Neutral Malta in WWII

[Hammerbolt]

Last night, and after 2 weeks of (for one reason or another) watching/reading things regarding the Med campaign, a thought popped into my mind: what if Malta was neither british or italian? What if Malta was owned by someone else?

I feel there are 3 ways this could go:

1: Malta is an independent country. I think that, considering the ongoing 1940 desert campaign, this would lead to Italy/Germany either strong arming Malta to allow "basing/overflying rights", or outright conquering it, to protect & support North Africa. I don't think the UK would do this, simply because it did not have the resources to do it; after the debacle of the Greek and Crete campaign, there was no way it would have the troops, ships and aicraft to do it; the effort required would make Pedestal look like a walk in the park. Not because of any realistic defenses Independent Malta would have, but because of the need to escort a fleet that would include troop carriers from Gibraltar. So now there's nothing to stop the flow of supplies & reinforcements to North Africa, except whatever the RAF/RN could deploy in Egypt. But the distances are too great to allow intervention in usefull time and, with convoys routed between Malta and Tunisia, these would have full air and naval coverage based on Malta. Realistically, only submarines would have a chance, but casualties would be high. Minelaying subs would be a priority, I think.

2: Malta is French. This means Vichy. Could the UK rush in fast and hard enough in 1940 to take it over? Would Malta itself decide to go "Free French" and join the allies in 1940? Tactically we would be pretty much back to OTL: Malta becomes an allied choking point, messing up the Axis' North Africa campaign. But strategically & politically this could be messy: the UK would now have invaded part of "France". How would Vichy react, apart from histerical screaming? The Uk would have get there after neutralizing the fleet at Mers-el-Kébir, only I think there's every chance these would say up to Malta, under the cover of "friendly" italian/german aircraft. But now Vichy would be in the alert, so it would certainly do whatever it could to reinforce it, and I doubt the Axis would object to this. And German propaganda would have a field day, playing the "much betrayal from UK" angle. Again.

2a: Malta is part of a Neutral country; let's say Malta is part of Spain. Technially Spain is an Axis friend, but Franco did everything he could to avoid getting into the war; his dance around Hitler's requests became legend. Allowing Malta to become an Axis base would almost certainly bring Spain into the conflict; at the very least I suspect Roosevelt would impose an embargo on Spain, a disaster in the making since Spain got most (all?) of it's oil from the US (I belive other products as well, but cannot find which). I think this would end up with Axis convoys simply sailing around Malta at will, and Axis aircraft overflying Malta as needed, with the Spanish turning a blind eye. When the UK / US protest, Franco simply says "there's nothing I can do, hombres".

2: Malta is part of a Neutral country; let's say Malta is part of Turkey. Both sides in the war kept courting Turkey to join their side, so I doubt anyone would do anything to disturb Malta's status. The Axis would sail clear around it, with aircraft avoiding it's airspace (no great loss in ranges, in either case, so easy to do), and the UK would stay away, since it would no longer be able to operate in the area anyway; the RN would be reduced to submarines, but I think it would avoid mining, for fear of hiting a Turkish ship. La Valleta would become a hotbed of spies, and the UK would almost certainly try to insert teams in the island, to try to monitor axis activities.

In any of these situations, I see the North Africa campaign going badly for the UK. The Afrika Corps would be kept pretty much at full strengh (or more) and fully supplied at all times, Axis aircraft and ship loses would drop drasticallty, the Regia Marina would no longer have fuel constraints, the Taranto raid would probably not be possible, what with Axis aircraft based on Malta certainly patroling east of Malta, the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica, free of the need to bomb Malta, would be able to move hundreds of aircraft to Africa... the UK might be able to hold on to Egypt, but actually breaking out and attacking would take much longer, since the opposition would now be much stronger.


Edit: thoughts, comments?

 

[King Augeas]

Independent - Italy invades if feasible. Otherwise, tells them they'll get blockaded and invaded if they even say hello to the British. Realistically, this Malta was never really independent, it was always in Italy's sphere of influence. So very easy to strongarm into basing rights.

