Master of Lies: How Anthony Blunt's Treachery Shaped Our World

by Piers Blofeld

Based on extensive research, Piers Blofeld builds the vivid and compelling proposition that Anthony Blunt was not simply "the fourth man" in the infamous Cambridge spy ring, but actually the greatest spy-master of all. The discovery of a mysterious Agent Josephine in new archive material suggests an almost limitless treachery, towards both friends and country alike. Blunt's treason led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people and shaped post-second world war history.
This is not a biography but a re-examination of the series of events that start in the mid-1930s, encompass the Second World War where Blunt was not only advising Churchill but reporting to Stalin, and possibly the German High Command, and finally leads us to Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean's defection to Russia in 1951.
Blunt managed to sustain his brilliant career as an art historian, Keeper of the King's and then the Queen's pictures and subsequently Knight of the Realm. Meanwhile, he stayed in the shadows, protected by his many friendships with the great and the good. Blunt was more than happy to let others take centre stage, but was this part of a bigger plan?
The Master reads like the best of spy-stories and here the old adjunct is a true "you couldn't make it up'.

Genres: Nonfiction

400 pages, Hardcover

First published May 21, 2026

Reviews

[Mervyn Whyte · Rating 4 out of 5]

Blofeld's claim that Blunt was Agent Josephine (a supposed 'Nazi' spy in London, who was giving accurate information to the Germans about the Allies, in order to help the Russians), is some claim. But when I googled it, I discovered that the historian Robert Verkaik has already made this claim in his book - which appears in the bibliography of Blofeld's - The Traitor of Arnhem. I haven't read Verkaik's book, so I don't know if his evidence is the same as Blofeld's, or, because Verkaik's book came out first, if Blofeld's evidence is the same as Verkaik's. If it is, then the 'revelation' in this book is secondhand. And that is my fear about Master of Lies. How much of it is really new and how much is taken from other books. I'm up to page 205, and so far Blofeld hasn't acknowledged Verkaik's book in the main body of the text. Maybe that comes later.

I'm also puzzled by the blurbs on the back cover by Damien Lewis and Nicky Haslam. I'm sure they're both eminent people in their respective fields, but one would've expected endorsements from weightier figures who have specialist knowledge in this area. Especially given the explosive revelations Blofeld is making. Unless - to misquote a line from the book - Blofeld is making some crucial assumptions which lead him down the false path of positively including Blunt. As a general reader, I'm not qualified to say. On Goodreads, it says that this book hasn't yet been officially published. Maybe when it is, the experts will come out and validate what Blofeld is claiming.

One or two asides. Elizabeth II not being allowed to marry Philip might've broken her heart, but it wouldn't have broken the monarchy. And there were no GIs fighting with the British at Arnhem - unless you count the tiny number of US communications personnel who were present. In the TV version of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, Bill Haydon - rather than being 'ostensibly hetero' as Blofeld claims here - is clearly supposed to be bisexual ('There's one particular boy...A cherub, but no angel,' is the line from Haydon). Actually, working in the Russian section the Haydon character has more in common with Philby than Blunt, a point underlined by the codename given to the mole in the series and in real life: Gerald. Being a work of fiction, Haydon was probably a composite character.

The longer the book goes on, the more astonishing the claims made by Blofeld become. I'm not saying he's wrong, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Obviously, with so much of the evidence withheld or redacted, it isn't Blofeld's fault that he can't provide it. And the full truth may never be known. Some of the inferences and connections he makes seem reasonable enough. On the other hand, some could be considered coincidence rather than conspiracy. What isn't in doubt is the damage done and lives lost because of Blunt and the other moles. Anyone who thought that Stalinist Russia was the right side to be on must've had something missing. I think Blofeld is right when he states that for Blunt it was more a game than anything ideological. Which makes his crimes even worse.

[Jim Bowen · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is a strange read. In the first half to two-thirds, it mostly traces the life of Anthony Blunt, the Surveyor of the Queen’s Paintings, who was a spy for Russia, a member of the “Cambridge Five”, and friend of Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, and Donald Maclean. Along the way, we get sprinkles of information about the relationship between Philip, Burgess, Maclean, and Blunt.

The last third of the book is where it starts getting a little bonkers. The official line is that Blunt was uncovered as a spy in 1964. The argument was that he’d leaked information to Russia when they were our allies, so no harm, no foul? This is where the book comes in. Is this a safe assumption to make, after we examine all the documents released by the government in 2025? The answer is no, if this book is to be believed.

Part of the argument seems to be that the government papers contain very little evidence about Blunt. There are 2 possible reasons for this. First, this could mean that Blunt wasn’t involved. The alternative is that data has been scrubbed by MI5 etc. The author argues strongly for the latter.

Another part of the argument is that while he was actively spying for Britain (and passing information across most actively), remarkably consistent information he would have known was appearing across in Spain and Sweden. The suggestion is that Starlin’s spy agency was receiving Blunt’s information, and passing it on to the Nazis in a way that either helped the Allies, or slowed them down, so that he (Stalin) could make sure more of Eastern Europe could fall under his control. You can think that the argument he makes is either plausible or not.

The book is fine, it’s just… some arguments do more heavy lifting than others in it.

[Amanda · Rating 4 out of 5]

Scaled down to 3 1/2 stars
A fairly explosive exposé of the shocking duplicity of Anthony Blunt, a one-time peer of the realm, advisor to the queen, and apparently the greatest spy of the last century - and one whose iniquity was probably responsible for tens of thousands of deaths, and for prolonging WW2 for a good six months.
I found reading this somewhat confusing in parts, as the lists of named spies and suspected spies grew - sometimes in just one sentence - and keeping track of who was spying for whom became a bit convoluted.
To be honest, it's hard to believe that there was much room for many loyal agents in MI5 in the last century, such was the intricate and wide web of dodgy characters.

[Mattypabst · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an eminently readable book about Blunt, that makes some conclusions not everyone will agree with. I give it 5 stars for its readability and for the fact that the author makes a clear effort to always state when they are making conclusions based on evidence and not stating facts. Not all authors make the effort to do this and it should be appreciated. If you agree with the authors conclusions or not it is worth a read.