I mostly agree with Interpretation 2 that Germany's recovery from 1924 to 1929 was fragile, meaning it had not truly recovered from the First World War and the Treaty of Versailles (In). Interpretation 2 states that Germany's recovery was built on 'quicksand foundations' which were 'dependant upon high-interest American loans'. The Dawes and Young Plans reduced reparations but also gave a significant amount of money to rebuild Germany's industry. Altogether, the USA gave$25 billion to German industry from 1924-30 (In). As shown in Source C, Stresemann himself acknowledged the risk that he was taking by tying Germany's economic success to the USA. The source states that 'If the short-term loans are called in by America, a large section of our economy would collapse.' I mainly agree with Interpretation 2 as tying Germany's economy to the USA's was a risk that Stresemann knew the implications for. Instead of focusing on Germany developing an independent, stable economy, Stresemann relied on US loans to pay reparations and fund German industry. Therefore, this shows that Germany hadn't properly recovered. Its economy was just being supported by foreign loans (In). Interpretation 1 claims that Germany was financially and politically stable in 1929. The interpretation states that 'the Weimar Republic was much stronger than it had been just after the war' (In). There is some truth to this statement. On the surface, Weimar Germany looked like it had recovered. The support for extreme parties had dropped in this period. For example, the Nazi Party only won 3% of the votes in 1928. This shows that the majority of people were happy with the Weimar Republic and trusted Stresemann's government. Source C also shows this support and optimism for Weimar Germany's recovery. It states that Germany had recovered 'in a way we would never have thought possible' and comments on the speed at which this took place. Therefore, Interpretation 1 uses some convincing evidence to argue that Weimar Germany had recovered by 1929. However, it is not as convincing as Interpretation 2 because it must be acknowledged that, if Weimar Germany was truly stable and recovered, it would have been able to survive the collapse of the USA's economy after the Wall Street Crash (In). In conclusion, I mostly agree with Interpretation 2 about how far Germany had recovered in 1924-1929. I agree with Interpretation 2 as it emphasises Germany's reliance on US loans to stabilise the government and society. However, this interpretation does not consider that, if the US did not experience the Wall Street Crash, Weimar Germany would not have collapsed. It was a gamble that unfortunately did not pay off for Germany (In). Additionally, Interpretation 1 highlights the feeling that people had in 1929 that Germany had recovered. People generally felt happy in Weimar Germany and optimistic for its future. However, the main reason why I agree with Interpretation 2 is that German stability was based on the success of another country rather than Germany's independent success. This made it unstable as Germany was not in charge of its own destiny (In).