"Malta: World War II´s Most Intriguing "What If"?" Topic

"History buffs love to contemplate alternative scenarios. World War II is a particularly rich trove for novices like me to indulge in such debates. Some of the more popular ‘what if?' scenarios include assessing the war's outcome if Hitler kept his tanks rolling to the beaches of Dunkirk in mid-1940, if the Japanese found the American aircraft carriers docked at Pearl Harbor on that infamous December 7, if Hitler focused exclusively on taking out Moscow in late summer 1941 instead of shifting forces to focus on Kiev, if the Germans reacted quicker on D-Day to crush the Allies beachhead, and if America did not have the atomic bomb and attempted an invasion of Japan. Through the years I've consumed countless hours reading about, mulling over, and debating with others such scenarios.

Yet my favorite World War II ‘what if?' scenario is one that does not garner much interest beyond dedicated military history fans and professional historians. It revolves around the tiny Mediterranean island of Malta. The question is a simple one: what if Germany invaded Malta in the spring/summer of 1941 instead of Crete and delayed the decision on invading Russia (Germany's Operation Barbarossa kicked off in June of that year)? I believe the answer is that World War II would've ended up very different, and not in a good way…"

link

Armand

"What if" both Axis and Allies ignored the Med?
I could never understand why it was so important.
Sure, it led to India, but why was that so important in Europe?

Of course, I'm an anti-imperialist Yank, so maybe I'm prejudiced.

Oh, my! The Empire! 😱

I could never understand why it was so important.

It was a much shorter route, via the Suez, from the Dominions and colonies to the UK and vice versa, compared to going around the Cape or Horn- both of which were submarines' favourite hunting places. The less time at sea, the less chance of running into sub's or raiders. In particular it benefitted shipments of perishables, such as grains and vegetables (which refrigeration didn't help), POL, raw and processed materiel (eg rubber and steel), and mineral ores.

So a WII where the Med isn't a vital strategic front, particularly in the early/mid-war years, assumes the UK fell in 1940 and isn't the WWII that happened.

PS You can see some of the effects on global trade when the Gulf of Arabia and/or Hormuz are closed.

Oil supplies could have been key. By 1942, Hitler was obsessed with taking control of the USSR's oil fields in the Caucasus, and he was later preoccupied with protecting the Rumanian oil fields at Ploesti. The Mediterranean campaign that evolved in the war's early years threatened Britain's control over the Suez Canal (and hence, India) and also could have provided a gateway to the Middle East oil that had been shut down by Britain's seizure of Iraq and stranglehold over the Persian Gulf.

Plus bolstering support to Italy's colonial outpost in Libya and Vichy rule in Tunisia and Algeria and Morocco. Far from a sideshow, the Med theatre was crucial to Allied strategy and might have proved decisive had North Africa and the Near East fallen to the blitzkrieg.

Dal & Piper have given great answers.

I'd stress Italian ambition. Il Duce wanted a "New Roman Empire"
and called the Med "Mare Nostrum": "Our Sea". Don't forget the Regia Marina: a very powerful weapon the British had to deal with without, as planned, French help.

And Mussolini kicked it all off with an attempted invasion of Greece, leading to Crete and the disastrous attempted invasion of Egypt under Marshal Rodolfo Graziani.

So, holding Malta can be seen as holding a key position against Italian & later German aggressors.

Thanks

Armand

You might think that having surprised themselves by beating France so quickly, that was the Nazis set for success.
Another hundred or so types of truck grabbed and they had loads of transport.
But very little fuel.
Nazi germany was still starved of resources and Stalin had got a way better deal out their negotiations.

The whole idea of crete was to protect ploesti.
The nazis main sources of petrol in 1941 were:

Soviet Russia
Ploesti
Coal

And coal was incredibly inefficient

Hitler quite was ( quite rightly ) concerned by the Soviets plans to take over satellite countries.
Supplies from Ploesti would inevitably have to travel through Soviet territory and Stalin was very obviously planning to invade Germany.
On top of that, Italy was losing vs Greece so Greece + Britain threatened Ploesti.

Leaving the Italians to it wasn't really going to work.
They seemed so obviously so inept that they could lose pretty much any encounter with the British.
The Greeks beat em
A very small British force beat em.
Looked rather like Italy itself might be at risk next from Hitler's perspective.

Having said all that. Taking Malta would have helped an awful lot with the desert war. Had Hitler decided to emphasise that more than the offensive into Soviet Russia.
Problem was the way the Soviets were negotiating, it looked like Germany needed to do something about Soviet expansion sooner rather than later.

As an aside. It was complete foolishness not to recruit more from Ukrainians etc who would have gladly helped fight Russia. Foolish not to work closer with the Japanese. Foolish not to try and understand Russian geography.
And a host of other very bad mistakes.

Like completely misunderstanding how far Britain would go to support Poland.

My take:

Best yet for Germany under this scenario, a Malta invasion would've delayed or canceled the disastrous June 1941 invasion of Russia.

That is your problem right there. Hitler wanted to attack the Soviet Union. An unused army maintained at full strength on the eastern front for another year would still have required significant resources. There was the risk that delaying the campaign for another year would give the Soviets more time to prepare for the attack. There was even the possibility the Soviets might launch an invasion of their own. In deciding Crete v. Malta, Barbarossa should be treated as a given, and as Germany's dominant theme for 1941.

From that perspective Greece and Crete make sense. British forces operating out of Greece have the potential to disrupt things in the Balkans. British bombers operating out of Greece or Crete have the potential to reach Romania's oil fields or other sensitive targets. Taking Malta out of the picture does not alter this. Taking Greece and Crete out of the picture does.

Thanks also…

Armand