I have been reading one book which claims that there was a large pro-Italian group in Malta although the majority wanted to stick with the UK.
WI: Rommel was right about Malta
- Thread starter ivanotter
- Start date
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
I don't doubt that, but if I were them I'd keep my sympathies firmly hidden, especially when the bombing starts.
So I wasn't smoking my socks after all. There are references on this. LOL
It is an interesting situation if the Maltese population did not want to get involved and had voted to get the British out. Or maybe enough popular support for a request for withdrawal of British forces.
It becomes a bit more involved somehow.
If Malta should decide to ask Britain to leave, it does not automatically follow that Italy steps in. If Britain has pulled out, Malta becomes irrelevant.
Maybe that is what Malta would want after all? not to be bombed 24/7 but to be left in peace?
It does out another twist to this.
It is an interesting situation if the Maltese population did not want to get involved and had voted to get the British out. Or maybe enough popular support for a request for withdrawal of British forces.
It becomes a bit more involved somehow.
If Malta should decide to ask Britain to leave, it does not automatically follow that Italy steps in. If Britain has pulled out, Malta becomes irrelevant.
Maybe that is what Malta would want after all? not to be bombed 24/7 but to be left in peace?
It does out another twist to this.
People in a siege situation tend not to be very happy about being in a siege situation, period. That doesn't mean that they want a change of rulership, so that they can be in a siege situation with someone different in charge of them, with the bombs and naval shells coming from a different direction and with the United States of America (one of the most powerful nations on Earth at that time) being now on the side against them.
I think few Maltese would be that naive.
What references anyway? The Maltese were happy with the pre-war situation - Church and media all in line. There was a pro-Italian party but it wasn't the threat you need it to be.
And it's too late by the time war comes along.
Well, if the British are off the island, Malta becomes irrelevant.
Why would Italy bother? there is no threat to their shipping to North Africa if the British are off.
I am not clued up on Maltese politics, so please 'educate' me. The analogy is that the Dutch did not trust their local troops when war (and the Japanese) came to their Asiatic possessions.
Could Malta have been something similar? as pointed out, nobody is greatly enthusiastic about having their homes bombed to satisfy a foreign government (i.e. Britain). But was there a growing resentment? highly surprising if not. The question is: how widespread?
Why would Italy bother? there is no threat to their shipping to North Africa if the British are off.
I am not clued up on Maltese politics, so please 'educate' me. The analogy is that the Dutch did not trust their local troops when war (and the Japanese) came to their Asiatic possessions.
Could Malta have been something similar? as pointed out, nobody is greatly enthusiastic about having their homes bombed to satisfy a foreign government (i.e. Britain). But was there a growing resentment? highly surprising if not. The question is: how widespread?
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
Given the strategic position Malta offered both sides, neither would leave it to be occupied by the other. The island was fought over & occupied by many over the centuries because of that.
I found a few nuggets off Wiki:
"The 1930s saw a period of instability in the relations between the Maltese political elite, the Maltese Catholic church, and the British rulers; the 1921 Constitution was suspended twice. First in 1930–32, when British authorities assumed that a free and fair election would not be possible following a clash between the governing Constitutional Party and the Church[48][49] and the latter's subsequent imposition of mortal sin on voters of the party and its allies, thus making a free and fair election impossible. Again, in 1933 the Constitution was withdrawn over the Government's budgetary vote for the teaching of Italian in elementary schools, after just 13 months of a Nationalist administration. Malta thus reverted to the Crown Colony status it held in 1813. "
"The 1930s saw a period of instability in the relations between the Maltese political elite, the Maltese Catholic church, and the British rulers; the 1921 Constitution was suspended twice. First in 1930–32, when British authorities assumed that a free and fair election would not be possible following a clash between the governing Constitutional Party and the Church[48][49] and the latter's subsequent imposition of mortal sin on voters of the party and its allies, thus making a free and fair election impossible. Again, in 1933 the Constitution was withdrawn over the Government's budgetary vote for the teaching of Italian in elementary schools, after just 13 months of a Nationalist administration. Malta thus reverted to the Crown Colony status it held in 1813. "
I don’t think you are going to get a Maltese rebellion. India had a much more developed independence movement and a proportionally smaller British garrison and still produced the largest volunteer army of the war to fight on the same side as the British. In comparison, Malta is an Anglo paradise.