Vichy - potential British attack, but only with cover from Cyrenaica - too hard to supply and too isolated otherwise So very likely not happening. Some pressure from Italy for basing rights, but they'd be happy to keep it neutral.

Part of a neutral. Friendly neutral gets some informal resupply and intel rights, true neutral gets polite requests to keep the British out unless they don't want to be a neutral any more.

 

[StrikeEcho]

Honestly, even if the transports can get to the docks, the logistics of the Axis side of NA were horrible, they had what a single lane road?

It's meaningless if the supplies can't get to the army.

Edit: Plus will the British not needing to supply Malta, they more of a free hand to deploy their ships and prevent the sinking of some of the ships lost during the convoys.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Honestly, even if the transports can get to the docks, the logistics of the Axis side of NA were horrible, they had what a single lane road?

It's meaningless if the supplies can't get to the army.

Edit: Plus will the British not needing to supply Malta, they more of a free hand to deploy their ships and prevent the sinking of some of the ships lost during the convoys.

That is certainly the meme, but the problem was more how close shipping could get to the front. Since thanks to interdiction from Malta Tripoli generally had to be used instead of Benghazi and other closer facilities. That was more the problem than the road system.

As to British naval savings from no Malta I guess the question is whether that would translate into more interdiction of Axis supply lines in the Mediterranean via bases in Alexandria.

 

[Fulton 44]

Malta had a big impact on the North Africa campaign. It also had a big impact on the Battle of the Atlantic and the Eastern Front. As to the former, a very large number of German and Italian subs which could have been used in the Atlantic were sent to the Med instead largely due to Malta. As to the latter, enormous Luftwaffe resources were used at various times to try to suppress Malta - many planes and pilots were lost. Malta based recon was also very instrumental in the British raid on Taranto suggesting that the naval balance of power in the Med would have been different without Malta.
Malta was a very very very big deal in WW2.

 

[Hammerbolt]

That is certainly the meme, but the problem was more how close shipping could get to the front. Since thanks to interdiction from Malta Tripoli generally had to be used instead of Benghazi and other closer facilities. That was more the problem than the road system.

I was thinking the same. And, from an Axis point of view, I'm sure it's better to have an excess of supplies going up the road than a shortage...

As to British naval savings from no Malta I guess the question is whether that would translate into more interdiction of Axis supply lines in the Mediterranean via bases in Alexandria.

With Axis aircraft & ships in Malta, the convoys could sail between Tunisia and Malta; not one of them would show up in anywhere in the Eastern side of Malta; any air attack would be neatly impossible; Malta-based fighters would roam the area. The RAF would be out of the game, and RN would be left to submarines. These could be used to mine the area and search for convoys but that's it.

 

[El Pip]

In any of those scenarios the British are going to do things differently pre-war, not having Malta makes such a difference that it is impossible it would not be accounted for. Of course what they do depends on when Malta stops being British, and the earlier they lose it (or perhaps never acquire it) the less chance there is that anything like WW2 even happens.

That said you could fairly easily come up with a scenario where the Desert War goes better for the British without Malta, if it happens early enough. London knows that supply lines through the Med to India and the Empire are vulnerable without Malta, so there has been increasing industrialisation in Australia and India to allow the Raj to defend itself if "cut off". The resulting 'India pattern' tanks and trucks are rugged and simple, so more reliable in the desert and of course being designed for the heat of India means less cooling problems, etc. Come the war that means North Africa is supplied through the entirely safe Red Sea with no need to fight through via Gibraltar, better supply routes mean fewer losses both of shipping and sunk equipment. With better supply and even more equipment to supply 8th Army, the Italians are pushed off the continent before the Afrika Korps can even arrive.

I don't think that is the most likely outcome, but I hope it demonstrates the importance of allowing the other side to react to the change and not just gaze in awe while being beaten.

