• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Did Hitler Not Take Gibralter and Malta?

Z

Zachariah

Banned
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
117
Reaction score
14
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I understand why he wanted the Suez, but a back plan of seizing Malta and Gibraltar was easily doable, and could be done in conjunction with his North African gambit. He was successful at driving the British out of Greece and off of Crete relatively easily, and Malta and Gibraltar were much less of a challenge. It seems to me an obvious choice, and almost as effective as controlling the Suez if Rommel failed.

Maybe somebody has read why that was the case; I haven't run across any mention of it anywhere..
 
Zachariah said:
I understand why he wanted the Suez, but a back plan of seizing Malta and Gibraltar was easily doable, and could be done in conjunction with his North African gambit. He was successful at driving the British out of Greece and off of Crete relatively easily, and Malta and Gibraltar were much less of a challenge. It seems to me an obvious choice, and almost as effective as controlling the Suez if Rommel failed.

Maybe somebody has read why that was the case; I haven't run across any mention of it anywhere..
Click to expand...

Malta :

The Axis resolved to bomb or starve Malta into submission, by attacking its ports, towns, cities, and Allied shipping supplying the island. Malta was one of the most intensively bombed areas during the war. The Luftwaffe (German Air Force) and the Regia Aeronautica (Italian Royal Air Force) flew a total of 3,000 bombing raids over a period of two years in an effort to destroy RAF defences and the ports.[11] Success would have made possible a combined German–Italian amphibious landing (Operation Herkules) supported by German airborne forces (Fallschirmjäger), but this did not happen. In the event, Allied convoys were able to supply and reinforce Malta, while the RAF defended its airspace, though at great cost in material and lives. In November 1942 the Axis lost the Second Battle of El Alamein, and the Allies landed forces in Vichy French Morocco and Algeria under Operation Torch. The Axis diverted their forces to the Battle of Tunisia, and attacks on Malta were rapidly reduced. The siege effectively ended in November 1942.[1]

In December 1942, air and sea forces operating from Malta went over to the offensive. By May 1943, they had sunk 230 Axis ships in 164 days, the highest Allied sinking rate of the war.[12] The Allied victory in Malta played a major role in the eventual Allied success in North Africa.

Source

Gibraltar :

Operation Felix was the codename for a proposed German seizure of Gibraltar during World War II, subject to the co-operation of Spanish caudillo Francisco Franco. It never went ahead, chiefly because of Franco's reluctance to enter the war. Hitler was unaware that his own envoy, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, head of the Abwehr (intelligence service), was running a secret resistance movement and liaising closely with Franco by specifying particular terms that Hitler was certain to refuse. This ensured that the negotiations would fail.

Source
 
Cisero said:
Malta :

The Axis resolved to bomb or starve Malta into submission, by attacking its ports, towns, cities, and Allied shipping supplying the island. Malta was one of the most intensively bombed areas during the war. The Luftwaffe (German Air Force) and the Regia Aeronautica (Italian Royal Air Force) flew a total of 3,000 bombing raids over a period of two years in an effort to destroy RAF defences and the ports.[11] Success would have made possible a combined German–Italian amphibious landing (Operation Herkules) supported by German airborne forces (Fallschirmjäger), but this did not happen. In the event, Allied convoys were able to supply and reinforce Malta, while the RAF defended its airspace, though at great cost in material and lives. In November 1942 the Axis lost the Second Battle of El Alamein, and the Allies landed forces in Vichy French Morocco and Algeria under Operation Torch. The Axis diverted their forces to the Battle of Tunisia, and attacks on Malta were rapidly reduced. The siege effectively ended in November 1942.[1]

In December 1942, air and sea forces operating from Malta went over to the offensive. By May 1943, they had sunk 230 Axis ships in 164 days, the highest Allied sinking rate of the war.[12] The Allied victory in Malta played a major role in the eventual Allied success in North Africa.

Source

Gibraltar :

Operation Felix was the codename for a proposed German seizure of Gibraltar during World War II, subject to the co-operation of Spanish caudillo Francisco Franco. It never went ahead, chiefly because of Franco's reluctance to enter the war. Hitler was unaware that his own envoy, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, head of the Abwehr (intelligence service), was running a secret resistance movement and liaising closely with Franco by specifying particular terms that Hitler was certain to refuse. This ensured that the negotiations would fail.

Source
Click to expand...

But they made no attempt to seize Malta, which wouldn't have been hard compared to Crete, and Gibraltar was a British possession at the time and 'fair game' that Spain had nothing to do with. With control of Gibraltar, no Operation Torch. With no Malta, no British bases west of Egypt.
 
Zachariah said:
But they made no attempt to seize Malta, which wouldn't have been hard compared to Crete, and Gibraltar was a British possession at the time and 'fair game' that Spain had nothing to do with.
Click to expand...

