Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Douglas MacArthur is handling his job as president?

  • Approve

    Votes: 143 76.9%
  • Disapprove

    Votes: 43 23.1%

  • Total voters
Could we get a larger use of Harry Angliser and the proto form of the DEA, as a full-fledged mob assaulter? Perhaps Angliser to become a supporter of more moderate religious and civil rights leaders.
Next time an American President says 'Or Else' believe him
It's now known what that 'Else' looks like
Nassar thought Dugout Doug was bluffing.
a mistake.
To be fair, in this case, I think that it wouldn't matter at all. Cause, even if he would have believed/assessed correctly Mac's ultimatum, Nasser, aside his trust in his cause; was out of options and even at risk of his life, he cannot back off, and be perceived as unfit to his leadership position, and/or as submissive before the Western/US menaces.
Last edited:


Honestly this would be the moment to carve out a Coptic Egyptian state in the north of the country in order to permanently secure the Suez for the West as well as to forever end the threat of Egypt to Israel’s southern flank without having it give up the Sinai.

However this course of action would place the rest of Arabia in the Soviet bloc or in a nascent Islamist block for the foreseeable future
Something I would like to see is the American order of Battle in the Egyptian War (British, French and Israel are the same as OTL, right?)
Something I would like to see is the American order of Battle in the Egyptian War (British, French and Israel are the same as OTL, right?)
The British have a larger paratrooper force compared with OTL (IIRC their main paratroop unit was tied up with the disputes in Cyprus, which isn't the case here), and roughly their OTL infantry force. French aren't in. Israel is the same as OTL.
I don't actually have an American OOB, other than to say "five division force, a bit more than 100k men". Clark Ruffner commands one of the two corps being used (in particular, the first corps to land and thus the main force used to take Alexandria), and Abrams has one of the divisions under him.

Part VI, Chapter 48

September 3, 1956

“It’s your turn now, Anthony.” Winston Churchill said. “Tomorrow, I will offer my resignation to the Queen. We’re due for an election next month, and at my age… well I imagine the world is well and truly sick of hearing my voice.”
“Winston, the world will never be sick of your voice.” Eden replied, to which the two men laughed. “Before you do go, do you think you could do something for me?”
“What is it?” Churchill asked.
“Could you ask MacArthur to stop his air attacks in Egypt?” Eden asked. “For the love of God, they’ve already counted past 5,000 casualties in Alexandria. We’re not even in Cairo yet but there’s got to be thousands more there.”
“Haven’t you asked him yourself?” Churchill asked. “He knows full well you’ve been in charge of the war since day one.”
“I have. Many times.” Eden said. “Most of the time I just get that dunce Almond, who would be a better listener if he went completely deaf. The two times I’ve actually reached MacArthur he went on and on about there being no substitute for victory. He doesn’t realise, or just doesn’t care, that every civilian he bombs is causing us more trouble with the Arabs everywhere else. I tried to tell him about those bombs they found in Iraq, but he won’t listen to me. Please, it has to come from you.”
Churchill sighed. “I just don’t think it is a good idea.”
“Why not?” Eden said.
“Because MacArthur has been fighting wars since the beginning of the century. Few men have ever enjoyed a history as long, or as successful, as his military career. I’m sure he believes the bombings of sound military importance, and I would recommend against urging their interruption.” Before he finished, Churchill paused, as if he did not want to utter the sad words that followed, for fear of disappointing his friend, and perhaps himself. “Anthony, you are the leader now. I trust you will do what is right for the country. But remember that our best days are behind us. The Empire, much as I regret it, is leaving us, and without it, what will be our place in the world? Alone, we will look like a relic next to the Americans and Russians. With the United States beside us, we may yet stand proudly as an ally.”


Charles de Gaulle held exactly the opposite view.