There was no threat to British shipping from Iceland, yet the British invaded anyway.
There was no threat from the Canaries, yet the British supposedly had a force on standby for much of the war.
Malta's strategic value was inherent to its position across shipping lanes and choke points, not a product of its occupancy. Sorry to be blunt but this is a fairly straightforward point.
So it is really full circle again. Not really possible to twist reality.
So Conclusion: Rommel was actually right in not wasting time on Malta (which would have sucked resources and time) but taking the gamble on getting to Cairo with what he had.
Rommel did predict that the British could build up forces faster than what he could (irrespective of Malta - it was also a problem to get things along the only road to hi forces).
The gamble did not pay off, but trying to take Malta in 1942 was probably beyond possible.
I think we can also conclude that Malta could have been invaded in 1940 without too much hassle.
Even with Malta gone in 1940 it is then difficult to see the major difference. The British could and did reinforce via Suez.
... and still Rommel would have based his entire logistics train on one coastal road, never mind what could have been landed at the ports.
(unless of course he could easily get to Alexandria - but that is another thing indeed).
So Conclusion: Rommel was actually right in not wasting time on Malta (which would have sucked resources and time) but taking the gamble on getting to Cairo with what he had.
Rommel did predict that the British could build up forces faster than what he could (irrespective of Malta - it was also a problem to get things along the only road to hi forces).
The gamble did not pay off, but trying to take Malta in 1942 was probably beyond possible.
I think we can also conclude that Malta could have been invaded in 1940 without too much hassle.
Even with Malta gone in 1940 it is then difficult to see the major difference. The British could and did reinforce via Suez.
... and still Rommel would have based his entire logistics train on one coastal road, never mind what could have been landed at the ports.
(unless of course he could easily get to Alexandria - but that is another thing indeed).
I broadly agree. Rommel played a really bad hand well. He could turtle up in Tripolitania, or roll the dice. As it was, he did well enough to prolong the campaign such that the British could not reinforce Malaya. Okay, the beneficiary of this was mainly Japan, but it was still a global war.
Taking Malta in 1942 - or 1941 - is possible, it's just probably not worth it, given what you have to forego - e.g. Crete, or the chance of pushing to Alexandria. Or simply the diversion of resources away from the decisive theatre in the East.
Taking Malta in 1942 - or 1941 - is possible, it's just probably not worth it, given what you have to forego - e.g. Crete, or the chance of pushing to Alexandria. Or simply the diversion of resources away from the decisive theatre in the East.
Fair points, especially about the diversion of British forces from Malaya.
However, for the Germans, could "turtling up" in Tripolitania have been a better option? Rommel's operations required a significant portion of Germany's motorised transport and also scarce fuel. Using these resources in the decisive campaign in Russia could have been the difference between success and failure in 1941, possibly 1942 as well.
It's all very good to pose multiple threats to your enemies. But not if it prevents you concentrating on your prime objective.
I think the RN would beg to disagree with that. Yes, physically it could have been done in 1940, but it would have been a diversion of forces that were already in need of rest after the Battle of France, and which would not then be available to commit to the Battle of Britain, which has the knock-on effect that a lesser panic might not have seen projects like the introduction of the 6-pounder and the Valentine Tank so heavily delayed.
I have a photograph taken by my father, from the turret of his A1 Cruiser tank of the rest of the troop following him though a Maltese village. Unfortunately the file will not up-load here.
marathag
Banned
For the picture limitations, you can load into Paint and do a resize, try around 30% and save that under a new name. Would like to see that