress towards expanding the article's content. The first fruits of my labours will be posted soon, although I expect the reconstruction work to continue for a good many more weeks. Comments and suggestions welcomed. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've more or less finished my draft expansion. Subject to a few ongoing tweaks, I'm letting it rest for a while, in anticipation of a full review early in the new New Year. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to add comments to this, but perhaps this will work.

I've just edited the Burgess article to 1) remove homophobic phrases and comments. As it would be odd to refer to, say, Churchill's heterosexuality at each reference to him, so repeated references to Burgess's sexual practices are not called for. 2) References to "treason" and similar matters have been removed. Activities, when known, can be described without being labeled in this -- inaccurate -- fashion. Treason has to do with activities in aid of an enemy nation in wartime. Burgess did no such thing.3) Comments about Burgess's emotions and retrospective reactions to him have been removed. We do not know about the former (unless documented in his letters and similar) and the "I always knew he was a rotter" statements are not, to the best of my knowledge, contemporaneously documented. Michael Holzman (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC) Michael Holzman
 * Yes that works. Actually the UK legal definition of treason, dating back to the Treason Act 1351, includes "if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere", which would seem to catch Burgess nicely. I see from your edit history you have a pattern of massive removals on espionage subjects, which get promptly reverted. It is better to discuss them first. There are not that many references to his homosexuality - if they were removed LGBT editors would soon show up to express their outrage at this censorship. The article is heavily referenced, and Burgess was (rather unlike Philby & the others) not reticent about his story once in Moscow. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * With regard to treason, the definition is broader than that — see High treason in the United Kingdom. However, the King or Queen's enemies are legally defined as enemies in some kind of hostility (see Halsbury's Law of England). At no time when Burgess was operating was the USSR at war with Britain. In fact, for some of the time it was a wartime ally. George Blake and Klaus Fuchs were not charged with treason.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have reverted to pre-Holzman edits. The issues he raises are for discussion, not occasions for wholesale removal of cited text. I suspect Mr Holzman has a strong POV; I read his book a few years ago, and have just reordered it to read again. Meantime, in accordance with WP policies, he should state his specific objections here, so that amendments to the text, if required, can be on the basis of agreement.  I, and I'm sure others, will be interested in what Mr Holzman has to say. Brianboulton (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I was unaware of the formalities involved with editing articles. My main concerns with this article have to do with the categories of homosexuality and the use of words like "treason," "traitor," "treachery," and the like. These were deployed in the immediate aftermath of the "disappearance" of Burgess and Maclean by people working for or influenced by British secret intelligence agencies (or "close to" those organizations) as part of a propaganda campaign. The goal was to minimize the importance of Burgess and Maclean and thus cover-up the extent of the catastrophe for the British Government. More than half a century later and, presumably no longer dealing in such matters, more objectivity might be expected. I would suggest, then, that Burgess's sexual tastes should receive no more attention than those of, say, Robert Cecil or Anthony Eden and that his actions as an agent of Soviet secret intelligence should be described, rather than characterized with loaded terms. Aside from that, the writers have picked up various other themes from the early effort to denigrate Burgess--personal hygiene, finances and the like. Burgess was not a work for pay agent, he was an idealist. Any monies given him by Soviet secret intelligence were meant as showing appreciation. He was well=paid by the BBC and FO and also had family money. Also, and I will end here, a sharp division should be made between his actions before his accident and after the serious injuries he then incurred.Michael Holzman (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Michael Holzman
 * Thank you for this explanation. It is Wikipedia's policy to base articles on what the sources say; as you can see, this article relies heavily on the two most recent Burgess biographies, and much of the material to which you object is found there. (You also removed non-contentious material such as the footnote explaining the nature of the successive Soviet security organisations). I will look carefully at each of your objections, as will others, but I'll wait until I've had the chance to re-examine your book – which  was actually the first of the recent Burgess books that I read, but that was five years ago, before I had considered doing serious work on this article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Be sure to get the second printing. The Purvis and Hulbert biography is reliable and not written from the "strong POV" characterizing others (except mine, of course).Michael Holzman (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I rather think that what printing I get will be what the library from which I've ordered sends me. Meanwhile, you say in an earlier posting: "My main concerns with this article have to do with the categories of homosexuality and the use of words like "treason," "traitor," "treachery," and the like". The word "treason" appears once, in the sense of Burgess "rejecting the notion that his earlier activities represented treason". The word "traitor" also occurs once, but only to record Burgess's denial of the term. "Treachery" appears twice, first to state that Burgess was not suspected of it, and secondly in relation to the Rees People articles of the 1950s. Nowhere in the article is it stated that Burgess committed treason, or was a traitor, or indeed was treacherous except to record a journalist's opinion. I   will look again at that latter wording, although in general I did choose my words with deliberate care on this issue. Brianboulton (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The wording I found problematic is that which I attempted to remove the other day.

I am impressed with the efforts of the group working on this item. People seem quite dedicated to arriving at a consensus.

But in this matter a consensus may not be enough.

There are, it seems to me, two unusual difficulties in writing secret intelligence history. One is that it is difficult to verify the--I hesitate to use this word, but suppose it must do--the facts. Much effort has gone into concealing and disguising them. The other is the framework within which those are to be arranged. WE have government officials; THEY have traitors and spies. WE are a virtuous republic; THEY are a bloody dictatorship. And so on. A useful example of this is the new Indian historical scholarship, which turns on its head (or puts on its feet) the traditional stories of the Raj. The Mutiny becomes the First Revolution; good government becomes plunder; Churchill, defender of democracy, becomes a genocidal murder of millions in Bengal.