 

[Hammerbolt]

In any of those scenarios the British are going to do things differently pre-war, not having Malta makes such a difference that it is impossible it would not be accounted for. Of course what they do depends on when Malta stops being British, and the earlier they lose it (or perhaps never acquire it) the less chance there is that anything like WW2 even happens.

Hadn't considered that, tbh. Since Gibraltar is too small, maybe the RN would get larger facilities in Alexandria, and the RAF gets larger and more well equipped airfields.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Last night, and after 2 weeks of (for one reason or another) watching/reading things regarding the Med campaign, a thought popped into my mind: what if Malta was neither British or Italian? What if Malta was owned by someone else?

I feel there are 3 ways this could go:

The problems that I have with this are:

• When does Malta become independent? and:
• How does Malta become independent?

If Malta becomes independent from Britain sometime between 1900 and 1940 the British are not going to give up their bases there. It will be the same situation as Malta between 1964 and 1979 IOTL, Egypt between 1922 and 1956 or Iraq between 1932 and 1955. Therefore, Malta of June 1940 ITTL will still have a sizeable British Army garrison, the naval base and the RAF bases. Therefore, Malta will find itself at war with the Axis whether its government wants to be or not.

I can see it happening with PODs between 1530 and 1815, but they are well before 1900 and the further back the change, the more time there is for the Butterfly Effect to make the situation in June 1940 significantly different.

IMHO the only plausible POD for an independent Malta is 1815. That is the Congress of Vienna sets it up as an independent country so that no major power can use it.

I can only see it becoming a French colony if the British don't take Malta in 1800 and France is allowed to keep it by the Congress of Vienna, which is not likely.

I can only see it becoming part of Turkey if the Great Siege of 1565 succeeds. However, they will find it very difficult to keep the place until 1940. The French might still take in 1798 on their way to Egypt in which case it's probably still taken by the British in 1800. If that doesn't happen the Italians probably take Malta in 1912. And if it is still part of the Ottoman Empire in 1914 they'll loose it in World War One, in which case Malta becomes a British League of Nations Mandate, is given to Italy or becomes an independent state after the war.

AIUI the Knights of St John held Malta as a vassals of the King of Sicily. Therefore, I can the Spanish Hapsburgs or Spanish Bourbons transferring Malta directly to Spain (or Castile or Aragon) during the period when they were Kings of Sicily. However, I think they would find it difficult to keep Malta until 1940. For example (AFAIK) Italy occupied the Balearic Islands during the Spanish Civil War. If that still happened ITTL (which is very likely) they would occupy Malta too. I think it's very likely that they will demand basing rights in Malta or annex the place as part payment for helping the Nationalists.

I've already suggested ways that Malta could become Italian via the Ottoman Empire and Spain. Another possibility is that the British give Malta back to the Kingdom of Sicily in 1800 instead of making it a British colony. In that case it becomes Italian 1859-61.

 

[Hammerbolt]

The problems that I have with this are:

• When does Malta become independent? and:
• How does Malta become independent?

If Malta becomes independent from Britain sometime between 1900 and 1940 the British are not going to give up their bases there. It will be the same situation as Malta between 1964 and 1979 IOTL, Egypt between 1922 and 1956 or Iraq between 1932 and 1955. Therefore, Malta of June 1940 ITTL will still have a sizeable British Army garrison, the naval base and the RAF bases. Therefore, Malta will find itself at war with the Axis whether its government wants to be or not.

In the case of indepentent Malta, it would have to have gained it somewhere in mid/late 19th century, otherwise it be pointless.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

In the case of independent Malta, it would have to have gained it somewhere in mid/late 19th century, otherwise it be pointless.

I think that's not early enough because Victorian Britain wouldn't give Malta up willingly as it's their main naval base in the Mediterranean. It becomes even more important when the Suez Canal opens and the Mediterranean becomes the main route from the UK to India. Finally, it's between the French naval bases in the Mediterranean and the Russian naval bases in the Black Sea, so it's even more important when France and Russia are the main potential enemies.

