>biggest conflict of the Cold War >all of the major communist

Ho Chi Mihn had his shit together.

>>1159808
maybe because the communists were a bit less unified than the western forces?
this was post-sino-soviet split, right?

>>1159808
Because only on 4chan is it normal to see someone being stupid, and try to one up them by being stupider.

First of all, communist unity was never a real thing.

Secondly, the communists actually valued good relations with the US over some foreign shithole.

Third, why intervene when you're winning as it is.

File: 1462750308617.png (659KB, 779x784px) Image search: [Google]

659KB, 779x784px

>Vietcong still won regardless of their lack of support

ayy
I mean you could argue that they didn't even need the others for help

>>1159808
>Sweden supporting the commies

File: teehee.jpg (33KB, 298x312px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 298x312px

>>1159808
>Sweden

>>1159853
>>1159863
PERFIDIOUS SVERIGE

>>1159808
Reminder that the US won

>>1159808
The Chinese had 500,000 support troopers, the Soviets sent tons of cutting edge supplies, the East Germans had the Stasi teach torture techniques to the NVA, which they used to extract info from American POW's.

They basically did everything they possibly could have without the war becoming hot.

>>1159850
They got huge support, the Vietcong was a small part of the NVA, who did most of the actual fighting.

>>1159808
What is the eternal Swede doing???

>>1159853
>>1159863
>>1159866
>>1159900
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/sweden-announces-support-to-viet-cong

They were even pussies when it came to supporting the reds.

>>1159808
>The United States threw everything they had at this war
>nearly half of all draftees went to Europe
>another untold amount were sent elsewhere
>troops in Vietnam didn't get the most up to date planes, tanks or equipment
>no nukes
>no cruise missiles
>didn't bomb most of North Vietnam until the very tail end of the war
Yeah, we sure threw everything we had into that one.

Sarcasm aside, we half assed the shit out of Vietnam. If we had actually put our back into it, the war would've either been over in a month with US victory or you wouldn't be able to post right now because nuclear holocaust.

>>1161064
Ah yes, the classic 'we lost on purpose, we weren't even trying'

>>1161082
Strawman as fuck. Stating that Vietnam was a shit show is not the same as saying we lost on purpose. There's no way we could've allocated all of our forces to Vietnam. Especially when you consider the time frame. When we first got into Vietnam, the reds crushed a workers revolt in East Germany. When things initially escalated the wall had just gone up. During the period of troop surges, the Soviets had heavy troop movements in Eastern Europe. There's a reason that we had to half-ass it, but that doesn't change the fact that we half-assed the shit out of it.

File: SEATO.jpg (60KB, 272x736px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 272x736px

>>1159808
2 Things.
>SEATO/Manila Pact.

Basically if shit starts in SEA, Manila Pact members would rally to each other's defense. Commies don't have this in SEA (since, there's only 1 commie country there.)

However, unlike NATO, SEATO turned out to be a massive failure as only Philippines and Thailand were the only Southeast Asian members willing to join due to their hardline stance versus gommies. Muslim countries Indonesia and Malaysia were pissed off with USA for supporting Israel, and the presence of Brits turned them off further, particularly Burma. In addition, the big size of Indonesia and the unrest in Burma meant they're more concerned with their own hides. India wanted to be a fencesitting Neutral, and Singapore as well.

>Escalation
Commies don't want escalation as much as the US wants to, as it turned out.

However there were shitloads of advisors in Vietnam from Chinese and Soviet Armies.