Talk:History of Malta/Archive 1

Anyone know why Winston Churchill's objections are relevant, as he wasn't in government in the mid-1930s? DJ Clayworth 15:20, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The complete sentence suggests that Churchil voiced his objections at the beginning of the war: "However, despite Winston Churchill's objections,[citation needed] the command was moved to Alexandria, Egypt, early in the war." [William Thierens, 16 November 2008].

Can't find any reference to there being an Enigma machine on Malta, and it seems unlikely since the machine itself is of no use in the decoding process. However I've found references to Malta being used as a listening post, so I've substituted that. DJ Clayworth 15:34, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I have this bit set that I've seen reference (in some history of Malta in WWII) to a local crypanalytic capability, perhaps on lower-order Italian naval cyphers, or some such. I'll take a look at see what I can find. Noel 12:25, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am interested in doing separate pages on the two great sieges of Malta, those against the Turks, and the Italians/Germans, which are both major and crucial events in world history. From what I've seen, the appropriate title for the first one would be "The Great Siege", or perhaps "The Great Siege of Malta". However, I can't think of a good name for the second one - perhaps "The George Cross Siege", or something? Does anyone else have a better idea? Thanks! Noel 12:25, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For the second article on the ww2 events, you migt want to look at Operation Pedestal first.

Arabs

 * Please see Talk:Maltese_language Srl 16:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Referendum regarding Integration with the United Kingdom
There a whole article regarding the referendum of eu membership why isn't there one regarding the referendum -  Integration with the United Kingdom?

When i tried creating one they deleted it for me.--Gian (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Integration with the United Kingdom
Integration with the United Kingdom

The issue of British assistance to modernise Malta, was still foremost in the political agenda. The Labour Party had won the election with the call for integration with Britain. That would have meant that Malta would get unlimited financial assistance since it would have been considered as part of the United Kingdom. Mintoff's plan failed, for the reactionary forces in Malta, notably the Church, mobilised its strong forces against it. The British Government too realised that what Mintoff had not succeeded in getting in compensation for war damages, he was going to get through the integration plan.

On realising the integration plan failed, Dom Mintoff immediately demanded full independence from Britain.

Meanwhile the Labour Government resigned, and the Islands were run by the British governor.

"While France had implemented a similar policy in its colonies, some of which became overseas departments, the status offered to Malta from Britain constituted a unique exception. Malta was the only British colony where integration with the UK was seriously considered, and subsequent British governments have ruled out integration for remaining overseas territories, such as Gibraltar."

The preceding statements would seem to be not quite correct. The English spent about 800 years trying to integrate their Irish colony into a United Kingdom. Eregli bob 07:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Its simple english, the English tried to lure the irish colony not the english tried to lure the maltese. The Maltese wanted to become part of britain. We were the only country who seriously considered this. What you're not mentioning is that the British weren't really interested in this preposition. In fact the British colony informed the country that the country wasn't of any strategic importance anymore and the military base that alone contributed a quarter of all the employments here in Malta was going to be dismantled. The Maltese reacted really badly due to the projected worse economic problems. However the colonial government continued with its plan by reducing the military services here in Malta (ir-rundown). The Tarzna was given to a private company and started operating with half the number of workers it had before. On seeing this the labour government resigned and the constitution was withdrawn and a state of emergency was called.--Gian (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Eregli bob, Ireland was never a British colony in the sense that Malta was. That doesn't make it right (any more than Indonesia's 'integration' of East Timor was right) but that's the way it was. Gian, you're right, the section should be expanded. Quiensabe (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Eregli Bob, Ireland wasn't a colony in any sense. It was a part of the United Kingdom and sent representatives to the House of Commons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.4.39 (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Mljeta
This Adriatic island's article seems to have claimed both St paul and calypso/Oddysseus for itself. Could someone Maltese with sufficient documentation to back it up please correct them and add it to an appropriate Maltese page? Rhialto 06:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Altough Mljeta was at a time credited with St. Paul's shipwreck. In Malta there is much evidence in archeological remains and tradition, many of them dating to St. Paul's time. This island was mentioned with St. Paul's shipwreck during the time when Malta was under Arabic rule and christians where persecuted.Malteseman1983 17:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Brief "Byzantine" Rule?
Eastern Roman rule lasted from 540 (Belisarius' campaigns) until 870 (Arab conquest). That is 330 years. Arab rule lasted from 870 to 1090. That is 220 years. Yet Byzantine rule is described as "brief", whereas Arab rule is given two paragraphs. I will make some corrections at least.

Neutrality / POV of British rule
The following statements do not conform Wikipedia's policy of neutrality and unbiased writing:

Britain was supposed to evacuate the island, but failed to keep this obligation - one of several mutual cases of non-adherence to the treaty, which eventually led to its collapse and the resumption of war between Britain and France.

