Same!! As I've just said on the other 9389 thread, I think the only other possible interpretation was Post-Revisionist... but it seemed Revisionist to me.
It was quite a tricky paper ! It was revisionist in the sense that Stalin's actions were justified by the historian and The West's actions towards Europe were portrayed as rather confusing and hinted towards wanting to better their own position.
However... My worry lay in the last paragraph where the historian concluded by discussing something about the allies all generally not being able to work together which sounded rather post revisionist.
I was going for post revisionist for all the reasons that you’ve mentioned but I did say there was more blame on the USA. but I felt that the historian hadn’t quite cleared the USSR I’d blame entirely and I felt like there might have been a suggestion of lack of understanding each other. I think they are both quite similar but everybody I’ve seen is saying revisionist 😭 I should’ve just not labeled it
It was quite a tricky paper ! It was revisionist in the sense that Stalin's actions were justified by the historian and The West's actions towards Europe were portrayed as rather confusing and hinted towards wanting to better their own position.
However... My worry lay in the last paragraph where the historian concluded by discussing something about the allies all generally not being able to work together which sounded rather post revisionist.
I didn't label the school of thought because I was unsure and it said we didn't have to on the examiner reports. My argument was that the historian blamed the USA for the breakdown of the relationship between the superpowers, however doesn't blame it for the development of the cold war. I said he explains the development of cold war as a result of the difference in their political language. I thought this paper was similar to May/june 2017's paper 31, Cold war option. It really was tricky tho. What do you guys think about my argument? Btw if you haven't, please check paper 31 and tell me what you think
I didn't label the school of thought because I was unsure and it said we didn't have to on the examiner reports. My argument was that the historian blamed the USA for the breakdown of the relationship between the superpowers, however doesn't blame it for the development of the cold war. I said he explains the development of cold war as a result of the difference in their political language. I thought this paper was similar to May/june 2017's paper 31, Cold war option. It really was tricky tho. What do you guys think about my argument? Btw if you haven't, please check paper 31 and tell me what you think