I don't have any specific information about this, but somehow I doubt that the French atomic capability (Force de Frappe) would have been enough to destroy the USSR as a functioning society, in contrast to the U.S. nuclear arsenal, which was eminently capable of doing the job. The French nukes therefore would have had limited value as a deterrent against the Soviets.
Try this thought experiment:
First, recall the Soviets' ability to absorb fearful military punishment, as well as their willingness to act brutally in eastern- and central Europe during and after WW2; in East Germany in 1953; in Hungary in 1956; and in Czechoslovakia in 1968.
Second, imagine that in the 1950s or 1960s the Soviets had invaded Germany --- but also imagine that there was no effective NATO protection because (hypothetically) the U.S. had gone isolationist.
Third, assume that the Soviets had punched through Germany; reached the Rhine; and pushed through into France.
OK, now let's assume for the sake of argument that in response, the French had nuked the invading Soviet forces, but not the USSR homeland (for fear of provoking massive Soviet retaliation), using only small, tactical nukes.
It's not unreasonable to think that the Soviets would have responded in turn along much the same lines as they did in WWII --- but this time with their own nuclear weapons --- by obliterating the French armed forces, and probably a French city or three to make sure the message got through.
The French would (sensibly) have surrendered, of course. The Soviets then would have done much as they did in eastern Germany after WWII: They'd have carted off everything useful that they could, as war booty (euphemistically described as "reparations"). They probably would have shipped thousands of people off to slave-labor camps in the gulag, most of whom would not be seen nor heard from ever again. They'd have settled in to administer the ruined France as yet another impoverished Soviet vassal state under a Communist puppet government.
So France's nuclear Force de Frappe likely wasn't a real deterrent to the Soviets, but instead was merely anti-American and anti-British posturing by de Gaulle, safe behind what he knew would be the protective shield of NATO military power.
(Do de Gaulle's attitude and actions remind anyone else of what Hamid Karzai has been doing lately?)
Try this thought experiment:
First, recall the Soviets' ability to absorb fearful military punishment, as well as their willingness to act brutally in eastern- and central Europe during and after WW2; in East Germany in 1953; in Hungary in 1956; and in Czechoslovakia in 1968.
Second, imagine that in the 1950s or 1960s the Soviets had invaded Germany --- but also imagine that there was no effective NATO protection because (hypothetically) the U.S. had gone isolationist.
Third, assume that the Soviets had punched through Germany; reached the Rhine; and pushed through into France.
OK, now let's assume for the sake of argument that in response, the French had nuked the invading Soviet forces, but not the USSR homeland (for fear of provoking massive Soviet retaliation), using only small, tactical nukes.
It's not unreasonable to think that the Soviets would have responded in turn along much the same lines as they did in WWII --- but this time with their own nuclear weapons --- by obliterating the French armed forces, and probably a French city or three to make sure the message got through.
The French would (sensibly) have surrendered, of course. The Soviets then would have done much as they did in eastern Germany after WWII: They'd have carted off everything useful that they could, as war booty (euphemistically described as "reparations"). They probably would have shipped thousands of people off to slave-labor camps in the gulag, most of whom would not be seen nor heard from ever again. They'd have settled in to administer the ruined France as yet another impoverished Soviet vassal state under a Communist puppet government.
So France's nuclear Force de Frappe likely wasn't a real deterrent to the Soviets, but instead was merely anti-American and anti-British posturing by de Gaulle, safe behind what he knew would be the protective shield of NATO military power.
(Do de Gaulle's attitude and actions remind anyone else of what Hamid Karzai has been doing lately?)