Please cite appropriate sources for the foregoing statement. It was not just Malta that Britain was supposed to evacuate, but also Egypt. The resumption of the Napoleonic Wars had to do with matters of equal or greater importance than the British occupation of Malta. The reasons for non-withdrawal were increased hostilities with Napoleonic France, and the fear that the Maltese islands would once again fall to the French. Alexander Ball was initially sent to Malta precisely for the purpose of preparing a full-scale evacuation by British forces. We are doing a disservice by not telling the full story here.

"Although initially the island was not given much importance, its excellent harbours became a prized asset for the British especially after the opening of the Suez canal."

Please cite appropriate sources for the foregoing statement. The strategic importance of the Grand Harbour was never in doubt to Great Britain, France, Russia, Lord Nelson, or Alexander Ball, and the benefits of Malta's harbour was certainly apparent long before the opening of the Suez Canal.

"Home rule was refused to the Maltese until 1921 although a partly elected legislative council was created as early as 1849, and the locals sometimes suffered considerable poverty."

This sentence suggests that the poverty of the locals was a direct result of the refusal to grant home rule, or the creation of a partly elected legislative council. Poverty resulted from overpopulation, and the "varied demands of war".

"Throughout the 19th century, the British administration instituted several liberal constitutional reforms which were generally resisted by the Church and the Maltese elite who preferred to cling to their feudal privileges."

Please cite appropriate sources for the foregoing statement. It might help to give specific examples of the liberal constitutional reforms proposed by the British administration, and evidence of their rejection by the Church or by the "elite" of Malta. I assume by "elite", here, you are referring to the nobles of Malta, since you also refer to "feudal privileges". What specific instances did you have in mind? I do not believe any feudal privileges whatsoever were ever in any danger as a result of reforms proposed by the British colonial government. Far from it. By way of example, Lord Stickland, who by all accounts was an avid supporter of all British proposals, was himself a noble of Malta (Conte della Catena). Moreover, 32 titles of nobility were granted direct recognition by Great Britain.

"In 1919, there were riots over the excessive price of bread. These would lead to greater autonomy for the locals."

This is far too simplistic a statement. Automony was granted, taken away, re-granted, and again removed, based on the needs of the Empire, the War situation, and internal conflict in Malta, long after the 1919 riots, indeed, all the way through to the 1950s. This statement also fails to report the bloodshed of Sette Giugno, which marked a key turning point in Maltese-English relations. A more helpful comment would be an unbiased assessment of the unrest that led to Sette Giugno, and some background information regarding those who promoted the italianità of Malta, versus those who supported increased anglicization. What was the context in which all this occurred? What was happening in Europe (especially in Italy), at the time? What was the position of the Church? What were the governor's primary concerns?

"Malta obtained a bicameral parliament with a Senate (abolished in 1949) and an elected Legislative Assembly, although the Constitution was often suspended, in order that good governance could continue despite interference in politics by the Church and the reluctance of the Italian speaking elite to allow the Maltese speaking majority to freely use their own language."

This sentence contains sweeping statements which are unsubstantiated, and in their present unexplored state, are frankly misleading. These statements suggest that the repeated suspension of the Constitution of Malta was always due conflict with the Church, or conflict with the supporters of Malta's Italian/Latin heritage. If there are specific examples of this, you should refer to them and provide adequate sources. Moreover, the final phrase, regarding "reluctance...to allow the Maltese speaking majority to freely use their own language" is, again, an over-simplification. It denies the fact that for more than 800 years, all the history, laws, and cultural writings of Malta were written in Sicilian or Tuscan Italian. It reduces the entire saga of Malta's language question to a game of "elites" versus "everyone else". Please expand on this story - under the heading Language issue. lamato (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality / POV of British rule RESPONSE
I have added citations/references to all the edits for which I am reponsible, except one which is my opinion against the clearly biased opinion of the original article writer. The British attempts at reform range from the introduction of Jury Trial in 1829 through Freedom of the Press in 1836 to the language reforms and extension of the franchise in the early 20th Century. That these were generally resisted by both the Church and the Maltese "elite" cannot be denied. Some Governors were driven to resign in their frustration. By elite, I mean not only the Nobility but also the educated professionals in Law, Medicine and Education who used their monopoly of Italian to protect their position. Lord Strickland came by his local title through his mother, so whether he can be called Maltese Nobility is open to question. Nevetheless he clearly had the interests of the whole Maltese people at heart, as did his daughter. The root causes of the riots of Sette Giugno (and I do have an "O" Level in Italian) were undoubtedly the unemployment occasioned by the military run down after World War I, coupled with an increase in the price of bread, but the spark was a student demonstration which got out of hand. No doubt the British soldiers over reacted but the elevation of the unfortunate people who were killed to the status of martyrs with the erection of a statue during the Mintoff period shows a childish and insulting understanding of the issues. Dmgerrard 18:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank Dmgerrard - this is a great start. There's lot's more to do on this article as a whole, and so much additional information that can be added that we may eventually have to divide the article into several separate articles.  In the interim, any help you can provide at backing up statements with reputable sources, presenting balanced views, and carefully guarding against POV statements, would be greatly appreciated.  We have a unique problem with regard to Maltese history, due to the small size of the population of Malta, and the strong polarization between two main political parties that have very different views on historical events, their significance, and their root causes.  Nonetheless, we need to ensure that the articles that appear on Wikipedia are balanced and fair.  Thanks again, and keep up the good work.  lamato  (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt this is correct:

