Det som går ned må komme opp-An Alternate Royal Norwegian Navy TL

Driftless

Donor
Richelieu shouldn't take that much effort to complete especially since she won't be damaged via a gun duel and air raids. Jean Bart on the other hand is a lost cause as far as completion during the war unless her second turret and the guns for if(and ideally some spares) magically appear in the UK
Your comment on the difficulty in completing Jean Bart brings up the point of restocking ammunition and big propulsion replacement parts. What elements could be done in North Africa? Or, would the French be forced to sideline some vessels and cannibalize them just for parts and ammunition stores? Though, don't some munitions have relatively short "shelf life" in hot climates?

If cannibilizing some ships isn't sufficient, do they replace with US or British gear, as the large size factories are still operating in those spots?
 
Last edited:
Since France is fighting on in this timeline, the most important thing for the allies is access to the French gold reserves in North Africa. IIRC, the Czech and Polish gold reserves were also in French North Africa as well.
There were no Czech gold in French hands, but there were Belgian (60 tonnes) and Polish gold. Czechoslovakian gold reserves were (mostly) sized in 1939 by the Nazi when they invaded Prague (it was one of Hitler's goal). Poland and Belgium had sent part of their reserves to France to preserve them, and pay for the war effort if they were invaded.
Note that the Belgian gold was later given to the Nazis by Vichy France OTL. In 1945, de Gaulle ordered to pay back the Belgians on France's own reserves.
 
Last edited:
I don’t really see how they could man a carrier, even a small one, or maybe even keep her in operation for long, given that carriers are extremely expensive to operate compared to other vessels. As for the Pacific, why? It’s very far away, the Allies can get their own forces there easier, and Norway’s main opponent is Germany, who still reigns supreme over the continent, close to Norway. The Allies, especially with the French staying in the fight, have a lot more to spare than OTL.
Just some ideas XD
 
So, with the rest of this TL, obviously Norway has the annoying thorn of the Kristiansand area to deal with, and Finland will be dealt with one way or another. As I have recently, I’ll talk about Lend-Lease and the Navy, as well as air operations and some intelligence, but beyond that there is a decent hole in the next couple of years in my rough sketch of this TL, if there is anything reasonable you guys want to see let me know. No guarantees obviously, but I’m all ears.
CV(N)-6
 
The question boils down to what makes sense for Norway after the country is fully liberated?

Can I presume that Pearl Harbor happens as in OTL and Hitler declares war on the US?

In this scenario, I can make some suggestions:

Norway gets Lend-Lease PBYs, in return Norway provides PT boats, subchasers, and landing craft. Andrew Higgins needs to get to Norway before Pearl Harbor and talk to the Norwegians about some sort of joint production agreement. Machinery like engines and other fittings can be provided by the US. Packard engines for PT boats, Grey diesels for LCVPs, GM 671's for LCMs...

What happens to the Norwegian Merchant Marine? What does the Battle of the Atlantic look like in this scenario?

Seems to be merchant shipping losses will be much less than OTL and the seas will not be filled with Liberty Ships and Destroyer Escorts. Some will be built but nowhere near the quantity OTL. Can Norway either produce or obtain thru Lend-Lease some fleet oilers? What about setting up a Royal Norwegian Fleet Auxiliary, similar to the British RFA? With the Congressional clout that Norway has in the US, I could see another deal for cod or some basing rights where they could get 4 to 8 new ships and as part of the deal, the US will pay for them to deploy to the Pacific, however they'll primarily support Task Force 57...
 
obviously Norway has the annoying thorn of the Kristiansand area to deal with, and Finland will be dealt with one way or another.
One question could Finland be prepared to surrender to say the Canadians & Norwegians early on the condition that Soviets are not involved in the occupation? USSR might accept that in say 43/ early 44?
 
