GOOD, SIR, HOW MUCH DID YOU... DID YOU HAVE MUCH INFORMATION, YOU AND THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL, THE LEFT IN FRANCE, DURING THE FINAL YEARS OF FOURTH REPUBLIC, ABOUT THE PROGRESS TOWARD A FRENCH ATOMIC BOMB THAT THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION HAD MADE?

In truth, very little information. All that was done within the secrecy of ministries, and the government, and the French people were not sufficiently informed of this change in the conditions governing arms, the French national defense. It is also regrettable, and today we will evaluate all the consequences of that situation, of that lack of information.

AND SO, WHEN GENERAL DE GAULLE TOOK POWER, LET'S SAY IN '58, AND HE BEGAN TO TALK ABOUT THE FORCE DE FRAPPE, THE FRENCH ATOMIC BOMB, WAS IT A SURPRISE OR WHAT?

It was at that time that the French discovered that France had developed a nuclear strike force. Until that moment, we knew that the atomic bomb existed, that it had claimed so many victims at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that everyone was working to discover this terrifying weapon to include it in their national defense system. When General de Gaulle announced it, there was no question of challenging this reality, but the fact was appreciated, even so, by public opinion in our country in general, that it was declared to be under the authority of French national independence, and not integrated within NATO, meaning that it would not be usable by a command outside the control of the French government. That was a positive fact on this level, but my opinion is that the every act of having invented a French nuclear weapon was not a positive fact in general, because it was the beginning of the arms race in which in which France was engaged.

BUT THE LEFT IN GENERAL, DID IT APPROVE THE PATH THE GENERAL TOOK BY SEPARATING FRANCE FROM NATO? WAS THAT SOMETHING THE LEFT APPROVED OR NOT?

You know, the Left found itself with fairly diversified opinions on this issue, because before General de Gaulle decided this, there were governments with the participation of certain families on the Left who agreed with NATO, the Atlantic Treaty and all of that. There were other members of the Left who were opposed to it. Therefore, it's not possible to give an overall assessment of the Left's position on either the French Force de Frappe or on the fact that General de Gaulle believed it was necessary for France to pull out of NATO.

DO YOU HAVE ANY PERSONAL MEMORIES ABOUT THE GREAT DEBATE IN 1960-61, ON THE ISSUE OF..., THE GREAT DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF THE FORCE DE FRAPPE?

Yes, I have very specific memories of that debate that don't seem that distant to me.

SO, IN YOUR OPINION, YOURSELF, EXACTLY WHAT DID YOU THINK AT THAT TIME?

Personally, since you ask me the question, you put me at ease so I can answer in my own name. I thought at that time that we were entering a process of military escalation with increasingly sophisticated weapons of mass destruction, which was very dangerous for the future of humanity. Particularly since this was occurring during a period of international tension, of cold war, which could only create a kind of stimulation at the international level for all countries, particularly for the antagonistic countries, which were moving to develop the most sophisticated weapons and, therefore, the deadliest weapons, the most destructive to humanity, and I even believed, insofar as it was my own country, that it, that we were moving toward a perspective that was extremely dangerous for the future of humanity, in that era. Subsequent events confirmed that I was completely right.

AND AT THAT TIME, IN AMERICA, THEY WERE, THEY BELIEVED, I THINK, THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE FRENCH ALWAYS SUPPORTED THE FORCE DE FRAPPE. BUT THAT WASN'T THE CASE, WAS IT? DURING THAT PERIOD, THERE WAS PERHAPS A MAJORITY WHO OPPOSED THE GENERAL'S DECISION?

I think that all the French political forces bowed down before the Force de Frappe in the name of national sovereignty, the country's independence, its security and national defense, that's true. But if the reasoning had been pushed a little further, and if one had said "isn't it better to abandon this military escalation to reach an international agreement that limits the accumulation of weapons of mass destruction around the globe," if our people had been informed in that way about this issue, I'm convinced that the majority French public opinion would have preferred to remain at lower levels, which would have allowed devoting our wealth, which was damaged by this accumulation of the strike force, to economic, social, cultural and sports needs, finally, for life in general, eh? This wasn't the case. A lack of information, perhaps a patriotism that was close to nationalism also, because it was the era of the fall of the French colonial empire, a time when French public opinion felt a kind of anguish at the idea that all of that was collapsing. There were political speculations made at that time which certainly limited the awareness of public opinion in our country about the dangers of this military escalation.

