The George Cross and the Santa Marija Convoy: Comparing Incomparable Things
In April 1942, after months of heavy bombing, Malta was awarded the George Cross. On 15 August 1942, five of the fourteen merchant ships of Operation Pedestal reached Grand Harbour, including the tanker SS Ohio, towed in listing and half-submerged. A candidate has forty-five minutes to answer: 'The award of the George Cross mattered more than the Santa Marija convoy.' How far do you agree? Her revision notes cover the bombing statistics of 1941–42, the food ration, civilian casualties and shelter life, the role of Malta-based submarines and aircraft in attacking Axis supply shipping to North Africa, the failure of earlier convoys in June 1942, and the fact that the North African campaign turned in the Allied favour at El Alamein in late 1942.
1. Before writing, the candidate must decide what 'mattered more' means. Explain how she should do this and what difference the choice makes.
Read the worked answer
She must choose a criterion, because 'mattered' has no single measure, and the two items are not the same kind of thing: one is a symbolic award, the other a physical delivery of fuel and food.
If 'mattered' means effect on Malta's physical survival, the convoy wins. Five ships out of fourteen is a poor return, but the fuel aboard the Ohio kept the island's aircraft and defences running and the supplies postponed starvation; the earlier failure in June 1942 had brought the island close to collapse. Measured in tons, the convoy is decisive.
If 'mattered' means effect on morale and on Malta's standing in the wider war, the George Cross is at least equal. Awarded in April 1942, at the worst point of the bombing, it told the civilian population that its endurance was recognised, and it gave Britain a moral asset in neutral countries, particularly the United States.
A strong answer states the criterion in the introduction and then judges accordingly; it may also legitimately conclude that the two are complementary - the award sustained the will to hold on until the convoy arrived. The weak answer ranks them without saying on what scale, which makes the ranking arbitrary.
2. A candidate objects that the question is unfair because the two things cannot be compared at all. How should a good answer handle that objection?
Read the worked answer
The objection is intelligent but must not become an excuse to refuse the question. It is true that a medal and a convoy differ in kind, and that a comparison of 'more' invites a false dichotomy: recognition and supply are not rivals, and Malta's survival required both. But examiners set the question to test whether candidates can compare on explicit grounds rather than to test whether the comparison is natural.
A good answer therefore acknowledges the difficulty briefly and then makes the comparison workable by converting it into measurable effects: duration of survival, number of people fed, effect on morale, diplomatic value, and causal weight in the outcome. It may also point out a chronological asymmetry - the George Cross was announced in April 1942, before Pedestal in August, so the award cannot have caused the relief, and any claim that it 'saved' Malta must be about morale rather than supply.
What must be avoided is a one-sided answer that describes the convoy in detail and mentions the medal in a sentence, or an essay that spends its length complaining about the question. Marking rewards a stated criterion, evidence on both sides, and a judgement that recognises the category difference it has just described.
3. Another candidate writes: 'Operation Pedestal saved Malta.' Assess this causal claim.
Read the worked answer
It is too strong, though it contains a truth. Pedestal did prevent capitulation at a specific moment: after the failure of the June 1942 convoys the island's supplies were close to exhaustion, and the arrival of five ships including the Ohio on 15 August restored fuel and food for a further period. In that narrow sense the convoy averted collapse.
But 'saved' implies a single sufficient cause, and the historian should test it against alternatives. Malta survived because the Axis decided not to attempt an invasion; because Malta-based aircraft and submarines made the island valuable enough to supply; because earlier and later convoys together kept it going; and because the North African campaign shifted in the Allies' favour from late 1942, reducing the pressure. Had Pedestal failed, further attempts or a negotiated evacuation might have followed rather than automatic surrender.
The better formulation is that Pedestal removed an immediate threat of starvation rather than settling the island's fate. The candidate should also notice the word 'saved' carries an implicit judgement about British strategy and the sacrifices of the merchant seamen, and that a claim of this type is assessed by asking what would otherwise have happened, and which other causes were doing work.