Can I presume that Pearl Harbor happens as in OTL and Hitler declares war on the US?
That’s what I’m thinking, though French still fighting could complicate the occupation of Indochina and US embargoes, maybe atrocities in China get out and piss some people off.
Norway gets Lend-Lease PBYs, in return Norway provides PT boats, subchasers, and landing craft. Andrew Higgins needs to get to Norway before Pearl Harbor and talk to the Norwegians about some sort of joint production agreement. Machinery like engines and other fittings can be provided by the US. Packard engines for PT boats, Grey diesels for LCVPs, GM 671's for LCMs...
The US could get reports of how the Norwegian MTBs did and didn’t get success so they could have better doctrine possibly, and the captured S-Boat plans could be of use. I don’t think the US will need sub chasers and pt boats built by Norway, though landing craft will be interesting.
Seems to be merchant shipping losses will be much less than OTL and the seas will not be filled with Liberty Ships and Destroyer Escorts. Some will be built but nowhere near the quantity OTL. Can Norway either produce or obtain thru Lend-Lease some fleet oilers? What about setting up a Royal Norwegian Fleet Auxiliary, similar to the British RFA? With the Congressional clout that Norway has in the US, I could see another deal for cod or some basing rights where they could get 4 to 8 new ships and as part of the deal, the US will pay for them to deploy to the Pacific, however they'll primarily support Task Force 57...
Merchant ship losses will be less, but I still think a lot of liberty ships and escorts will be built, the Germans were set back a couple months in U-Boat construction but they are still a threat. From what I’ve found on the merchant marine, Norway has a fair few tankers, and so far for the landings south of Stavanger for example, Norway has requisitioned cargo ships and ships that can carry large numbers of men. Another cod deal could be interesting, but I’m still not planning on anything in the Pacific.
 
One question could Finland be prepared to surrender to say the Canadians & Norwegians early on the condition that Soviets are not involved in the occupation? USSR might accept that in say 43/ early 44?
Next chapter tomorrow deals with Finland, actually.
 
Next chapter tomorrow deals with Finland, actually.
That or they stay neutral and keep the WW boundaries? With a safe port to the north and Norwegian friends who look much stronger they might feel more confidant of staying out of it come 41....
 

Driftless

Donor
In this scenario, I can make some suggestions:

Norway gets Lend-Lease PBYs, in return Norway provides PT boats, subchasers, and landing craft. Andrew Higgins needs to get to Norway before Pearl Harbor and talk to the Norwegians about some sort of joint production agreement. Machinery like engines and other fittings can be provided by the US. Packard engines for PT boats, Grey diesels for LCVPs, GM 671's (snip)
(Snip)
The US could get reports of how the Norwegian MTBs did and didn’t get success so they could have better doctrine possibly, and the captured S-Boat plans could be of use. I don’t think the US will need sub chasers and pt boats built by Norway, though landing craft will be interesting
You might very likely see some knowledge going west across the Atlantic. Perhaps some larger Norsk-type MTB's are built for the USN?
 
The thing about Finland is that postwar, unless one contrives to have not just Soviet but Russian power collapse dramatically, is that Finland remains fundamentally not much less vulnerable than the hypothetical case of the other three Baltic republics somehow being independent postwar. Finland is a demonstrated tougher nut to crack, but I think everyone agrees that part of why Finland did not wind up a Soviet Republic before Barbarossa relates to really spectacular Soviet incompetence. When the Red Army advanced on Finland a second time, there was no way the Finns could hope to just fight them off again. And of course even with really staggering Red Army incompetence in the Winter War, Finland objectively lost that war too--compared to the grim scenario of total incorporation into the Soviet system they won, and Stalin lost, but in terms of territory lost and so forth, Finland lost. Just not as totally as one might have reasonably anticipated.

Postwar then, assuming either the USSR or some even moderately competent Russian regime exists, there are just three scenarios broadly:

1) Citing the plain fact that OTL (and probably here too though just maybe the author might see a way to prevent this) the Finns did, as a nation, join in with Hitler and were objectively speaking part of the Axis, and that it is not easy to stipulate Western Allied forces on the ground liberating Finland from Axis control, instead it is the Red Army defeating the Wehrmacht and other Reich agencies in effective occupation, the Soviets annex Finland, either on the same terms as the Baltic Republics--Soviet Republics under iron control of the Kremlin as allegedly integral parts of the USSR, or b) "fraternal people's republic" in the same manner as Poland, Hungary, eventually Czechoslovakia and East Germany, again under iron Kremlin control but on paper indirectly via domestic Communists (adopting various other party names as often as not, but it is easy to tell who is who).