BUT, WHAT I MEANT, WAS AT THAT TIME, THERE WAS ACTUALLY A MAJORITY THAT OPPOSED THE GENERAL, RIGHT, IN FRANCE, IN THE FIRST YEARS OF THE CREATION OF THE FORCE DE FRAPPE, WASN'T THERE?

I don't think there was a majority on the Force de Frappe. It was primarily, there was heavy opposition to General de Gaulle on economic and social issues, less on questions of national defense, because his position on the ideas of the country's independence, particularly in the area of defense, was by and large approved by public opinion.

WHY, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT MOST OF THE POLITICIANS WHO HAD OPPOSED THE GENERAL IN THAT ERA, FOR EXAMPLE TAKE PRESIDENT MITTERRAND NOW, THEY HAD COMPLETELY CHANGED THEIR MINDS IN THE TWENTY YEARS UP TO THAT MOMENT?

I don't think that President Mitterrand expressed any opposition to the Force de Frappe, at any time in his life. He always agreed with the policy of the French government on this level.

I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

Overall, overall, yes, overall, yes. But, I believe that it was particularly a function of the changes in the situation, which subsequently occurred, and particularly concerning other chapters in General de Gaulle's policies, that differences then appeared between Mitterrand and de Gaulle, but differences that were fairly secondary in the end, not on the foreign policy level.

DO YOU THINK THERE WAS AT THAT TIME OR NOW, A REAL RISK OF WAR, WITHOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS, AS MOST PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT NUCLEAR FORCE BELIEVE; THEY SAY THERE'S A RISK OF INVASION FROM THE EAST, FROM THE SOVIET UNION, AND IT'S ONLY NUCLEAR WEAPONS THAT ARE A DETERRENT AND ALL THAT. WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THOSE PEOPLE?

The risk of war, the risk of international conflicts still exists. Since the Second World War, we have examples in what is happening in the Middle East, at this time between Iraq and Iran, uh, with the use of conventional weapons. But I believe that with the changes in life and, the, increasingly advanced weapons technology, the risk of war now exists in terms of, uh, the possibility of global nuclear conflagration, and under these conditions, everything is changed, everything is overturned, all the ideas, I believe, about the problems of war and peace, should be reviewed and fundamentally corrected. Einstein was exactly correct in saying that, unfortunately, the nuclear era flipped everything from top to bottom. Only the conscience of mankind hasn't evolved. And this is really the great question that must be asked in our time, to act so that the man's conscience reaches this level of understanding that allows them to comprehend that, if we don't stop this fantastic, demented escalation in the arms race, where the final logical goal is the destruction of humanity, we will be done with life on the earth and that, that it's worth the effort to move away from all the ideological, political and philosophical contingencies and think only about the survival of humanity which is our good and, I think, mankind's common ideal. This is what we were working for in our Appel des Cent (Appeal of the Hundred) peace movement, and we wanted to convince all parties, all politicians, at the national and international levels, that they should share this feeling which quite simply arises from reason and humanism.

IF WE CAN TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE YEARS IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE WORLD WAR AND, AT THAT TIME, THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN FRANCE WAS VERY STRONG, AND ENJOYED A LOT OF SUCCESS AND ESTIMATE AFTER THE PART IT... (AH, MY FRENCH), AFTER THE RESISTANCE AND ALL THAT. WHAT WERE THE HOPES OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN FRANCE, HMM... AFTER THE WAR, AND WHAT WAS THE... SO FIRST, WHAT WERE THE HOPES AT THAT TIME, ABOUT 1946?

I think that that was based on the role that the Communist Party played in the Resistance. In fact, that it was the French political force that paid the highest price in the fight against the Nazi enemy. It wasn't by chance that the Communist Party was called "the party of the fallen" right after the Liberation, there were so many martyrs who had been summarily executed by Hitler's forces, or who had died in Nazi concentration camps, right, and this fame for the Communist Party, which played its national and patriotic role, led to a considerable extension of its influence right after the Liberation. Subsequently, different events occurred that marked French public opinion, events on which the Communist Party took a strong stand, a stand that wasn't always understood by public opinion and which, gradually, with all the forces allied against it, eroded, altered and reduced its authority, and particularly its electoral influence, but not its basic moral authority in the national history, I think, and I believe that, whatever the events of the past and today, the future will confirm this assessment.

