A siege Malta did not need

Malta's flag debate is broader than anyone has recognised. It not only centres on the appropriate symbols for the national flag but necessarily forces the Maltese to re-examine and, in many cases, re-educate themselves on the warts-and-all relationship Britain had with Malta. The debate has nothing to do with determining the good guys and bad guys of World War II - that was determined long ago. What has not been determined, indeed not even questioned, is the responsibility Britain had in Malta's belting during World War II.

Britain's Teflon armour and strong deodorant has enabled it to emerge through the Malta Siege pristine clean, pleasantly fragrant and, most emphatically, Malta's saviour. Those who doubt this need only read the plethora of books written predominantly by British authors on the siege of Malta to learn what "Malta owes to Britain".

Who can deny it was overwhelmingly British ships, aircraft and service personnel that took the fight up to the Fascists and the Nazis? But what is conveniently overlooked is that Britain initially placed Malta between the Fascist rock and the British hard place.

Consider these two scenarios that share a common result.

The first scenario has Malta receiving what was rightly hers and for which she petitioned Britain for almost 150 years: independence and self-rule before the outbreak of hostilities in 1939.

The second scenario has the British Foreign Minister, Anthony Eden, succeeding in his bid to have Malta traded to Benito Mussolini in return for Italy's neutrality in the looming conflict between Britain and Germany.

In the first scenario, the interests of Malta and the Maltese would have been paramount in the minds of the Maltese government as they deliberated on what action to take in response to the impending war on its doorstep. This is a vital and fundamental difference to what actually happened when Malta's British rulers made decisions that affected Maltese lives, property and well-being, entirely in the interest of Britain and her empire without consulting the Maltese. It was typical big power arrogance that historians have failed to recognise and condemn.

It is entirely feasible, and most probable, that the hypothetical Maltese government would have opted for some accommodation with Italy, which would have resulted in the Italian occupation of the island. It would not have been to the liking of the majority of Maltese but it would have been the sensible thing to do and in the best interests of Malta and the Maltese.

When a small nation is faced with overwhelming might it commits national suicide to resist. Brave announcement of "fighting to the last man and the last shilling" are only made by generals and politicians who have their vehicle idling nearby for a quick escape.

Malta on her own was no match for Italy. The British government had long considered Malta to be indefensible against the Fascist forces to the north. That is why it chose to reallocate the Mediterranean fleet to Alexandria. If Britain doubted it couldn't defend Malta then the Maltese would have been certain they couldn't.

The disdain for Italian Fascists by the Maltese was much less before the war than after. It is perfectly conceivable that the Maltese government would have allowed the Italians to take over Malta and the Maltese, although secretly resentful, would have allowed it. They would have been powerless to do anything else. The Maltese could have waited for the Fascist storm by keeping their head down and mouths closed and spared themselves of the destruction of lives, property, including the famed opera house, and starvation.

It would have been in the Fascist interest to keep the Maltese onside. They would have had gained nothing by brutalising the population and destroying their buildings. After all, by then the Italians would have considered Malta to be part of Italy.

The British and the Americans would have eventually opened the southern front even though it would have taken longer. Malta would not have been bombed by the allies because the Italians would not have stayed around to defend their possession and the Maltese would have welcomed the British and Americans as liberators.

The same would have been acted out with the second scenario in which Mr Eden betrays Malta to Italy.

The British chose not to give Malta independence and to defend, what was then, their possession because they perceived it to be in Britain's best interest. Consequently, Malta had its buildings destroyed and its people killed, terrorised and almost starved to death. The Fascists and the Nazis dropped the bombs but Britain's imperial interests made Malta the target.

Italian Fascism, German Nazism and British Imperialism were responsible for Malta's wartime pain but only Germany and Italy have been chastised. Britain has emerged as the heroic defender of the Maltese when, in reality, the Maltese heroically suffered and endured the Axis onslaught to the enormous benefit of the British war effort.

But then the Maltese got the George Cross, which the British put on the Maltese flag. One cannot ask for more than that. The Maltese have since honoured Britain by retaining the George Cross on their flag. It's a bit like patting someone on the back after he has just kicked you in the groin. Some can make sense of this but I struggle to do the same.