dership was not inadequate but, Levesque argues, when he needed to focus on the Eastern countries, he did the exact opposite and focused on the West. Moreover, he offered no financial support to those who wanted change in the Eastern European countries since the Soviet Union’s economy was rapidly declining as evident in the Soviets increased the price of oil exports. Therefore, it is quite apparent that the Cold War ended as a result of the lack of control the Soviet Union had over Eastern European countries.
Comparison:
Levesque has the most valid interpretation because the breadth of it is larger than Oberdorfer’s and Pemberton’s interpretations. Levesque ultimately argues that the Cold War’s end was a result of the Soviet Union’s sheer lack of control of Eastern European countries. His argument is articulate in exploring the reason of the end of the Cold War as well as exploring other contributing factors such as the Soviet economy and how its status was slowly dissolving the Soviet diplomacy and the impact of the Afghanistan War on them, which is further explored by Reuveny and Prakash. Therefore, Levesque’s interpretation is considered objective as he takes a holistic approach in viewing the majority of the factors that contributed to the end of the Cold War, then pinpoints the most impactful 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 informa