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 just write the sort of book that I would enjoy reading myself, a book that is both scholarly and recreates the experience of people at that time.

The great help of being in the Army is to understand why are the armies clever in what they describe as emotional intelligence, making soldiers come to terms with the death of comrades by certain rituals.

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.

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.

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