The war is over and the celebration has gradually come to an end. Now what…? Reconstruction.
The second world war left Europe in a state of disarray. For some nations, it was far more physical, but in all it was political. What changes awaited execution for the future, and in what ways should the rebuilding of a continent be conducted? This was a time of “all for one and one for all”, meaning that reconstruction demanded collaboration between nations, without allowing for each sovereign state to forget about their own individual interests. Europe needed to move forward as a whole, but true equality was never the goal.
In Alexandre Kojeve’s Outline of a Doctrine of French Policy, a mentality of danger-awareness is presented to postwar France. Kojeve brings the possibilities of immediate and long-term dangers to focus. He highlights the idea that although defeated, Germany still posed a threat to their state in particular in regard to economic and political fields of practice. The primary worry for the French was the possibility of “France’s reduction to the rank of a secondary power within continental Europe.” The French foresaw that a successful reconstruction would require just as much individualization as it would collaboration.
The collaboration part, in turn came in many forms. The most popularly recognized mode came from the Marshall Plan; the United States’ effort to economically support the reconstruction of the European continent. It had stipulations for participation and it served as a promoter for worldwide capitalism. As pointed out in chapter seven of V De Grazia’s Irresistible Empire- America’s Advance through Twentieth-century Europe, “even the Soviet Union was eligible for the grants, credits, and supplies that the U.S. government started sending abroad,” when nations like Spain were denied based off of their government’s political systems. The Marshall Plan for support promoted international trade and commerce, which was a huge benefit for United States interests. 
France on the other hand, understood the problem with allowing external governments control their economy. As Kojeve pointed out, France “will have to control its commercial trade with foreign countries in order to avoid its production effort being nullified by consumption beyond its real economic means.” They sought for their external commerce to be in the term of the Franc and not in any other international currency. A lot of thought went into the rebuilding of the European continent physically, economically, and politically; and in the end there was nothing more important than striking a balance between international collaboration and internal goals.
I think the title of your blog is really fitting for these readings. I also agree with you that reconstruction was mostly political. I think that France really understood how crucial reconstruction was for their people and their economy.
Your title, and blog as a whole, are really great; great job! I agree with Kojeve’s sentiments regarding outside governments ruling, for lack of better words, from within. I wonder if looking at, say, West Germany today versus France today what differences we would see from have external help for so long (West Germany) versus working on an independent, self-sufficient government (France).
I liked your title for the blog and found it very intriguing. Thinking of the Marshall Plan as a global lemonade stand is an interesting way to interpret the United States economic plan to help Europe. I also found it interesting that the US offered the aid to the Soviet Union, but not to Spain. I see why the French are still worried about Germany in Kojeve’s article since the Germans have invaded and taken over France multiple times in the past. Is there a way to help strengthen France without hurting or diminishing Germany?
I really like your title, “The Global Lemonade Stand.” It is a really cool analogy to the roles of various nations after World War II. After all, a major goal for the United States was to get European nations buying its goods (lemonade). I like your images, but I would like to have some context on them. Were these designs created during reconstruction?
I like your post and I agree that finding that balance between internal and external was really crucial to the time. I think Kojeve was correct in saying that individualism was going to be very important moving forward.
I like how to concisely cover the included articles. The mention of the Soviet Union being offered the Marshall Plan is also a nice inclusion. As discussed in class on Tuesday, it seems that it was simply the United States’ way of getting a 1-up on the Soviets by looking like the good guy. The Marshall plan itself has undergone many different interpretations, and I think you’re correct in saying that it was vital for the growth of international trade, but that it also greatly benefited American interests.
This is really well written. I agree that all of this was a huge collective effort. Without any other support from other countries, the US might have lost some countries to communism.