I think the only time the British would have voluntarily given up Malta is at the end of the Napolenoic Wars and it's very unlikely even then.

 

[Hammerbolt]

Well, I have to admit I did think the "independent" part was a long stretch, but I put it in, for the sake of completeness.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Well, I have to admit I did think the "independent" part was a long stretch, but I put it in, for the sake of completeness.

The other problem with an independent Malta in 1940 is, how much independence would Malta have?

As I wrote in Post 9 the British Government would want to keep its bases in Malta after independence as it did from 1964 to 1979 IOTL. There are plenty of other precedents. I've already mentioned Egypt and Iraq after they became independent. I could also have mentioned that the British didn't withdraw from Malaysia and Singapore when they became independent, the Irish Treaty Ports and the Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus had I remembered them.

I think that Britain keeping its Maltese bases would be part of any independence agreement negotiated between 1900 and 1940.

It's also very likely that had Malta become independent between 1900 and 1940 it would have been a Dominion and like the OTL dominions (except the Irish Free State and to a lesser extent South Africa) it would have had a pro-British foreign policy. If only on the principle of "Better the devil you know (Britain) than the devil you don't (Mussolini's Italy)."

To be honest, I think that Malta being part of France, Spain or Turkey are even less likely than an independent Malta. I very much doubt that the British would let France acquire it.
I think that while there is some plausibility of Malta belonging to Spain or the Ottoman Empire at some point it would be very hard for either of them to keep it until 1940.

The most plausible option is that Malta is part of Italy, but that isn't in the OP. Plus the most the plausible POD for it is during the Napoleonic Wars and PODs before 1900 are frowned upon in this part of the forum. On the bright side I think this is the option with the fewest butterflies.

 

[Grey Wolf]

It could have been Russian. IIRC the Russians were supposed to have some role over it after Amiens?

OF COURSE, if it had been Russian then many other things would have gone differently, including Russian wars against the Ottomans, and maybe if there is still a Crimean War, then the British and French would have taken it. But if for the sake of argument they do, but return it, then I guess we MIGHT get to a WW2 situation without too many butterflies, though it could just as easily end up being a White Russian holdout, with the fleet that went to Bizerte going there instead.

 

[Hammerbolt]

It could have been Russian. IIRC the Russians were supposed to have some role over it after Amiens?

OF COURSE, if it had been Russian then many other things would have gone differently, including Russian wars against the Ottomans, and maybe if there is still a Crimean War, then the British and French would have taken it. But if for the sake of argument they do, but return it, then I guess we MIGHT get to a WW2 situation without too many butterflies, though it could just as easily end up being a White Russian holdout, with the fleet that went to Bizerte going there instead.

If it was Russian, it would become part of the axies in June 1941...

 

[Grey Wolf]

If it was Russian, it would become part of the axies in June 1941...

Well, no doubt the Germans could try, but at the same time the Russians can ask for British aid straight away

 

[Bob in Pittsburgh]

As part of France I think Mussolini would have invaded when he declared war on France and would have insisted on retaining it as part of the peace. I don't think the British had the necessary amphibious assets to launch an invasion against either Italian or Vichy possessions. While I question how it would ever have ended up in Soviet hands, I see its neutrality being strictly observed until Barbarossa. Mussolini would like to have tried an invasion while Britain would rush troops and fighter planes there. I think it would be a tossup. As an aside if it were a Russian territory in 1919 I think it would have been targeted by the British as part of their intervention in the Russian Revolution, Spain or Turkey would have remained neutral and neither side would disturb that neutrality. A neutral Malta is really all the Axis needed. With a steady source of supply from Naples Rommel would have been able to hold on in Africa for a long long time.

 

[Fulton 44]

If it is anything other than British or independent with a substantial British military presence, I think that it would be a very major benefit to the Axis. Even if the British could invade it (assuming it were independent or Vichy French) - they could not establish themselves well enough to avoid a subsequent Axis invasion.

