The Deserters: A Hidden History of World War II (36 page)

“What went through your mind at that time?”

“My mind was cloudy. I couldn’t think straight.”

Captain Jones’s cross-examination ended without his having asked Weiss if anyone else had deserted with him. The names of the two deserters with whom he left the line on 28 October, Privates Clarence Weidaw and James (Jim) Dickson, were not entered into the court record. Nor was there mention of the desertion of Frank Turek and another soldier from the same Company C that morning, although Turek had been in the defendant’s chair only twenty-four hours earlier. These were significant lapses. If at least five men from one company were so disgruntled that they left the line simultaneously, it would not have reflected well on their commander or, possibly, on the army itself. No one asked whether Weiss had faith in Captain Simmons. No one asked if he would have stayed in the war under another commander, as he had requested to do with French captain Binoche and OSS officers Lieutenant Rickerson and Major Cox. While the prosecution would have weakened its case by drawing the court’s attention to other desertions and general dissatisfaction with the company commander, the defense was remiss to leave these facts out of the trial record. Weiss had deserted with two other soldiers. Where were they? Why were they not on trial? If others were being treated for medical conditions, why wasn’t Weiss?

The court intervened to ask three questions, none of which was relevant to the case. “When you were cut off from your company close to Valence, what did the tank destroyer open up on you with?”

“Three inch guns, sir.”

“How close were they?”

“Some hundred yards.”

“During the period you were with the Maquis did you undertake any sort of demolition? Did you engage in any fighting against the Germans during that time?”

“No, sir.”

Weiss’s confusion at this point appeared overwhelming. His time with the Resistance was not germane to the case against him. His trial was for deserting on 16 and 28 October near Bruyères, not for having been cut off from his company at Valence in August. Moreover, his answers were neither accurate nor to his benefit. He had attempted to engage the Germans at a farmhouse with Major Mathey’s
maquis
group, and he had also assisted Captain Binoche in demolishing a bridge over the river Rhône.

Major Wilson, undoubtedly noticing the discrepancy, refreshed Weiss’s memory. “When you were with the Maquis did you undertake any sort of demolition?”

Weiss answered, “Yes, sir.”

“What did you do?”

“We blew up one bridge that would hinder the ‘Jerries’ from coming through.”

Defense counsel had clarified part of the record, but its relevance to the charge and specifications was nil. Major Wilson was done, and the assistant trial judge advocate, Captain Jones, undertook a short re-cross-examination about Valence, where Weiss’s squad was cut off from the rest of the company. “When you were first fired on by this tank destroyer outfit was that the first time that you ever noticed being afraid very much?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Was that before you got with the Maquis or after?”

“Before, sir.”

“You say you went out with the Maquis and blew up a bridge?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Were you afraid at that time?”

“The nearest Germans were four miles away and they were just an occupying force.”

Captain Jones had no further questions, and the court began its re-examination of the witness.

“When you were with the Paratroopers near the Swiss border did you hear any artillery over there?”

“No, sir.”

“You fought with the Paratroopers over there?”

“One engagement.”

“What was the nature of the fight?”

“There was no fight; we expected a fight. We went up to the Italian-Swiss border and went up into the mountains and we expected to be subjected to ‘Jerry’ fire but there were no ‘Jerries’ and we got out safely.”

The trial record continued, “There being no further questions by the prosecution, the defense, or the court, the witness was excused and resumed his seat next to his counsel.”

The defense called its next witness, Sergeant Settimo Gualandi. Gualandi swore to tell the truth, and the defense counsel asked how long he had known Weiss. “Since March, sir,” he replied, which meant they had met while training at Fort Blanding in Florida. Major Wilson’s questions allowed Gualandi to tell the court that he and Weiss had hit the beaches of southern France together, served in the same squad and were separated from their company at Valence. “From the time you landed in France up to Valence did Weiss show any indication of being afraid?” Wilson asked.

“No, sir. Not at all.”