Since taking power in May, the French leader’s attention had been wholly focused on the many domestic issues troubling his nation, from the budget deficits to the war in Algeria to the writing of the new French constitution. With the exception of his three trips to Africa, and an initial press conference shortly after the National Assembly granted him the effective right to rule by decree for six months, he had maintained little media presence. The Anglo-American ultimatum to Egypt, and the Soviet intervention in Iran, had been met only with short statements from his office, condemning both actions. MacArthur and Malenkov had both ignored him. Egypt descended into war, which by September 4th saw Allied forces reach the outskirts of Cairo, while Iran saw the deaths of thousands of protestors and the anti-communist rebellions crushed. Yet De Gaulle was no man to be ignored, and when he gave his first press conference in more than three months, he was announcing not just the creation of a new constitution, but a new path forward for his nation:

“...It should be known that in three years in Algeria, more than one thousand French civilians have been killed. More than eight thousand Muslims, men, women and children, have been massacred by the rebels, almost always by throat cutting. What a hecatomb that country would know if we were stupid or cowardly enough to abandon it!
“What is our policy? Our policy is peace. The rebels have fought courageously, but continued fighting will accomplish nothing more than continued death and devastation. The time has come for the peace of the brave. The rebels have proclaimed their desire for peace, and the door to negotiation is open. I ask them now to come to Paris. Stop this absurd fighting. What I seek, as surely as the men and women of Algeria seek, is a transformation of this country. If the French people give their blessing to the new constitution, my intention is nothing less than the greatest practical measures: to raise the living standards of Algeria so that they are equal to those of Metropolitan France. These are lofty goals, and they are goals that will only be achieved by a close solidarity with France. Why gamble on the spirit of revolt when France already has the will and the means to accomplish these goals?
“Beyond our shores, our policy is peace. The path to peace, the path to prosperity, lies not in conflict but in negotiation. We can all see the results when this path is ignored. On the matter of the Suez Canal, a business deal conducted in the usual manner and with a proper offer of compensation by the Egyptian government, there was no attempt to negotiate. Only the presentation of a list of demands, followed by the merciless bombardment of the ancient cities of Alexandria and Cairo. In Iran, when the people asked for change, they were not granted an audience, only the invasion of Russian tanks by the hundred, and Russian soldiers by the thousand. Is this how civilised peoples behave? I say No!
“Where can these incitements, where can this cycle of violence lead, but to a universal cataclysm? Only two paths lie open to the human race today: war or brotherhood. In Algeria as everywhere, France, for her part, has chosen brotherhood. Long live the Republic! Long live Algeria and long live France!”


De Gaulle’s speech suffered the same fate any other unwelcome news did in the MacArthur White House. Like the reports that the Democratic Party was using his refusal to campaign for Knowland in the Stevenson ads, or the anti-war announcements made by Drew Pearson, the French leader’s criticism of MacArthur’s war went ignored. Pushing his remaining domestic responsibilities onto his subordinates, the President concentrated entirely on the war effort. Even after nearly four years in civilian office, MacArthur’s long history as a General had never been far from his mind. His nation was at war, and as the Commander-in-Chief, it was his duty to command the armies. He outranked the Joint Chiefs, so he had no problem with overruling them, especially after he had peacefully resolved the Formosa Crisis of 1954 over their nearly-unanimous objections. He had worn stars on his shoulders longer than most of them had worn the uniform, so he didn’t feel the need to consult them for advice. Most of the time they were simply bypassed, as he gave orders directly to his two corps commanders in Egypt (despite what he had said about giving General Keightley the overall field authority). George Stratemeyer, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was the only exception, but as a MacArthur crony whose loyalty was matched only by Willoughby and Almond, he rarely so much as considered a dissenting opinion to any of the President’s ideas, and voiced none.
It should have been the recipe for a total military disaster, but astonishingly, the result had been quite the opposite. The battle of Alexandria had met the most optimistic of predictions when it was won in just four days, and little more than a week later the American column had reached the outskirts of Cairo. Some of this success was the product of MacArthur’s experience: amphibious landings had been a key part of soldiers’ training since he took office, and the President had a keen eye for promoting talented officers, giving Clark Ruffner a corps and Creighton Abrams a division. Yet much of MacArthur’s success was also the failure of the Egyptian commander Abdel Hakim Amer.
Field Marshal Amer had proven himself to be a man of limited military talent, who owed his rank more to his close association with Nasser than to any great competence. His latest blunder had been to order the bulk of the Egyptian Army, which still outnumbered (if only slightly) the British and American forces now that Israel had ceased its advance, to assemble halfway between Alexandria and Cairo for a grand battle, only to witness the Allies’ superior mobility allow them to outmaneuver the Egyptians and their bombers destroy everything in sight. Amer’s army was quickly broken.