2) via some probably unlikely gambit, Finland is effectively occupied by some non-Soviet force in the Allies, and manages to resist any Soviet bids to either rule outright or impose conditions on Finland. In the short run this might work, but the result is another major Cold War flashpoint, arguably much more volatile and sure to trigger some major Third World War avalanche than say US aligned Iran right there on the Caspian sea shore or NATO Turkey again right there. OTL this situation technically held in northern Europe too, as Soviet annexation of the Petsamo area of Finland put the USSR right onto the Norwegian border--but this was a very narrow border, far removed from major Soviet centers. An anticommunist Finland free to join some NATO type alliance--and let us face facts, Finland cannot assert an obnoxious belligerence to the Russians under any regime without strong allies--would be right up against Leningrad/St Petersburg and of course poised to choke off any Russian access through the Baltic. Thus, achieving this perhaps Utopian outcome involves coming much closer than OTL to damn near guaranteeing nuclear Ragnarok, unless one supposes (not too unreasonably actually) that the main thing preventing that OTL was that neither the Western powers nor the Soviets actually wanted WWIII and each side would in fact swallow bitter pills to prevent that--such as NATO's knife being right there at Leningrad's throat say. Despite the fact that OTL and probably here, the Finnish front of Hitler's advance was a grievous blow.

3) The OTL solution in fact worked out to a reasonable, IMHO anyway, compromise, that left Finland to its own truly free self-determination and in no way subject to Soviet rule--but at the price of strategic neutralization. Arguably Cold War Finland was less than free and certainly many Cold War attitudes in the West I was exposed to growing up assumed "Finlandization" was a disaster just short of outright Soviet conquest. But really, while the Finns had to be quite careful not to antagonize the Russians, this is actually inherent in their political geography, not some sinister Kremlin plot. They were not "free" to join NATO or rattle sabres in Soviet faces--but Finland was ruled of by and for Finns, in as liberal a regime as anyone has ever had.

Thus, if the author is sticking to the general plan of "limited butterflies away from Norway," a final postwar outcome pretty similar to OTL is no bad thing for the Finns.

I think it would be better for the Finns if they could somehow remain neutral throughout the war and have no complicity in cooperating with Hitler whatsoever--this of course presumes the Soviets give up their own schemes to gobble up the fourth Baltic republic too. Then neutralization of Finland postwar would be a matter of agreements at Yalta or wherever it is plainly in both Soviet and Western interests to keep, setting up Finland as a neutralized buffer state--if the Russians can be persuaded to not annex Petsamo, the buffer is complete. I've shared this wishful suggestion before that the deal somehow extend to the other three Baltic Republics too.

A big problem in trying to engineer a satisfactory long term solution is that the Western Allies included a lot of people, probably largely but not exclusively in the USA, who figured that the USSR would remain an allied partner in a peaceful and reasonably arbitrated postwar world order, that the UN (which was in fact the formal name of the Alliance late in the war) would work more effectively than the League of Nations had. Obviously most Westerners who hoped for this also had a rosy view of how Soviet society could function postwar. So--the negotiations for postwar settlement were not a matter of two blocs very frank and open about how they would be near-mortal rivals for generations to come, playing chess with each other to define two separate sustainable security spheres. Asserting that Finland should be part of a neutralized corridor of buffer states, with reasonable mutual assurances to guarantee neither side could grab the weakly defended states (again!) is a form of frankness about how it would be postwar that perhaps Churchill and Stalin might have dealt with each other with...but with the Western part of the Alliance being essentially under US control, neither FDR nor (if the author steps out of the limited butterflies ring and throws us a not too improbable curve ball) any other Democratic President likely to replace Roosevelt will be that blunt. The pretense will be there is no need for neutralized buffers because the whole Grand Alliance is one big happy family committed to postwar peace, this time for real. Naturally there won't be any NATO or Warsaw Pact, every nation big or small is equally safe under the UN Charter, war has been effectively outlawed! Naturally the Finns are perfectly safe, Naturally they won't be a staging area to strike at Russian vital cores (again!)

OTL Finlandization was not mainly a matter of some treaty or other, it was a reflection of geopolitical reality, and my major concern here is that the Finns are at any rate not worse off than OTL. We can do a lot worse than that!
 

Driftless

Donor
In this scenario, I can make some suggestions:

Norway gets Lend-Lease PBYs, in return Norway provides PT boats, subchasers, and landing craft. Andrew Higgins needs to get to Norway before Pearl Harbor and talk to the Norwegians about some sort of joint production agreement. Machinery like engines and other fittings can be provided by the US. Packard engines for PT boats, Grey diesels for LCVPs, GM 671's (snip)
(Snip)
The US could get reports of how the Norwegian MTBs did and didn’t get success so they could have better doctrine possibly, and the captured S-Boat plans could be of use. I don’t think the US will need sub chasers and pt boats built by Norway, though landing craft will be interesting
You might very likely see some knowledge going west across the Atlantic. Perhaps some larger Norsk-type MTB's are built for the USN?
 