“Was your squad ever sent out on patrol?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Was Weiss along with you?”

“Yes, sir.”

“In the vicinity of Valence were you and Weiss together on a mission to destroy a machine gun next [
sic
]?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Will you tell the court what happened when you were sent out on that mission?”

“We were pinned down and our squad was sent back just a little way in order to go around and flank it out. Weiss was first scout. We were following him and he was pocketed right under the machine-gun nest and the tanks came creeping up the road and opened fire; we were right near them. They were on our right and we couldn’t get back.”

“Was there any of our own fire in the vicinity?”

“It was all German at that time when we were on the right flank.”

“Then what happened?”

“We couldn’t get back because of the machine-gun shooting so we pulled back—I would say 100 yards—and we stayed in a ditch over night. The next morning our company had already pulled out and we didn’t know where they were so we went into an open field to a house and set up our own security there. Some French policemen came around on a bicycle and seen us and left right away. Pretty soon they came back—two men and a civilian came back with police uniforms. They took us out, four at a time. We went through Valence and across the Rhone River.”

“How many American soldiers were in the group that was cut off?”

“Eight of us.”

“Do you recall some of the names of the others?”

“Sergeant Scruby. He got wounded. There was Segle [
sic
].”

The exchange that followed elicited from Gualandi a summary of the squad’s service with the Resistance and the OSS. Major Wilson then asked whether Gualandi had gone on missions with the paratroopers. “We just went right along with them wherever they went,” Gualandi answered. “We didn’t have a special mission.”

“
How did you get back to your outfit from the Paratroopers?”

“We stayed there about two days and decided we had better get back. Major Cox wrote a letter for us explaining to the commanding officer of the 143rd that we had been fighting with the Maquis and joined the Paratroopers and were under military control and on duty all the time. He wrote the letter to the general and we hitch-hiked back.”

“When you got back what happened?”

“We turned into the company commander.”

With that conclusion to the defense’s questions, the assistant trial judge advocate began his cross-examination. “Sergeant,” he said, “did the accused return to the company with you?”

“No, sir. He left us. He got sick when we came up to Leone [
sic
]. He stayed back with the Paratroopers.”

“Now,” the prosecutor asked, “were you in his squad on or about 16 October 1944?”

“After he came back he got into a different squad.”

“Were you ever around or near him when a fight was going on?”

“He joined up when we had been pulled back for a rest. Then we went up to the line again and he was with us.”

“Did he appear, at the time you saw him, to be very nervous?”

“No, sir. He seemed all right to me.”

“Did you ever see Weiss at any time in which it appeared that his nerves were out of control?”

“No, sir.”

The prosecutor asked whether Sergeant Gualandi recalled Weiss rejoining the company for the second time on 28 October and returning to the line. He did remember.

“When you got up there did you receive an artillery barrage?”

“We moved into the 142nd position and there was a barrage.”

“Was there a barrage the first morning? A ‘Jerry’ barrage?”

“I can’t recall, sir. I couldn’t swear to it.”

“Can you recall whether there was a ‘Jerry’ barrage around four o’clock in the morning?”

“I can’t recall, sir.”

“You say you were with the accused on the 28th?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Did he appear extraordinarily nervous to you in any way?”

“No, sir. He appeared all right.”

The court reporter noted, “There being no further questions by the prosecution, the defense, or the court, the witness was excused and withdrew.”

As Gualandi left the stand, Weiss sensed that his friend’s testimony buttressed the prosecution’s case more than his own. Gualandi’s assertion that Weiss was not nervous in combat undermined the contention that incoming artillery had caused his panic. “While listening to Gualandi,” Weiss wrote, “I realize that all the men on the Detail are commissioned officers, from lieutenant to colonel; there is not an enlisted man among them.” If there had been frontline enlisted men on the court, he felt, they would have understood his state of mind. Rear echelon officers lacked the experience on which to judge the fear and discontent that could drive a combat infantry enlisted man to desert.

