When my first novel was published, I went in great excitement round bookshops in central London to see if they had stocked it.

The duty of a historian is simply to understand and then convey that understanding, no more than that.

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

I can't envisage stopping writing.

I believe passionately in preemptive pessimism, especially before a book comes out. I expect the worst both from reviewers and sales, and then, with any luck, I may be proved wrong.

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.

The blurring of fact and fiction has great commercial potential, which is bound to be corrupting in historical terms.