Why didn't the Germans invade Malta?

[Shc]

Sorry to be brief but I'm quite curious why the Germans never took over Malta.

Thx,
Jose.

[Jon G.]

It might be more prudent to ask why the Italians didn't try taking Malta. It was not very heavily defended in 1940, and the British even considered voluntarily abandoning the island until January 1941.

German involvement in the Mediterranean only really began in 1941, and by that time the opportunity to take Malta easily had already passed - and it would also have involved close cooperation with the Italians, something the Germans perhaps were less inclined to do after Mussolini attacked Greece without warning or informing the Germans first.

Regardless, attacking Malta was still considered after the conquest of Greece in 1941 - but Student commanding the German paratroopers wanted to go for Crete instead. He maintained the Crete would be an easier target because it had not been a Royal Navy base for years - you could probably also add in reservations about possible security liabilities stemming from involving the Italians more closely; something that would have been a necessity if the Germans had decided to go for Malta as stated above.

Ironically, the British knew just about everything about Operation Merkur thanks to Enigma.

[WalterS]

In his memoirs, "Ten Years and Twenty Days," Admiral Dönitz is very critical of the failure, principally of the Italians, to take Malta very early before British air and sea power built up in the Med. Because of this failure, Dönitz says, he was compelled by higher authority to shift many U-Boats to the Med at a time when the U-Boats were having significant successes in the Atlantic. He says that this was a grave mistake.

[Drobjatski Sergei]

A.Kesselring was making many atemps of proving to the OKW, that the assault on Malta is necessary. But the high command was afraid of new paratrooper's operation after losses on creete.

[Comsat Angel]

To have dealt with Malta would have meant a combined Italo-German invasion with paratroops, amphibious landings, mass air attacks, etc., etc. A complex operation with no guarantee of success and likely to suffer heavy casualties whatever the outcome - reasons why the Axis would not want to attack.

I also believe that Rommel had initially agreed to suspend operations if he captured Tobruk, to allow planning and forces for an attack on Malta to be prepared. However, after capturing Tobruk, he disregarded earlier plans in search of a quick victory, going haring off after the 8th Army. Since this looked feasible at the time, there was less pressure for an attack on Malta.

As mentioned above, the casualties suffered on Crete were persuasive in avoiding an attack on Malta.

[The Argus]

So in short:
1. OKW didn't care enough about a sideshow

2. The Germans after the mauling on Crete were short of paratroops and Ju-52's given the demands of Russia.

3. It would have demanded at least a full Luftflotte - see Russia

4. Malta was a fortress, unlike Crete the engineers had been working for centuaries to build it's defenses and the British had added their share in recent times. Tactically speaking it was a defenders dream unless faceing armour.

5. By the time anyone looked seriously at doing it, they'd already missed the boat.
- Defences and Garrision were ready for invasion
- Axis lacked sea and airlift + troops

6. The majority of the invasion force would have been Italian and OKW didn't trust them.

7. Any invasion would have exposed the Italian Fleet to RN/RAF interdiction

8. Rome and Berlin couldn't get their act sorted out.

9. The flood of events just left Malta not important enough to be worth the investment.

shane

[Jon G.]

Hi Shane,

So in short:
1. OKW didn't care enough about a sideshow

Perhaps valid enough, but they did care enough to take Crete in 1941. And quite serious preparations went on well into 1942: commissioning Pz IVs with extra front armour and organizing the Ramcke parachute brigade, and also the 1942 transfer of a Luftflotte from the East and Kesselring's appointment as Oberbefehlshaber Süd.

2. The Germans after the mauling on Crete were short of paratroops and Ju-52's given the demands of Russia.

Maybe an issue in 1942, though steps were taken to rectify that. Originally, in 1941, it was a question of whether to go for Malta or for Crete.

3. It would have demanded at least a full Luftflotte - see Russia

The Germans did send considerable air forces to the Med in 1942, including transports that were used to resupply Rommel.

4. Malta was a fortress, unlike Crete the engineers had been working for centuaries to build it's defenses and the Poms had added their share in recent times. Tactically speaking it was a defenders dream unless faceing armour.

That was Student's view too, and he managed to persuade Hitler that Crete was more desirable. Regardless, the island's defenses weren't as strong in 1941 as they were in 1942. It was easier to isolate and starve Malta than it was to put Crete under siege.

5. By the time anyone looked seriously at doing it, they'd already missed the boat.
- Defences and Garrision were ready for invasion
- Axis lacked sea and airlift + troops

The Italians could probably have taken Malta easily in 1940. The Royal Navy considered the island indefensible due to the proximity to Sicily and the Italian airforce. Consequently, the RN's Med fleet relocated from Malta to Alexandria, whose facilities were poorer, already in 1940. In fact, it was considered abandoning Malta altogether.

By 1941, when the Brits had decided to hold Malta, it was a much tougher nut to crack - though if the Germans had decided to make the supreme effort on Malta instead of on Crete, I think they could have taken the island. It's so close to Sicily that the RN probably would not have been able to stop the sea part of the invasion, as they did when the Germans went for Crete instead.