Not that it mattered a bit.

Unlike MacArthur, Nasser had not ignored De Gaulle’s speech, and instead recognised it as possibly the most powerful weapon he had to use against the Allies. The combination of MacArthur’s invasion of Egypt and Malenkov’s invasion of Iran had created a feeling throughout amongst Arab peoples that the Great Powers had turned against them, but now France was on their side. Egypt was not alone. The legitimacy of their struggle was assured.
Nasser quickly had De Gaulle’s speech translated into Arabic and English, printed on leaflets and distributed throughout Cairo. His regular army had been shattered, but the peoples’ war was more alive than it had ever been. Alexandria had been taken before the strategy had been able to be used to full effect there, but the people of Cairo had more than two weeks to prepare. Weapons were distributed, supplies were hoarded and hidden, and thousands of Egyptians readied themselves for what would be the greatest battle of their history.


That battle began with the encirclement of the city, completed on September 7th as the British and Americans linked up at the Nile to the city’s south. Surrounding Cairo would prevent the “peoples’ warriors” from acquiring more weapons, and trap Nasser inside. It would allow the Allies to attack Nasser’s remaining forces from every direction, with the full weight of their superior firepower. Yet MacArthur knew the fighting would be difficult - Alexandria, Port Said, Ismailia had all been warnings - and when he gave the order to storm Cairo, he chose a code word that evoked memories of carnage to anyone who had been there in 1945.

True to the warning, over the next four weeks Cairo became a charnel house. The B-52 raids ended as Allied troops pushed into the city, but smaller bombers and artillery fire remained a common sight as each group of “peoples’ warriors” were found and killed. Property was rarely spared: his efforts to save Manila’s old buildings had been faced with a grim warning of two divisions dead, and he needed no such warning eleven years later. Civilians were caught in the crossfire by the thousand, never the targets but indistinguishable from Nasser’s fanatics. Even ‘captured’ districts were rarely free from the scenes of battle, as “peoples’ warriors” hid in the rubble while the armies passed, only to strike from the rear. General Keightley would declare the battle over with Field Marshal Amer’s surrender on October 6th, but many would never lay down their arms. Peoples’ War was no longer the name of a strategy. It had become the name of a movement.