MEN ON THE RIGHT NOW SAY, AFTER YEARS HAVE PASSED, THAT THE EUROPEAN COMMUNIST PARTIES IN GENERAL, ITALIAN, FRENCH, WERE DIRECTED A LITTLE BY STALIN, IN THAT ERA, AND WERE COMPLETELY DIRECTED, ALL THEIR ACTIONS WERE DIRECTED BY MOSCOW. IS THAT TRUE OR...?

No, that's completely absurd. Certainly, right after the Liberation, there was a great solidarity among the Communist parties in Europe particularly, which was, sealed in the Second World War in the battle against Hitler, with all the political immigrations that occurred in the different countries, many Communist worker militants were forced to take refuge in the Soviet Union, and there were ties created that were completely new historically, but with respect to the way in which the Communist parties conducted their policies in any event, I can speak with authority of the policies of the French Communist Party, of which I was a member and one of the principal leaders for a long time, at no time was there any imperative whatsoever from the Soviet Union or from Stalin about the options and direction and policies of the French Communist Party. The historical documents are there that prove that's the way it was.

WHAT DID THE COMMUNIST PARTY THINK OF THE EFFORTS OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIVE YEARS AFTER THE WAR, AND PARTICULARLY THE MARSHALL PLAN, AND LATER NATO AND THE REARMAMENT OF GERMANY, DID THE COMMUNIST PARTY HAVE A GENERAL OPINION?

It was one of the great moments in French national history, because we believed, not just the Communist Party, but even the union movement in which I was a militant and a leader for a long time, that the Marshall Plan, which offered generous ideas of assistance to the Europe killed by the Second World War, also contained political conditions that implied a number of renunciations of prerogatives, sovereignty, the independence of the States that received it, which clearly caused a conflict, a break, a profound disagreement among the forces in our country which decided for or against this Marshall Plan, which also caused the union split in our country, which was followed by the financing of the division of the union forces in France. All the documents are there. Today, this is no longer a tale from the past, but a historical proof that has been broadly established. As a result, I am one of those who believe that the Marshall Plan, under the cover of assistance and generosity, was primarily an intervention by the United States of America in the national and domestic affairs of our country, and which profoundly traumatized our worker movement.

MOST OF THOSE WHO HAD THE POWER IN EUROPE AND IN THE UNITED STATES DURING THIS PERIOD AFTER THE WAR SAID THAT IT WAS THE WAY THE SOVIET UNION ACTED TOWARD EASTERN EUROPE, IN POLAND, IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA AND EAST GERMANY THAT CONVINCED THEM IT WAS NECESSARY TO FORM A MILITARY ALLIANCE, NATO. IT WAS NECESSARY TO INTRODUCE NUCLEAR WEAPONS INTO EUROPE. IS THAT YOUR OPINION? WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF THAT ARGUMENT?

Everyone can have his opinion on this point. I myself would have preferred to see, just after the Second World War, in the spirit of the Yalta and Potsdam agreements, negotiations continue at the international level to determine how all these questions could have been settled, and how the people concerned could have decided democratically. As a result, I regret the fact that, on the basis of assumptions, we entered in that era a period of international tensions that aggravated relations and once again justified a return to the arms race, mistrust, general suspicion, and which was very harmful. I believe that ultimately we lost 40 years for humanity, in Europe, and for the entire continent, because it will now be necessary, one way or another, for us to find the path of reciprocity...of dialogue, of the search for understanding, cooperation and co-existence in order to overcome the difficulties that we are facing. And I'm happy to note that this meeting in Reykjavik, which almost reached an historic agreement on disarmament and new international cooperation, was able to occur. I regret that the idea presented by President Reagan to maintain the SDI plan, which is better known in Europe as Star Wars, at any price, compromised the signature of this agreement, but I'm convinced that world public opinion will not yield to this negative reality, and that it will demand that negotiations continue, so that each party can make a reasonable contribution to an evolution, without which the worst could befall humanity. From this point of view, I truly want the French government to take its role in the negotiations. It is important, France is a nuclear nation, it is therefore important for France to participate so that it can, as soon as possible, under the best conditions, eliminate this load that it is carrying and which is generating very negative consequences at the economic level and the social level, and which does not guarantee the security of our people. On the contrary, the longer the arms race continues, the more France participates in it, in one way or another, the greater the dangers for the future of our people and for the future of all humanity in general.

