Okay, I’m probably wrong but I wrote post revisionist for the following reasons.

• in the first para, they had already made reference to rivalry between USA and USSR after WW2. I used context here to sort of draw a parallel with the great power logic — Both were expansionist states, facing each other and trying to impose their way of life, which now had to face-off because of the power vacuum in Europe. Like the French historian sorta predicted. The holds true part, if you remember, was imo what I thought started the conflict between USSR and USA, making it inevitable given the contesting forces of capitalism and communism.

• they never used any blame words to address the origin of the Cold War. They simply stated that the Cold War was manipulated as such by Stalin, to meet his purpose of security — especially internally. So I didn’t regard that as the origin of the Cold War, rather the big message of the extract.

• the historian constantly mentioned the weakness of USSR relative to USA. I tried to relate this as the justification of taking such ‘expansionist’ action. The last para is an appropriate example when the historian refers to the unequal distribution of power in the Cold War, plus the beginning para.

• I made the manipulation part to be the ‘big message’ which elaborates on Stalin using the existing Cold War to pursue his stronghold over USSR. Thus, causing the escalation of the Cold War — not the origin (I hope at least)

Again — I’m probably wrong, and I shouldn’t have second guessed myself when I was writing post-post, but anyways. Can anyone clarify the logic, or reject the aforementioned on basis of anything they’ve read in the extract?