The vital thing for me is to integrate the history from above with the history from below because only in that way can you show the true consequences of the decisions of Hitler or Stalin or whomever on the ordinary civilians caught up in the battle.

I just love the days when you come out of the archives with half a dozen excellent descriptions or poignant accounts of personal experiences.

The British bombing of Caen beginning on D-Day in particular was stupid, counter-productive and above all very close to a war crime.

I think it's outrageous if a historian has a 'leading thought' because it means they will select their material according to their thesis

The great European dream was to diminish militant nationalism. We would all be happy Europeans together. But we are going to see the old monster of militant nationalism being awoken when people realise how little control their politicians have.

It takes me three or four years to research and write each book and the individual stories stay with you for a long time afterwards.

If you smash a city when you're trying to capture it, you actually end up providing the perfect terrain for the defenders while blocking the access for your own armoured vehicles.