Post-revisionist and New Cold War Interpretations

In Post-Revisionist it's all about how a series of misunderstandings between USA and the USSR, the two superpowers brewed up tension that ultimately led to the Cold War. Stalin's sphere of influence was done to try and make these states communist. US saw this as a threat and retaliated with policies of their own and the tension stoked because they didn't really understand what the other was trying to achieve, the US just viewed the USSR as a power-hungry, evil nation with a backwards ideology. (Period of detente-improved relations, gave rise to the idea that if each of them had properly understood each other's aims and motives from the beginning then the Cold War wouldn't have become a reality.)

In the New Cold War historians interpretation, that's more about the fact we can't be sure. Essentially it's just an amalgamation of the previous interpretations. This came about because new sources that were released after the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and the collapse of the USSR. Historians were able to select different interpretations that helped support their different views, so nothing fixed was really decided. It's a strange one due it's subjective nature rather than the clear-cut, one objective view that THIS caused the Cold War.Hope this helped

so could simply be post-revisionist a clash of ideology and they didnt understand each other

and then could new cold war be it was inevitable that a war was going to happen and nothing could be done