actful one- the lack of control of Eastern European countries and their attainment of independence. Similarly to Levesque’s interpretation, Pemberton and Oberdorfer touch on the Soviet economy and how it led to a diverse variety of distasteful issues for them. Therefore, it could be said that the economic status of the Soviet Union led to the problems they faced- if it wasn’t an issue in the first place, it would not have led to so many other problems that the Soviets had to deal with, but this does not mean that it was the primary reason to the end of the Cold War as it was only a trigger for many issues that arose. Instead of eliminating them, Gorbachev ignored them which led to their aggravation- Eastern European countries gaining independence. However, Oberdorfer argues that Gorbachev’s leadership was the reason as to why the Cold War ended. Several historians have interpreted Gorbachev’s leadership as the main reason to the Cold War’s end, which suggests it is perceived as a big impact. However, what historians tend to ignore and neglect is the fact that his poor leadership didn’t lead to the end of the Cold War alone, but other more significant factors such as the lack of control of Eastern European countries and their attainment of independence. Oberdorfer’s interpretation is not only an example of poor reductionism which often leads to a misrepresentation of information, but an example of determinism. He does not approach the argument at stake in an objective manner by assessing several contributing factors whilst Levesque’s objectiveness makes his interpretation more useful and more credible to a historian holistically assessing the different reasons for the end of the Cold War. This allows us, as historians, to make a judgement as to what we personally think and what we truly believe the main reason for the end of the Cold War was. Even though Oberdorfer’s account is a very in-depth analysis of Gorbachev’s leadership style, Oberdorfer limits us by not taking a holistic approach and look at all the factors revolving around the Cold War’s end, it could be argued his source is not as useful as Levesque’s interpretation since he does not explore other factors. Similar to Oberdorfer, Pemberton glorifies Reagan’s presidency, hence why his interpretation is that Reagan led to the end of the Cold War because of his advisors. Similar to Oberdorfer, Pemberton takes an extremely reductionist approach in explaining that Reagan led to the end of the Cold War because of his advisors and how that occured. Therefore, this limits our understanding of the other factors that contributed to the end of the Cold War, ultimately classifying the source as not useful to a historian. Overall, Levesque’s interpretation defeats Oberdorfer’s and Pemberton’s interpretations as it is not only an in-depth analysis of one factor, but it also considers other factors whereby he takes a holistic approach in viewing the many factors that led to the end of the Cold War. Moreover, his interpretation would be more useful to a historian assessing the importance of different factors that contributed to the end of the Cold War, ultimately making his interpretation useful and credible.