Campaign To Suppress Bandits in Northeast China - Nationalists' Strategy

Nationalists' Strategy

Just as the nationalists had attempted to fight guerrilla and insurgency warfare against the communists after being driven from mainland China half a decade later, the grave strategic mistake made by the nationalists contributed at least equally if not greater than the enemy’s political and military pressure to the nationalist defeat in this campaign. The very first strategic mistake made by Chiang Kai-shek and his followers was when they had neither the sufficient troops nor enough transportation assets to be deployed into the Japanese-occupied regions of Northeast China. Unwilling to let these regions falling into communist hands, Chiang’s government ordered these bandits to fight communists in anyway they could. This grave strategic miscalculation resulted in alienation and resentment to the nationalists by the local population, which had already blamed the nationalists for losing the regions to the Japanese invaders during the war. However, the bandits were deeply feared and hated by the local populace they plagued for so long, and nationalist troops left behind joining the bandits certainly did not help them win the support of the general population. In fact, it served the exact opposite, it caused Chiang’s government to lose popular support to the least, if not strengthening the popular support of their communist enemy.

The second grave strategic miscalculation made by the retreating nationalists was also similar to the one the nationalists had made when it attempted to simultaneously solve the warlord problem that had plagued China for so long with the problem of the exterminating communists together: Those warlords allied with Chiang’s nationalist regime were only interested in keeping their own power and defected to the Japanese side when Japanese invaders offered to let them keep their power in exchange for their collaborations. After World War II, these forces of former Japanese puppet regimes once again returned to the nationalist camp for the same reason they defected to the Japanese invaders. Obviously, it was difficult for Chiang to immediately get rid of these warlords for good as soon as they surrendered to Chiang and rejoined nationalists, because such move would alienate other factions within the nationalist ranks, and those bandits and former Japanese puppet regime's warlords could still help the nationalists to by holding on to what was under their control and fighting off communists, and they and the communists would both be weakened. Similarly, the bandits Chiang’s government had failed to exterminate were obviously not good candidates for neither joining the regular troops nor being honorably discharged, and using them to fight communists appeared to be the only logical alternative. If the communists were great weakened by the bandits, then it would the nationalists would have easier time in their counterattacks to retake China. If the bandits were defeated, then the nationalists would have easier job to eradicate them later after retaking China. However, just like those warlords, these bandits were mostly only interested in keeping their own power also, and thus did not put any real efforts to fight the communists like some of the nationalists who were dedicated to their political cause. The eradication of bandits by the communist regime only strengthened its popular support since previous governments dating back from Qing Dynasty had failed to do so.

The third grave strategic miscalculation made by the retreating nationalist regime was similar to the second one, but this one was about its own troops left behind during the Second Sino-Japanese War. The resource strained nationalist government could not provide enough supports to these troops left behind the enemy lines, who were forced to turn to banditry for survival when they were left on their own, and this had alienated many of the troops left behind, and it was impossible to expect them to fight their communist enemy with the same kind of dedication like those nationalist agents who believed in their political cause, or the American trained new forces. The banditry also alienated the local populace and caused the nationalists to lose popular support. Compounding the problem, due to the need of bandits’ knowledge of local area, and the fact that they were the only pro-nationalist force in the region, they were often rewarded with higher ranks than the highly trained regular nationalist troops sent to Northeast China. As a result, the regular nationalist troops sent to Northeast China after World War II lacked any willingness to work together with the bandits, especially when many of the bandits were former warlords’s troops cooperated with Japanese invaders. Many loyal nationalists were enraged by the fact that they had to serve under the former-enemy they once fought: in all, Chiang’s government awarded bandits with many high military ranks: 32 commander-in-chiefs, 33 army commanders, and 158 division commanders in all. In contrast, the highly trained regular nationalist army sent to Northeast China after World War II had much fewer similar ranks, meaning that most highly qualified professional officers ranked below bandits. Meanwhile, the bandits lacked the similar willingness and attempted to expend those nationalist troops whenever they could to save their own skin, and often used the superior ranks Chiang’s government given to them as their excuses to ignore correct strategies ordered by the nationalist regular army.

The fourth grave strategic miscalculation made by the Chiang government was financial / economical: due to the lack of money, those bandits turned guerrillas were not sufficiently provided with supplies and money. The bandits turned guerrilla had no problem of looting the local population to get what they need, as they had done for decades, which inevitably drove the general popular support further into the communist side. The little financial support provided by the nationalists was simply not enough to support such guerrilla and insurgency warfare on such a large scale, when the country was in desperate need of resources to recover from the devastation of war. Another unexpected but disastrous result of the insufficient financial support was that it had greatly eroded the support of the nationalists within its own ranks. The wealthy landowners and businessmen were the strong supporters of Chiang’s government and as their properties were confiscated by the communists and redistributed to the poor, their hatred toward the communist regime was enough to cause many of them to stay behind voluntarily to fight behind the enemy line. However, the landowners and businessmen were also longtime victims of bandits due to their wealth, and suffered even more than the general populace. As these former landowners and businessmen turned guerrilla fighters were ordered to join their former bandits who once threatened, looted, kidnapped and even killed them and their relatives, it was obvious that such cooperation was in name only and cannot produce any actual benefits, and the alienation and discontent toward the nationalist regime harbored by these once ardent nationalists would only grow greater.

Another problem for the nationalists was the strong disagreement among themselves over how to fight the war against their communist enemy. While some preferred to fight a total war, incapacitate the enemy’s ability to fight, but this inevitably conflicted with the interest of another faction of strong supporters of the nationalist regime: the landowners and businessmen, who joined bandits to oppose such tactic. The reason was that landowners and businessmen supporting and joining the nationalist guerrilla firmly believed that the nationalists would be able to exterminate the communists within several months and they would be able to regain their lost lands, businesses, and other properties that were confiscated and redistributed to the poor by the communists. As some of the nationalists suggested and destroyed the production facilities and businesses as part of the total war, the landowners and businessmen would not be able to regain any valuable properties after the return of the nationalist regime because those properties had been destroyed. The bandits agreed with the businessmen and landowners to oppose the idea of total war for a different reason: when the properties were destroyed and productivity dropped, they would not be able to loot enough supply to survive. As a result, despite the animosities between the bandits and landowners and businessmen, they were united together in the opposition to those nationalists advocating a total war. This strategic difference meant that despite being interrupted, the rear area of communists was not destroyed and remained intact so that a continuous supply could be provided for the communists’ war efforts, which ultimately led to their final victory.