@CV(N)-6 So far I'm really liking this TL a lot. If I could make some suggestions, maybe you should put several chapters together into one or maybe write them longer.
 
Chapter LI
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter LI: Evacuation

Hanko, 15 July
The vessels left the harbor with the last of their owners’ equipment. Waiting out to sea were a pair of destroyers from the Great War, slated to escort the ships to Leningrad. To the west, the coast defense ship Väinämöinen and a pair of gunboats watched to make sure the Soviets fulfilled one of the terms of the agreement signed two days prior. Finnish personnel were now inspecting the base that the Soviets had leased for just over a year, both to see if any equipment that was left behind, and if any sabotage had taken place. They found that the Soviets had complied, which wasn’t surprising, considering their current predicament that would only get worse if Finland joined Germany and her Allies in invading the USSR.

For a month, the Finnish government had stayed out of the invasion of the Soviet Union, in large part because of pressure from the Western Allies, who held positions on the country’s northwestern border. Germany had dangled generous territorial gains if Finland joined the invasion, but when the Allies had offered to return much of what the nation lost in 1940 immediately, as well as reparations within the year in exchange for staying neutral, the Finns decided to enter talks, which had been largely successful, in no small part due to the Norwegian involvement. Finland hadn’t forgotten the aid that Norway allowed to flow through her into Finland during the Winter War.

In Oslo, the treaty of peace between Finland and the Soviet Union, brokered in part by Norway, was well received. The Norwegian people didn’t want another front to fight on, especially against a fairly friendly country, and they wouldn’t get one. Even as the people read about the treaty in newspapers or heard about it on a radio, an aircraft lifted off from Flesland Airport in Bergen, en route to Scotland, and then England. Aboard were a half dozen men, some diplomats, some planners, en route to propose a Norwegian plan to retake Kristiansand. They were proposing it to the British because the Royal Navy could help correct one of the most glaring problems in any solely Norwegian attack.

Fredrikstad Shipyard
“So, you overheard some of the higher ups talking about that American that’s been around?” A worker asked one of his colleagues during lunch.
“Yes, they were talking about some new little boats we might be building, with ramps or something.”
“Barges, probably.”
“I don’t know, maybe. It just seems like if they were going to be building barges, they’d send it to a less skilled yard.”
“Maybe we’ll make some prototypes and see if some of the little yards can make them as easily as us. I want to go back to work on that submarine, not be diverted to barges.” He gestured to the submarine D1, visible in the yard, a couple months from launching.
“Yes, hopefully this yard is used for building real fighting ships. Did you hear what company he worked for? We could ask around, see if anybody knows where barges are built in America.”
“Good idea. I kind of overheard the name, sounded like he worked for a place called Huggins or something.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
The butterflies are in full force, I see. Would be interesting to get a POV from one of the Uboats running the gauntlet of the GIUK (or rather NoUK) gap.
 
Hm.. how much land did finland save by staying neutral compared to OTL continuation war?
They saved their part of Karelia, they still have Petsamo, they got the Salla area back, and the islands they lost were returned. This of course assumes they keep all that up to present day.
 
I like the author's current format well enough. It might be nice to dive into a long canon post covering much ground in one big nicely organized narrative bloc--but if in fact we must then wait say 3-5 times as long between these posts, I don't think we'd actually be better off. I have found the pace and content of the author's chosen methods quite good for quite vigorous discussion really, nor am I frustrated by posts seeming too short. I actually think they have proven a decent length for serious developments on what is close to a day by day pace that engages us quite well.
 
So the Western Allies have decided to go all out to help little Finland vis-a-vis both the USSR and Germany? And this has led to the Soviets abandoning their hard-fought Winter War gains pretty much entirely?

It is very noble for the British, the French, the Norwegians and the Soviets to be this nice to Finland, but I am quite sceptical about the feasibility and realism of it all.
 
Last edited:
So the Western Allies have decided to go all out to help little Finland vis-a-vis both the USSR and Germany? And this has led to the Soviets abandoning their hard-fought Winter War gains pretty much entirely?

It is very noble from London, Paris, Oslo and Moscow to be this nice to Finland, but I am quite sceptical about the feasibility and realism of it all.
To be fair it means that the Soviets can redirect forces to fight the Germans and moreover they can use Finland as railroad route for lend-lease via Narvik. Accordingly Leningrad won't be nearly as cut off as otl and given how many lives that will save, that's no small feat
 
Top