October 15, 1956

Douglas MacArthur stood silently as he looked out the Oval Office window at the city of Washington. The report on his desk could wait. Charles de Gaulle, in what could only have been a fit of shortsightedness, had announced France’s immediate withdrawal from the NATO command structure. All he had done for France, fighting to defend them in the Great War, his efforts to protect them against communism as President, meant nothing to the French leader, who was ordering all American troops to leave the country. Most of what had been the French garrison was in Egypt, the rest would be redeployed to Italy as a temporary measure. The election was three weeks away. It would be up to the next President to determine America’s future position in Europe, and in the world.
“Sir?” Ned Almond asked, presumably standing in the doorway.
“What is it?” MacArthur asked, without turning to face his loyal chief of staff.
“President Naguib, sir.” Almond said. “Nasser has been found dead in the wreckage of Asyut. He must have slipped out of Cairo before the battle, and they think one of our B-52s got him.”
“I have a statement prepared.” MacArthur said. Two weeks earlier, he had been in Egypt to announce Naguib’s restoration as Egypt’s leader - as Nasser’s predecessor, and the only prominent figure not associated with either the communists, the Muslim Brotherhood or the Peoples’ Warriors (as Nasser’s supporters now called themselves), he had been the only alternative to the hated monarchy, the only leader who would be acceptable to both the Allies and the Egyptian people. But MacArthur’s thoughts were elsewhere. “How the city has changed.” he said distantly.
“Sir?” Ned Almond asked.
“The city of Washington,” MacArthur explained. “I remember the day I first came here as a schoolboy, all the way back in 1889. Back then, this had not been a big city. It seemed so quiet, so peaceful compared to the forts in the West where I had grown up. How naive we are when we are young.”
“Sir, there is peace now, here and in Egypt.” Almond said. “We’ve won. With Nasser gone, the war is over.”
MacArthur shook his head. He had seen too much, of both the very best and the very worst the world had to offer, and it was never that simple. Cairo had brought victory, it had ended the threat to the canal, but it had cost 150,000 lives that would not soon be forgotten. Perhaps, if his successor continued his efforts to rebuild Egypt, that country might see peace. But across the world…
“It is like Plato once said. Only the dead have seen the end of war.”

What a tremendous ending to a interesting and different take on not just the Korean War but the 50s and the Cold War as well. I came here to read about the idea of Patton in Korea and stayed through to read about Douglas MacArthur as President. I especially liked reading the British and France points of view. Fantastic work my friend. Can't wait to see what you next write about.
Egyptian: Are you sure about that?
It is Almond saying that ;)

Bravo! Tour de force in AH.
Thanks for the kind words :) Glad you liked it!

I hope it will be the end.......... or not
48 is going to be my final chapter. History of course doesn't stop.....


I've reopened the poll in case anyone has changed their view of His Majesty the President now that the story is finished :) Be very interesting to see what happens there!

Bravo! Tour de force in AH. (I give De Gaulle three months before the alt OAS, CIA or MI6 catches up with him. - Charles Calthorpe/Paul Duggan, you are needed!)
Don't you know our de Gaulle was bulletproof? :cool:

A hubris as bad as Khrushchev's historical. It is rare that an allohistory does hubris. It is rarer that it does it well. MacArthur here isn't choosing to be an idiot. He is doomed to be this man that he is. He resists at times, but turns towards his fate and death is the result.

For eastern bloc analysts, De Gaulle may well look like Tito does to bourgeois analysts of our time. Cairo certainly looks like Budapest. Done with more air power. And less respect for civillians. It is almost as if Manilla was inside Doug always.
Well, with Germany reunified and neutral, and with France out of NATO command structures, it may look in America like MacArthur is the president who lost Europe. Italy, Spain, the UK and the Low Countries are just good as beachheads.
Even though Iran may be messy to them, the Soviets are probably delighted over what's happening in Europe. I wonder how this affects the power games within the Kremlin.
Mac's chickens coming home to roost was long due, but the ironic thing is the full ramifications of Egypt won't be felt for a long time, and then only in comparison to OTL. I get a strong sense that the non-aligned world is starting to think something along the lines of "new boss(es), same as the old boss" about the US and USSR; that they're just a spiffier new version of the old European colonial regimes. Definitely leaves a lot more room for a non-aligned movement to develop, especially once Asia and Latin America start to take off economically. Domestically there will be blowback too; once the press gets in and GI's keep coming home in body bags from a messy postwar occupation some folks are going to wonder why the hell their country carpet bombed a few hundred thousand people to death over a European canal. Others will dig in their heels and double down on victory at any cost. Not an unfamiliar pattern to anyone paying attention to US politics over the past 50 years. Despite the death toll, I think the world may be in a better place overall compared to OTL; the cold war is not nearly as confrontational, the US intelligence apparatus is less wildly unrestrained in overthrowing foreign governments, and the stage is being set for a faster return to a more multi-polar world. Fantastic work overall, and I'd love to see it continued.