The British attempts at reform range from the introduction of Jury Trial in 1829 through Freedom of the Press in 1836 to the language reforms and extension of the franchise in the early 20th Century. That these were generally resisted by both the Church and the Maltese "elite" cannot be denied.

The Maltese Curia, for example, welcomed the introduction of press freedom as it saw it as a way to counter Protestant propoganda which had been entering into the island. As to the reforms being "liberal" -- call me cynical -- but they were only intended to anglicanise Malta. The colonial government cared little about making Malta more liberal. And citing the book of an obsessive imperialist like Harry Luke who is better remembered for his high-handed tactics and transforming Malta into a quasi-police state is hardly the way of substantiating these claims.

Demdem 09:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Come,come Demdem! To call Sir Harry Luke an obsessive imperialist is a bit extreme! He was a distinguished colonial administrator and his Malta book, subtitled "An Account and Appreciation" shows a deep understanding and even love of the Islands. The politics plays only a small part. I cannot believe that the British ever contemplated "anglicanization of Malta", they would have been mad to try!. All they did in that respect was to make proper provision for protestant worship for those who wanted it and a removal of discrimination against those who did not subscribe to the majority faith (Attard P.69). Whilst any Imperial administration will always be motivated to act primarily in its own interests, it is clear that when Britain acquired Malta from the French and indirectly from the Knights, they found themselves with a country which had hardly progressed from the Middle Ages. Their reforms may have been largely intended to preserve a stable military base, but whether intentionally or not, these reforms were liberal and have played a considerable part in allowing Malta to take it's place in the modern world. The interference by the Church in politics may be understandable, but when carried to the extremes of the Pastoral Letter of 1st May 1930, which led to the suspension of the constitution or it's influence on the Integration referendum of 1956, it can reasonably be accused of acting in it's own interests rather than those of the people. Dmgerrard 19:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sir Harry attitude was the patronising attitude of a colonial administrator. He was, yes, attached to the islands but when it came to chosing between love of Malta and love of mother country there was not much competition there: he had no problem tossing whatever reforms had been introduced by his predecessors to build up hus network of street spies and secret police files.

When I said "anglicanisation" I meant all aspects of British cultural, administrative, educational and juridical life with the exception of, perhaps, religion. Even then, the British still tried to control the Maltese Catholic Church as much as was possible acquiring a right -- unique in the Catholic Church, as far as I know -- to be consulted before the appointment of the Bishop of Malta. Thus early on in the 20th century Mauro Caruana was appointed bishop, a man who had spent his life cloistered in a Benedictine convent in Scotland, over the more obvious and popular choice of Angelo Portelli.

The claim that Malta was stuck in the Middle Ages before the Brits came around is also unfounded. By way of example I need only name the Code de Rohan or even the reforms of the short-lived French administration.

Finally, you mention instances of "Church interfence" when I asked for examples of when and how the Church resisted reforms on the part of the colonial government. This is not quite the same and allow me to posit the question again.