It seems to me, then, for example, that Burgess and Maclean and the others cannot be understood as having signed on to bring Stalinism to Britain, as is the usual implicit framework. They signed on because they were horrified by imperialism and the devastation that industrial capitalism had brought to Britain.

Oh well. You will read enough along those lines when your library produces my biography of Burgess. (They might look for the one of the Macleans as well.)

One could imagine, by the way, a biography of Burgess as an early hero of gay liberation--completely out and unafraid when the stakes were very high indeed.Michael Holzman (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the old Indian historical scholarship, which they have been putting out for over a century, and has been pretty exclusively what is taught in the Indian education system since Independence. But it's having a bit of run in the West recently. Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My copy of the Holzman book has arrived (it is the second edition). I'll read, and comment in a day or so. Brianboulton (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

(Later) Well, I've studied the book and as a result made a number of additions and changes to the article's text, which I hope will go some way to meeting Mr Holzman's objections. I acknowlege that it was an error not to have used this book as a principal source when I was drafting the article, since it presents a view of Burgess somewhat different from that of the other recent major books. While at Wikipedia we are not required to use every source available, we try to ensure that our selected sources cover all aspects of a subject, and the Holzman book is most useful in meeting that objective.

Mr Holzman has expressed his concerns thus: "My main concerns with this article have to do with the categories of homosexuality and the use of words like "treason," "traitor," "treachery," and the like," the main objection being that this depiction of Burgess relies on the distortions of the British establishment after the defection, to present Burgess in the most damaging light possible. As I've said above, I don't think the article did this, but I can accept that the picture was previously incomplete, hence my textual adjustments. Even before my latest edits, I must point out that the article dwelt on Burgess's sexual excesses to a rather lesser extent than the books do (including Mr Holzman's). With respect, I think that the suggestion that "Burgess's sexual tastes should receive no more attention than those of, say, Robert Cecil or Anthony Eden" is a little impractical; homosexuality was one of Burgess's defining characteristics, as Mr Holzman appears to acknowledge in his "Summing up" (p. 371}: "Guy Burgess made no secret that he was, indeed, defined himself as, a homosexual and a Marxist." I can't imagine a biography of, say, Eden, containing the statement: "Anthony Eden defined himself as a heterosexual and Conservative statesman" (if it did, perhaps more people would be tempted to read it).

I don't think the article can be described as homophobic in tone, but I understand what Mr Holzman means when he writes (p. 239): "[T]he rhetoric of homophobia framed homosexual relations as exclusively shallow and promiscuous..." Although Burgess was at various points in his life undoubtedly promiscuous in his sexual relations, he was capable of sustaining relationships, such as that with Jack Hewit which lasted 15 years. I have restored mentions of Hewit, which I cut out from an earlier version of the draft, to emphasise this point. Likewise, I have modified the references to Burgess's personal untidiness and/or suspect hygiene, although there are too many mentions of this aspect in the sources for the issue to  be ignored.

The most significant changes I've made are in the Assessment section, which read rather blandly before. I have added material which relates to Burgess's idealism and sacrifice, to counter the emphasis on the apparent emptiness of his life. I hope the balance here is now appropriate. I'm happy to engage in further discussion on any of these points. Brianboulton (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.Michael Holzman (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

It never rains...
After the dearth of Burgess biographies ended with Holzman (2013), Lownie (2015), Purvis & Hulbert (2015), not to mention Macintyre's 2015 book on Philby, we now have almost an embarrassment of riches, plus a new book by Richard Davenport-Hines, Enemies Within. I believe this should be studied, and have ordered a copy. Brianboulton (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Did Burgess orchestrate his dismissal from Washington?
Rebecca West pours scorn on the idea that GB orchestrated his recall to London so that he could warn Maclean of his impending discovery. She argues that Maclean could have been warned much more quickly and efficiently by any of his Soviet contacts in London who would have known, via Philby, that DM's time was almost up. Burgess may have sought to engineer his recall by behaving badly, because he was bored with Washington and/or the FO – that appears to be Jack Hewit's view. This possibility is now covered by a footnote. Brianboulton (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Lownie gives another version (which you've probably read). I think the key points are: (1) the speeding incident was escalated because GB's companion let slip they'd been pulled over for speeding earlier the same day. GB didn't engineer it at all, and was furious when he sent home. (2) The issue with DM was that his wife was pregnant and he didn't want to leave her. The plan was that his friend GB would accompany him and stop him from getting cold feet. The flaw with this plan was that logically GB had to accompany him the whole way to ensure he didn't get cold feet until he was safely delivered to the bosom of the KGB.
 * I think the best way to deal with this is to concentrate on the facts, rather than conflicting opinions.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sir Anthony-Eden number 10 Official.jpg

Alcoholism

 * This facet of his character is alluded to here and there, but was actually a constant and defining feature of his life. Coral Browne reports that during her contact with him in Russia, he was more or less constantly in varying degrees of drunkenness. Not sure if this should be amplified, or perhaps even given a separate header. Hanoi Road (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think it should be a separate section, but more information could be added.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Guy Burgess was not recruited by Kim Philby.
In the text, there is at least one not true statement. Guy Burgess recruited Philby, not opposite. 178.237.221.21 (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Eyesight
Why would poor eyesight preclude a career in the Navy as an executive but not as an engineer? In the absence of an explanation, this seems to me to undermine the credibility of the view that he left because of a defect in his eyesight.Bill (talk) 05:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that seems wrong.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The executive branch provided the fighting crew of a ship, the officers being eligible for promotion to command of a ship or to flag (admiral's) rank. Burgess's eyesight rendered him 'medically limited' and therefore unsuitable for service in the executive branch. The same defect would deny you A1 rating in the army or air force so you couldn't become an infantry or aircrew officer. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)