"Malta was one of the most intensively bombed areas during the war. The Luftwaffe (German Air Force) and the Regia Aeronautica (Italian Royal Air Force) flew a total of 3,000 bombing raids over a period of two years in an effort to destroy RAF defences and the ports."

It kinda sounds like they did try to seize Malta, no ?
 
Cisero said:
"Malta was one of the most intensively bombed areas during the war. The Luftwaffe (German Air Force) and the Regia Aeronautica (Italian Royal Air Force) flew a total of 3,000 bombing raids over a period of two years in an effort to destroy RAF defences and the ports."

It kinda sounds like they did try to seize Malta, no ?
Click to expand...

No, they merely tried to destroy it. No landings were made or air drops; they gave up too early.
 
Zachariah said:
No, they merely tried to destroy it. No landings were made or air drops; they gave up too early.
Click to expand...

The airborne landings at Crete were so costly for the Germans they swore off any large scale airborne operations afterwards. German paratroopers spent the rest of the war fighting as regular ground troops.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
The airborne landings at Crete were so costly for the Germans they swore off any large scale airborne operations afterwards. German paratroopers spent the rest of the war fighting as regular ground troops.
Click to expand...

That makes sense.
 
Zachariah said:
I understand why he wanted the Suez, but a back plan of seizing Malta and Gibraltar was easily doable, and could be done in conjunction with his North African gambit. He was successful at driving the British out of Greece and off of Crete relatively easily, and Malta and Gibraltar were much less of a challenge. It seems to me an obvious choice, and almost as effective as controlling the Suez if Rommel failed.

Maybe somebody has read why that was the case; I haven't run across any mention of it anywhere..
Click to expand...

To take Gibraltar would've required Spain to join the war, which would've just been a net detriment to the Axis powers.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
To take Gibraltar would've required Spain to join the war, which would've just been a net detriment to the Axis powers.
Click to expand...


Why would Spain be involved? Gibraltar was a British possession.
 
Zachariah said:
Why would Spain be involved? Gibraltar was a British possession.
Click to expand...

The only way for the Germans to have any realistic chance at taking Gibraltar would've been through a ground invasion. The Royal Navy would've prevented any naval operation or amphibious landing with ease.
 
Zachariah said:
Why would Spain be involved? Gibraltar was a British possession.
Click to expand...

Because without Spain supplying it and allowing German access to it, England would’ve starved it out, then taken it back.
 
Gibraltar would have required greater cooperation of the Spanish, who at the time under Franco was not interested in making their relationship with Germany anymore than it already was given the fear of Allied retaliation.

1939 to 1940 representatives of the German military and intelligence services communicated and eventually did meet with Franco, but at the time the Germans were in the middle of their air / ground campaign against France and their air / ground campaign against the East. By 1940 ('ish) the majority of France was under German occupation which is what opened up the idea in the first place for Germany to work with Spain. However it took more of Germany's attention to deal with the East than originally planned. Hitler was already fighting a two front war and by most historian's accounts was looking for help from wherever he could solicit it.

Spain was already in debt to Germany for conditions from their civil war prior to WWII, and around the same time Spain suggested they would enter the war along side Germany and Italy at the point that conditions really deteriorated in France. But Spain was in no rush, they were not in the best of shape after their Civil War.

Everything looked to be going Germany's way in getting Spain's cooperation until one small problem showed up. Hitler demanded use (control) of the Canary Islands, that the Spanish Civil War and Franco himself was involved in controlling. Spain already had naval bases in both Morocco and the Canary Islands, and they took Hitler's request to be a launch point into controlling not just the Mediterranean but also North Africa in potential conflict with what Spain wanted all that for.

This was such an important area (for really everyone) that both the British and US had devised plans to deal with the Canary Islands and Gibraltar if Hitler had ever obtained them both.

Hitler and Franco did eventually meet, and ultimately they could not strike enough of a deal to secure Spain's cooperation. This is also an important point, historians argue between Franco stupidly overplaying his hand at demands of Germany or Franco intentionally throwing the deal after a meeting between himself and other German intelligence officers who suggested that Hitler's plans for WWII would eventually fail. No matter which you agree with Hitler's relations with Franco and Spain soured to the point of Hitler's infamous "I'd rather pull my teeth out than talk to that man again" (or something along those lines.)

Hitler did try to push the issue of Gibraltar (historians vary on how this happened,) but ultimately Franco was worried about the UK and their appeals to the US. Franco wanted UK weakened before his nation fired a shot at anyone on the allied side but that did not happen, Hitler going so far as to appeal to Mussolini to help with Franco but Italy was already dealing with their losses to be bothered with that negotiation.

The only option left for Hitler was to make a complete enemy of Franco and Spain, while in the middle of a two front war, and with the UK not falling it was not plausible for Hitler to make yet another enemy out of someone in Europe.