Demdem 17:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

To the person that stated that "I cannot believe that the British ever contemplated "anglicanization of Malta", they would have been mad to try!" I can tell you that either the British tried Anglicisation in cultural terms, not Anglicanisation in religious terms. You probably don't even know what eventually kickstarted the Maltese nationalist movement and the famous "Language Question" in Malta. What kickstarted such a movement was the Maltese will for a decent liberal constitution (which was never to be seen and respected by the British prior to the 1964 Independence constitution) with adequate representation and legislative powers that wasn't there to be given, maimed and taken away when British "island fortress" (sic) interests required. However, the main thing that made the Maltese nationalist movement move towards greater organisation and militancy was the British commissioned 19th century Keenan Report which stated black on white that in order to safeguard British Imperial interests the Maltese had to suffer a process of "DEITALIANISATION" (how do you de-something someone if he is not that something in the first place?) and related "ANGLICISATION". So yes the British were madmen bent on destroying 800 years or so of Italian culture and language in Malta, something that no one ever felt the need to do. Considering what the British have done to Malta's proper culture, they were truly madmen but we're the ones suffering the cultural results. Having an English language cultural hegemony is of cultural detriment for the Maltese for anyone not having a merely mercantilistic mentality. Also black on white was the purging from the Maltese language of all romance elements, at a time when the majority of Maltese vocabulary was romance already. Some had even proposed using the Arabic script, but they went too far with that. Such ridiculous notions as the "Punic Thesis" were pushed by local anglophiles with the aid of the authorities as well. Provided also, was the usage of the Maltese language to fool the uneducated masses in order to aid "ANGLICISATION" by removing Italian, however this latter policy didn't start to work until political discrimination was instated against all those that opposed such policies. If the Maltese were truly given a choice, and not by touching on their self-interests through priviledges for lackeys and negative discrimination towards nationalists (the bulk of the population, and not merely the elites), they would have never supported such cultural policies. The results of these policies, are a population which barely knows Maltese in written form (mind you, I'm also including most University students here as well, and this is the factual truth in the Maltese educational system which is practically all in English), a minority of Maltese people whom speak English as their main language in quite a pitiful way, and a general intelligentsia (if they can be called so) who opts to use English and not Maltese when amongst Maltese. Yes, the British contemplated and actuated officially a a much resisted policy of anglicanisation of the Maltese, and the sad part is that in most cases they succeeded. One day these truths will be adequately exposed and the Maltese will truly be free or servile, for our people isn't truly free if it is slave to self-interested imposed cultural manipulations. A culture provides a mentality to a people, what we have nowadays is not our culture or something much more akin to our heritage, thus we aren't free but we live under an illusion of freedom through mere political autonomy (and what a hard time the British gave us to get to that alone, the hard time was something like 164 years, just in case a hard time necessitates continuous bloodshed for some, from day one Maltese leaders sought greater freedoms, after having suffered enourmous losses against the French, the first British reward was 30 years of authoritarian government by "King Tom" Governor Maitland, it started ugly, it didn't proceed better). As a last point, please don't discount British attempts at Anglicanisation in religious terms as well, way back in the 19th century many English language papers had called for that for example, but the response was abysmal and the British soon understood that it wasn't going to work. In that era some British person had even proposed turning St. John's Co-Cathedral to which he was informed of the Maltese reaction towards the anti-Catholic French Revolutionaries, and it stopped at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.158.88.54 (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

French conquest
I've read (see the "Napoleon's Egypt" blog run by Juan Cole) that Malta was surrendered to the French as a result of "intrigues", that Malta was "sold". Napoleon apparently wrote in his memoirs that "the capture of Malta was assured before we left Toulon"; a story is told that when observing Malta through a telescope from ship, an aide says to Napoleon, "it is luck! there is someone to open the gate for us". However, the present article narrates that Napoleon arrived asking for safe harbor for his fleet, then "turned" on his hosts as an act of betrayal; perhaps someone else can find more material on this subject and amplify the section on the French conquest and occupation. glasperlenspiel 15:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Pan Am
I think the reference to the Lockerbie bombing needs to be removed from this page - while Malta is involved to an extent, I think it's far too tenuous a link to warrant its inclusion as a "See Also" page with regard to Maltese history. Snootyjim (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Bilingual headings
Why are the headings bilingual (in English and Maltese)? I don't see this being done on other countries' articles, so why do it on Malta? Quiensabe (talk) 10:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Language before Arabic.
What language was predominant in Malta before the Arabic? СЛУЖБА (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio
The timeline was replaced in this edit by a straight c&p (a dead giveaway are the – despite partial clean-up – still present – and awful looking, by the way – line breaks) from AboutMalta.com.

I propose to simply get rid of the timeline; it is redundant to Timeline of Maltese history, anyway. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Timeline
There is already a Timeline of Maltese history article. I propose that the section here is removed (leaving the link to the other article) while making sure that all events are included in terms of WP:SUBARTICLE. See also talk from last year. Demdem (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

History of independent Malta
Hello Demdem, I noticed you reverted my last edits with the notice ''Edits change the scope of an article on the history of Malta to one on the history of tussles between its political parties. Most of the content is included in the history section of the parties' articles, anyway''. I am trying to improve the last section, which deals with independent Malta, and that is highly defective in the current version. Being Malta a representative parliamentary democracy, it is necessary that political parties play a role in it; you may check the similar sections in the articles on histories of other independent democratic States. Anyway, my work is still ongoing, and I will try to remove all the unnecessary details; as you may see, I am already trying to do so and not simply copypasting. I hope we will be able to collaborate for the improvement of the article, since the current version does not look satisfactory to me. Bests, --Dans (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC) PS: I am continuing working on the last section on my sandbox, feel free to intervene there too.


 * Fair enough. But please make sure that it stays proportionate to the rest both in length and in the importance given to events.


 * Demdem (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Should it become too lengthy, a separate History of independent Malta article may be opened. But this should be discussed later on, eventually. --Dans (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)