Major Wilson introduced Defense Exhibit A, the findings of the division psychiatrist, Major Walter L. Ford. Dated 2 November 1944, the day Ford interviewed Weiss for “pending charges,” the “Psychiatric Report in Disciplinary Cases” comprised two pages. On page one, Major Ford wrote in a barely legible hand,

This soldier was assigned to the Div. in June 1944. He three 3 weeks of combat above Rome and made the invasion of S. France. His unit was surrounded near Valence & he was listed as MIA for 43 days. During this time he was fighting with the Maquis and a Spec. Serv. Recon. unit from which he received a citation. He tells that he has gradually become more tense & “nervous.” He has battle dreams & difficulty in sleeping. He noticed a warped fear of riding in cars and an intolerance to noise. He left his unit on 27 Oct. as he felt he could not tolerate combat any longer.

The form on which Major Ford wrote his analysis required him to complete the sentence, “In my opinion he is suffering from: (Medical Diagnosis with brief explanation of this condition in lay terminology).” Ford wrote, “Psychoneurosis, anxiety, mild. This is an emotional condition which makes it difficult for this soldier to control his behavior in combat.”

Under “Recommendation,” he answered, “Recommend that the above condition be considered as extenuation to be evaluated in connection with other evidence.” The second page of the report was a standard set of questions for use by the court. Most concerned Weiss’s ability to understand the court proceedings, to which Ford answered, “Yes.” On questions of criminal responsibility, Ford answered five questions about the accused’s state of mind:

1. Was he at the time of the alleged offense suffering from a defect of reason resulting from disorder of the mind?
No
.

2. Did such defect of reason prevent him from knowing the nature and quality of the act which he was doing?
No
.

3. Did such defect of reason prevent him from knowing the consequences of such an act?
No
.

4. Or, if he did know, was his mental state such that he was unable to refrain from such act?
No
.

Regarding behavior, the report asked, “Was the accused suffering at the time of the offense from any emotional or physical disorder which might have affected his behavior?” Ford’s answer was, “Yes.”

With its submission of Ford’s report, the defense rested.

The prosecution recalled Private Weiss. Assistant counsel Captain Jones asked, “Weiss, are you prepared to go back and fight?”

“In another capacity, sir.”

“Are you willing to go back to Company C, 143rd Infantry, and fight?”

“I don’t feel fit, sir.”

“Have you made up your mind that you are not going back, Weiss?”

“I have not made up my mind, sir. I feel I’m losing my mind.”

“Have you ever tried exercising your mind, Private Weiss? You have made up your mind, however, that you would fight in another capacity?”

“Off the line, sir.”

“Will you or will you not go back and fight?”

“I don’t understand the question, sir.”

“I think you understand my question, Weiss. Will you go back into your line company and fight?”

“I don’t think I can, sir.”

The prosecution and defense made closing arguments to the court, which the court reporter did not record in the trial transcript. The fifteen officers of the court-martial retired to reach a verdict.

Weiss, seated beside Major Wilson, awaited judgment. The court returned a short time later, indicating there had not been much discussion. Major Clarke, the president of the court, asked Weiss to stand. The trial transcript recorded:

Upon secret written ballot, two-thirds of the members present at the time the vote was taken concurring in each finding of guilty, the court finds the accused:

Of Specification 1: Guilty

Of Specification 2: Guilty

Of the Charge: Guilty.

Two-thirds of the court meant that five of the fifteen officers had decided Weiss was not guilty. In a civilian trial, he would have gone free. Military courts convened under their own rules, codified in the 1920
Court Martial Manual
as revised in 1943. On a majority vote, Weiss was guilty of violating Article of War 75 and faced the death penalty. Having delivered its verdict, the court was informed that Private Weiss had no previous convictions for any offense, civilian or military. It was also told that Weiss’s basic pay was $60 a month, less $22 a month to dependants and $6.40 a month for government insurance. When asked whether the information was correct, Weiss answered, “All but my pay, sir. I receive $70 per month with combat pay.”