Malta is another matter entirely, being at the south tip of Italy put them in a similar position that Spain found themselves in dealing with Gibraltar and the Canary Islands. But the idea of Malta for Germany hinged on the complete failure of Crete, Germany knew what it would take to remove the UK from controlling it. In fact that move was so predictable that the UK has plans to take it back if they ever lost it.
 
Tom Horn said:
Because without Spain supplying it and allowing German access to it, England would’ve starved it out, then taken it back.
Click to expand...


Spain was already supplying Germany with all kinds of military gear, aircraft parts, etc. Sweden was selling them high quality iron and alloys. We honored neutrals 'rights', since we also operated from there. We did the same in WW I with the Dutch; they imported food from the U.S. so they could sell all theirs to the Germans at a high markup. We never interfered or took away recognition of their 'neutral' status.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
The only way for the Germans to have any realistic chance at taking Gibraltar would've been through a ground invasion. The Royal Navy would've prevented any naval operation or amphibious landing with ease.
Click to expand...

Early on they wouldn't have; otherwise the Africa Korp would have never been able to reach Africa. the only thing that stopped Rommel from taking Egypt was the same thing that stopped the 'blitzkreig' in Russia, massive miles deep minefields.
 
Zachariah said:
Spain was already supplying Germany with all kinds of military gear, aircraft parts, etc. Sweden was selling them high quality iron and alloys. We honored neutrals 'rights', since we also operated from there. We did the same in WW I with the Dutch; they imported food from the U.S. so they could sell all theirs to the Germans at a high markup. We never interfered or took away recognition of their 'neutral' status.
Click to expand...

I realize Spain was allied with Germany. The two entire divisions on the ost front and all. But England would’ve bottled up the German garrison.
 
Zachariah said:
Early on they wouldn't have; otherwise the Africa Korp would have never been able to reach Africa. the only thing that stopped Rommel from taking Egypt was the same thing that stopped the 'blitzkreig' in Russia, massive miles deep minefields.
Click to expand...

Yes, they would've. Defending a very narrow strip of water compared to a whole sea is a different beast all together.

What stopped Rommel in Africa was the same thing at stopped the Ostheer in Russia, poor logistics.
 
Zachariah said:
I understand why he wanted the Suez, but a back plan of seizing Malta and Gibraltar was easily doable...
Click to expand...


OK, tell us how Hitler's military could have taken Malta.
It was anything BUT do-able.


Then tell us how Hitler could have taken Gibraltar without Spanish support.
If Franco had entered the war on the Axis side, the British would have taken valuable Spanish territory in the Atlantic like the Canaries...then after the war got Gibraltar back and Franco loses power.
 
Taking Gibraltar would be near impossible. Far too many resources would be needed for very little strategic gain.

Malta would have been relatively easy but the cost of invading Crete was still on German minds.

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk
 
The Germans held on to strategically important British islands in the Channel for years, from 1940 to 1945. So far, the only sound arguments are that they were timid after Crete. in 1940 the Brits were dealing with Dunkirk and other issues. The Italians held Libya and other bases in North Africa. The Italian Nave wasn't much, but it could hold its own in the Med in 1940. The Germans landed an entire Korps there in 1941. The Brits barely held him off, and as earlier said it was minefields that stopped Rommel, causing the logistical weaknesses to become the dominate factor. Rommel used the same tactic himself around El Alamein, but Montgomery just launched a Soviet style mass assault and sustained heavy losses, but Montgomery could afford them, Rommel couldn't.

And Spain would have been happy to sell support for Gibraltar to the Germans; they sold them everything else, after all.
 
Last edited:
The Channel Islands have no strategic value, being ten miles from the French coast, and 100 from England. That's why Brittany was recaptured, leaving the Channel islands behind enemy lines, so they were retaken without a shot.
 
Zachariah said:
The Germans held on to strategically important British islands in the Channel for years, from 1940 to 1945.
Click to expand...

The Channel islands were not that important, at all.

So far, the only sound arguments are that they were timid after Crete.
Click to expand...

They weren't just timid, they had every reason to not want another island invasion. At Crete thousands of paratroopers had been killed; whereas a year earlier the Kriegsmarine had suffered heavy losses during the invasion of Norway. The Germans had every reason to suspect another island invasion would be costly.

And this was all happening around the time the Nazis were gearing up for an invasion of the Soviet Union. Diverting elite troops to seize Malta at this point would've been a folly.

And Spain would have been happy to sell support for Gibraltar to the Germans; they sold them everything else, after all.
Click to expand...

Spain joining the Axis would only have made things worse for the Axis.
 
My last two posts from a couple of hours ago are not here any more, and no explanation why, either. I guess I'll come back in a few days, since I don't feel like repeating myself over and over and over again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom