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

I feel slightly uneasy at the way historians are consulted as if history is going to repeat itself. It never does.

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

To begin impatiently is the worst mistake a writer can make

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.

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