BUT SPEAKING HISTORICALLY, AND THIS IS AN HISTORIC BROADCAST THIS TIME, DON'T YOU THINK THAT THIS DIVISION OF EUROPE WAS INEVITABLE? WERE THERE OPPORTUNITIES WHEN WE COULD HAVE CHANGED THIS DIVISION...?

We have...

IN THE 1940S, THE 1950S?

During the Second World War, I myself was in a Nazi prison, interned there, arrested in France by the Gestapo, and interned in an extermination camp, where I was with people of all nationalities—Americans, British, Soviets, all the countries of Eastern Europe, and in this camp we had the same shared will to survive, first of all, clearly, but also to devote our lives to the fight against all those who attacked freedom, the integrity of human rights, and peace. We even swore an oath at the Liberation to consecrate all our energy, by common agreement, to that cause. I don't understand why... we couldn't manage...to maintain that cohesion, that unity, uh, of thought, that common will for action, ultimately that shared ideal, which had been expressed in the concentration camps. So I finally concluded that it was political, economic and ideological forces that predominated after the Second World War, and which compromised this ideal of friendship, solidarity, and human fraternity, that we had sealed in the concentration camps. I deplore it. I'm not saying that it was inevitable, but I think that it will be necessary for the forces that want peace, friendship and fraternity, and who believe that ideological problems must be left outside until we can debate these issues calmly, to predominate one day. That's my ideal. That's why I am a…

ARE THESE POLITICAL FORCES THE FORCES OF ONE COUNTRY OR ANOTHER IN YOUR OPINION?

I think that, to the extent that this comes from one side, it causes a reaction on the other side. Which is the one... In a broadcast like this, I don't want to accuse one or the other of having started first. We have to see which side has the interests that are going in the direction of fomenting international tension, who profits from it, who are the ones who earn money from it and accumulate the profits of international tension, of the arms race, of the sale of arms abroad and, if we ask this question, if we try to elucidate, we will understand who are the ones primarily responsible.

AND THE ATOMIC BOMB, IN THE YEARS, UH, IN THIS PERIOD OF TENSION OF THE COLD WAR, IN YOUR OPINION, WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BOMB IN THE MOMENTUM OF THE UNITED STATES? IS IT A POLITICAL WEAPON?

To a certain extent, yes, I think that, at the moment when the Second World War was virtually over, when the Nazi armies were beaten in Europe, crushed, pushed back into a corner in Berlin, when Japanese militarism was ready to abdicate, the use of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not necessary. And it was decided only to try to impose on the world a sort of military supremacy intended to impress, to cause fear, I would say, I use the word, to terrorize (emphasis) world public opinion in order to acquire supremacy at the international level. Perhaps at that moment, they believed that only the United States would control this extremely inhuman and devastating weapon. Experience showed that shortly after that, the Soviet Union had it, along with several other countries in the world. Today, they are talking about the SDI, known as Star Wars system. I hope that it will not become a reality, but even if it were to become a reality, it is absurd to think that the other side will not find ways to deal with it and, therefore, the arms race would continue, it would cost humanity more and more. We would see resources squandered on this useless production, which is intended to destroy life, fabulous sums of money invested to the detriment of what the people need in many underdeveloped countries, where tens, or hundreds of thousands of people, including children, are dying of malnutrition, under-development, epidemic diseases, etc. So truly, I believe that if humanity... has a conscience, if reason can prevail, we are not far from the end, when the reaction will occur with such force that all the powdermen, all those who are participating in this insane arms race, will have to abandon their strategy and agree that, on the earth, we have to work to live in another way.

GOOD, THANK YOU, SIR.