And in 1942 it would have been harder still to take Malta - yet it appears that the Germans were still prepared to do it, with the preparations I mentioned above.

6. The majority of the invasion force would have been Italian and OKW didn't trust them.

I don't think mutual mistrust was so deep as to prevent mutual planning on things. Cooperation was quite close in North Africa, where the DAK relied on the Italian Navy for the delivery of its supplies. Also, the 1942 preparations show that it would probably have been a mostly German invasion force.

7. Any invasion would have exposed the Italian Fleet to RN/RAF interdiction

Well, wouldn't a successful invasion of Malta have prevented just that?

8. Rome and Berlin couldn't get their act sorted out.

I think it would have been tried if it was only Rome and Berlin who had to agree. I think local commanders were more reluctant about close German-Italian cooperation than Hitler and Mussolini were.

9. The flood of events just left Malta not important enough to be worth the investment.

Well, Hitler never fully committed to a Mediterranean strategy, but Mussolini certainly did. Considering how things transpired in 1943, Malta would have been very nice to have as a bulwark against an Allied invasion of Sicily, for example.

[Andy H]

Malta would have been very nice to have as a bulwark against an Allied invasion of Sicily, for example.

I think that the Allied forces would have by-passed Malta on its way to invade Sicily. Given Allied air/sea power the Italian intervention would be minimal

Andy H

[JeffreyF]

Also, the 1942 preparations show that it would probably have been a mostly German invasion force.

The Germans must have been planning to throw several divisions into the invasion then. From what I've seen listed this wasn't the case. They would of course had to carry the burden in the air, but otherwise it looks to have been mostly Italian troops involved. However as already pointed out with the Americans involved and the size of the USN it was game over anyways.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=55655

[Andy H]

and the size of the USN it was game over anyways.

I could be wrong but the RN within the Med was still bigger than that of the USN?

Andy H

[JeffreyF]

I don't recall off the top of my head. It was more a less a comment that between the RN and USN ships there was no hope of keeping a Garrison on Malta supplied adequately for very long.

Even if the island had been occupied I'm curious as to the fate and disposition of the civilians. Iirc the Maltese had no qualms about taking out their frustrations on captured pilots. Would they have remained docile or would the German and Italian occupation troops have had to resort to ugly methods to keep the population civil. Especially once food becomes an issue.

Kind of seems like the best bet would have been to go in destroy port and airbase facilities, move in block ships or something to deny the harbor entrance for awhile and then get out of dodge.

[Jon G.]

Malta would have been very nice to have as a bulwark against an Allied invasion of Sicily, for example.

I think that the Allied forces would have by-passed Malta on its way to invade Sicily. Given Allied air/sea power the Italian intervention would be minimal

Andy H

I think that would depend on the state of the Italian navy in 1943. Even if it had only been a fleet in being with an advance force on Malta, dealing with it would have been necessary before launching Husky. Maybe the Allies would have aimed for Greece and/or Yugoslavia instead if they still wanted to try the soft belly strategy.

Even if the island had been occupied I'm curious as to the fate and disposition of the civilians. Iirc the Maltese had no qualms about taking out their frustrations on captured pilots. Would they have remained docile or would the German and Italian occupation troops have had to resort to ugly methods to keep the population civil. Especially once food becomes an issue.

Keeping Malta with food and other necessities would have been much easier for the Italians than it historically was for the Brits. It's practically next door to Sicily.

I don't know how the Maltese would react to occupation forces? But if occupied France can be used as an example, Italian rather than German occupation would probably have been preferable to the local population.

[Michael Emrys]

and the size of the USN it was game over anyways.

I could be wrong but the RN within the Med was still bigger than that of the USN?

By a comfortable margin, at least prior to 1943.

BTW, AIUI, the primary reason for going after Crete was to eliminate it as a British bomber base, from which Hitler feared that the oil fields of Ploesti could be attacked.

[Michael Emrys]

Even if it had only been a fleet in being with an advance force on Malta, dealing with it would have been necessary before launching Husky.

It would have probably gotten the same treatment as Pantelleria...with similar results.

Maybe the Allies would have aimed for Greece and/or Yugoslavia instead if they still wanted to try the soft belly strategy.

I am extremely sceptical of that likelihood. The Americans were dead set against getting involved in the Balkans, and reluctant to go into Italy. The strongest argument in favor of the Italian strategy was that it would knock one of the major members of the Axis out of the war. That is not the case with Greece or Yugoslavia. Plus, it would have simply been more difficult to mount operations in those countries. Without bases in Italy, probably prohibitively so.

[Andy H]

and reluctant to go into Italy. The strongest argument in favor of the Italian strategy was that it would knock one of the major members of the Axis out of the war.

Yet during the ABC 1 conference it had been agreed that Italy could be knockd out of the war early. Also I think that Italy proved (especially for the Americans) and useful learning tool in terms of war fighting-Command & Control structures, Logistics, Civilian admin etc etc

Andy H