Question: Malta neutral/WWII
- Thread starter scottrich
- Start date
Admiral Halsey
Banned
Could Malta even have been neutral though? Weren't they at the time still a direct part of the empire?
Lets say it became independent in 1919 after some nasty incidents with the Royal Navy. It becomes a free trade port of the Med. No one invades it in WWII-it becomes a way station for everyone's intelligence services.
So if it isn't cutting the North African supply line can the Italian army give the Brit/Commonwealth forces a hard time?
So if it isn't cutting the North African supply line can the Italian army give the Brit/Commonwealth forces a hard time?
The Sandman
Banned
It gets invaded. The only question is who does the invading. My guess is Italy grabs it as one of its opening moves when it enters the war, followed by a British counter-invasion at some later date.
And no, I'm pretty sure the Italians are still screwed. It's still too much distance over horrible terrain with minimal or no infrastructure, and they don't have enough shipping to compensate for that.
And no, I'm pretty sure the Italians are still screwed. It's still too much distance over horrible terrain with minimal or no infrastructure, and they don't have enough shipping to compensate for that.
Redhand
Banned
I actually think that if they have better naval security (avoid Taranto) they could be credible in the Mediterranean and with copious Luftwaffe support, keep the lanes free. Shipping losses piled up higher than Russian attempts to relieve Leningrad over Ladoga once the British were assured naval and air superiority. With the lanes kept open, and Malta presumably seized long before 1940 (Mussolini got away with Albania and Ethiopia, I think the LoN wouldn't stop him taking an independent Malta), a drive on Cairo is very plausible in my opinion if the Italians decide to not be idiots at Sidi Barrani. The Western Desert Corps was laughably understrength at the time and the Italian defeat easily could have been avoided had logistics been treated seriously. East Africa is still probably lost though.
Thanks-I'm also postulating that the Italians don't lose their best general and Graziani doesn't make a appearence. To offset this the Brits don't send anyone to Greece and Italy doesn't send anyone to Russia. DAK is lead by von Thoma with a motorised Jager Division and a grab bag group of non-divisional units(Rommel and forces are sent to Army Group South in Barbarossa). Churchill doesn't sack any one and doesn't interfere(ASB territory, I Know
). Italian Navy more aggressive with more fuel.
). Italian Navy more aggressive with more fuel.I recall once hearing a story that in secret negotiations the British offered Malta to Italy as a gift in exchange for their neutrality in the upcoming war. For whatever reason, the negotiations failed and Malta remained a British colony and key military base. I've not been able to find this since though.
Had it actually happened, Malta would probably still be owned by Italy, and would probably be economically the poorer for it, not having been able to sell itself as a flag of convenience or "offshore bank". WW2 would likely have gone even worse for the Axis, as Britain would have had an entire front less to fight on.
Had it actually happened, Malta would probably still be owned by Italy, and would probably be economically the poorer for it, not having been able to sell itself as a flag of convenience or "offshore bank". WW2 would likely have gone even worse for the Axis, as Britain would have had an entire front less to fight on.
Couldn't happen. Malta had special rights guaranteed it on it becoming part of the Empire. The Maltese, not Britain, had the final say on whether or not they stayed. Westminster could not just hand Malta over to anyone without getting Maltese agreement and they did NOT want to be part of Italy.
Post war, they even asked Britain if they could become part of the UK itself, before opting for independence.
Post war, they even asked Britain if they could become part of the UK itself, before opting for independence.
You are assuming the shipping is the problem.
The worse problems were, in order:
- The hauling of the supplies from Tripoli to the frontlines, by truck. Lots and lots of trucks guzzling lots and lots of fuel. Both the trucks and the fuel were of course not available to frontline units.
- The handling capacity of the Libyan ports.
- The shortage of stuff to be sent.
You want the Italians a better chance in Egypt? Leave Malta to the British and give Libya a coastal railway.
I agree on all counts.
Redhand
Banned
A coastal railway is actually quite doable as the Italians held Libya for quite a long time and at any point could have decided to build one. By the 1920s, it really wouldn't have been all that hard in terms of technological ability to do so. I think a border incident with British Egypt that is quickly resolved without much loss of life could provide the impetus to build a Tripoli to the border railway. The shipping was very much a problem by the time Rommel was holding Tunisia but for the advances into Egypt, you are correct that it was the trucks carrying gasoline that they themselves needed that was the issue.
Stockpiling a huge amount of petrol in Libya before the war starts as Mussolini is perhaps smarter and has more foresight could help Italian performance. I still believe Malta being Italian is quite possible though if Britain for whatever reason grants it independence.
OK, the rail is feasible("Meatball Express"). I Know this is turning into a ASB Italy Wank but:
If the Libyan oil fields could be accessed in the thirties and and motorisation is improved(Lamboghini Lorries) plus armor replacements using Czech t35/38's to replace those god-awful tanks, would that get them to Cairo(not as POW's)?
The British won't be hampered by multiple strategic directives, Wavell and O'Connor stay there, Commonwealth withdrawals would be cut down and they get early Canadian Ram tanks.
With the added oil, Italy can engage in the Med easier(whether they do well is another thing.)
If the Libyan oil fields could be accessed in the thirties and and motorisation is improved(Lamboghini Lorries) plus armor replacements using Czech t35/38's to replace those god-awful tanks, would that get them to Cairo(not as POW's)?
The British won't be hampered by multiple strategic directives, Wavell and O'Connor stay there, Commonwealth withdrawals would be cut down and they get early Canadian Ram tanks.
With the added oil, Italy can engage in the Med easier(whether they do well is another thing.)
All it would take is a behind-the-scenes agreement, and then Britain "fails to effectively defend" Malta against an Italian invasion, followed by a quick neutrality treaty citing other ongoing engagements (ww2 is going on!). It wouldn't be the first time that the British Empire had done something against the wishes of a native population.
Both also start the British think...mmmhhh...I wonder what they are doing that for........
Redhand
Banned
Well this is the standard response to the RN looking at German Naval Expansion in those tedious Unmentionable Sea Mammal threads, but a coastal railway is not an explicitly military undertaking and could even be done in conjunction with the British in the good diplomatic era after Locarno to create an even bigger railway. A large scale colonization effort in the time period, which actually is possible due to population pressures in Italy at the time, would provide ample cover for any such project. Honestly, an expansion of the Italian Navy that included multiple modern aircraft carriers would be much more worrying for the British than any railway.
Besides, despite the paltry numbers the Western Desert Force could manage, they really couldn't get much bigger due to constraints in the budget and worldwide commitments at the time unless they start to train Egyptians, which couldn't possibly have negative consequences, right?
Not too hard. The Italians had a railway line that ran roughly 120 kilometres from Benghazi to Barce, modern day Marj, but by the time the war came around it hadn't been greatly maintained and they had little in the way of engines and rolling stock. The Italians also built their coastal highway that became known as the Via Balbo, simply have them decide to also build a railway line alongside it as they go along.
Since the (quite detailed) recon for the Taranto raid was done from Malta, a neutral (or Italian Malta) probably butterflies that operation, at least as we know it.
I would say Italy lacked the foresight or the proactivty to invade Malta early. The idea was for a quick skirmish on the French border then its off to Paris for a peace conference. Its not like Italy actually expected a war!
In anycase, Italy seemed to have a favorable view of Malta as cultural kin during that time period. Likely more focus on influencing them culturally and politically than through military force.