 

[ghappy1000]

United States of the Ionian Islands - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What about a Greek Malta? If the British gave Greece Malta in 1864 in addition to the Ionian Islands in exchange for a Greek alliance with Britain, propping up the legitimacy of the Greek king in 1864 and weaning Greece away from territorial irredentism from the Ottoman Empire and an alliance with Russia (at least in a Russian-Ottoman War or an Anglo-Russian War) and world history goes roughly as in otl until and including the fall of France to Germany and Italy declaring war on France and Britain in June 1940, what happens? It is possible that the Greeks go to war in 1877 for Russia against the Ottoman Empire and for Malta to return to the British or for the Ottoman Empire to be destroyed and rendered defunct in 1877/ 1878, returning to reality for the former scenario and causing too many butterflies that affect WW2 as we know it for the latter scenario. Greece will also make Malta ready for Greek use as a combat base in the Greek-Turkish 1897, Balkan, First World and Turkish Independence Wars if and when such wars proceed similarly to otl.

Of course, if Italy still invades Greece no later than October/ early November 1940 and results in Malta opened up to British military forces by early November 1940, it is back to reality in the North African Campaign for 1941, 1942 and 1943 (most of Malta's actual damage on Italy and Germany to North Africa supply routes was done in 1941, 1942 and 1943, not in 1940 or earlier).

United States of the Ionian Islands - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In April 1941, after the German-Italian-Bulgarian invasion of Greece, the Germans and Italians will launch a paratrooper invasion of Crete which will see the Greek King and the Greek Army captured along with 10,000 non-Greek Allied troops, but the Germans and Italians will suffer heavy paratrooper casualties that the German 7th Paratrooper and the Italian Folgore Paratrooper Divisions are taken out of paratrooper jumping and offensive non-paratrooper jumping military operations for the rest of WW2.

The capture of the Greek King in 1941 will result in all Greek territory being taken by the Germans, Italians and Bulgarians will result in the British forming a free Greece with the priority being the liberation of Syria and Lebanon from Vichy (delayed by a week compared to otl) followed by the amphibious reconquest of Malta from Gibraltar and Alexandria, with the amphibious assault starting with the invasion convoys departing Gibraltar and Alexandria on 22 July 1941, reaching Malta on 27 July 1941 and recapturing Malta by 30 July 1941 for Greece. Malta will aid the Allied campaigns in Libya and Egypt, Tunisia, Sicily, Italy, Sardinia, Corsica and Southern France from 1941-1945, although besieged by bombing and starvation to the extent of causing the Harpoon, Vigorous and Pedestal convoys to reach Malta in June to August 1942 to prevent the island from starving or being bombed to death or surrender for the Axis's benefits.

Post-war, after Allied victory in WW2 by September 1945 and Greek Royalist victory in the Greek Civil War of 1946-1949, the island of Malta will be returned to Royalist Greece and will suffer as a result of the Greek junta of 1967-1974, declaring independence on 20 July 1974 after the successful Turkish and failed Greek invasions of Cyprus that day following a Greek-sponsored Cypriot coup 5 days previously, with Greek recognition of Malta's independence on 20 December 1974 and Greece (including its military bases) permanently leaving Malta by 31 December 1979. Rest of Maltese, Greek and Cypriot history is as in otl when unmentioned since 1864.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

If Malta isn't British, there would be a lot less shipping losses, both because no need for Pedestal and similar supply runs, and because convoys head through Suez. The downsides are fewer axis shipping losses (of which the fuel tankers are probably most important), being stuck with the long route (no possibility of Tiger convoy).
Also, a French-held Malta would be defended by the French airforce. Passable planes for two to five years ago, if only someone had delivered the propellors/ guns/pilots/leadership, or had actually realised they could leave the airfield and make sorties...
This would leave Malta very vulnerable to bombing which in turn would limit the value of the harbour.
I may be being harsh on the French air ministry, but based on the airforce performance in OTL France, I suspect not.