The Deserters: A Hidden History of World War II (35 page)

Trunkfield’s official transcript noted that neither the prosecution nor the defense, when asked, raised a challenge to remove any member of the court. It was not clear why Major Wilson, who had challenged Lieutenant Colonel Faulkner in the Homcy trial, did not challenge him in Weiss’s case. Faulkner, whom Wilson knew to be the conduit of Dahlquist’s insistence on more convictions and harsher sentences, remained on the panel judging Weiss. The record stated, “The members of the court and the personnel of the prosecution were sworn.” The trial transcript continued:

The accused was then arraigned upon the following charges and specifications:

Charge: Violation of the 75th Article of War.

Specification 1: In that, Private Stephen J. Weiss, Company C, 143rd Infantry, being present with his company while it was engaged with the enemy, did, in the vicinity of Laval, France, on or about 16 October 1944, shamefully abandon the said company and seek safety in the rear.

Specification 2: In that, Private Stephen J. Weiss, Company C, 143rd Infantry, being present with his company while it was engaged with the enemy, did, in the vicinity of Brechitosse [
sic
], France, on or about 28 October 1944, shamefully abandon the said company and seek safety in the rear.

The penalty for violating Article 75, “Misbehavior before the enemy,” was “death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.”

Weiss, through Major Wilson, lodged his plea to the charge and both specifications: “Not guilty.” The facts were not in dispute. Weiss had already admitted deserting. Before anyone advised him of his right to remain silent, he had confessed his desertion to the military police, division officers, his defense counsel and the division psychiatrist, Major Walter L. Ford. Weiss’s admission weakened his case, leaving the prosecution nothing to prove. While preparing for trial, Major Wilson did not ask what lay behind Weiss’s desertion. Nor did he probe his client about his state of mind. Neither Major Wilson nor psychiatrist Ford asked him why he was afraid to return to the line but not to die by firing squad.

The trial judge advocate, Captain Stafford, “made no opening statement to the court” and called the prosecution’s first witness, Major Robert L. O’Brien, to the witness stand. O’Brien, the 143rd Regiment’s adjutant, testified as an expert. Assistant trial judge advocate Captain Jess W. Jones conducted the direct examination. O’Brien told the court that he spent part of each day in the field with the regiment and confirmed that it had been engaged with the enemy on 16 and 28 October, the days that Weiss left the line. Major Wilson, in cross-examination, asked O’Brien how he knew that Company C of the 143rd Regiment had been “before the enemy” on the relevant dates. O’Brien replied, “Because, in addition to being Adjutant of the Regiment I am Historian of the Regiment and spend four hours in the evening with officers of the Regiment getting the records in shape. I know they were [before the enemy].” Having established the unchallenged fact that Weiss’s company had been “before the enemy” on 16 and 28 October, O’Brien was excused. The prosecution did not produce any eyewitnesses to Weiss’s desertion. It did not have to, because of Weiss’s pretrial statements. The trial judge advocate had no further witnesses.

Captain Stafford introduced Government Exhibits One and Two, copies of two extracts “of the morning report of Company C, 143rd Infantry dated 3 November 1944.” These extracts stated Charlie Company’s dispositions on the dates in question. The prosecution rested.

The defense requested a recess to give time for one of its witnesses to reach Bruyères, and the court adjourned until 1:00
P.M
.

When the trial resumed after lunch, the defense called its first witness. Private Stephen J. Weiss stood, and Major Wilson addressed the court, “The accused had his rights explained to him in connection with making a statement—sworn or unsworn—or remaining silent and desires to take the stand and make a sworn statement.” Weiss swore to tell the truth and took his place beside the altar. He stated his name, rank, company and regiment to the prosecutor, who asked, “Are you the accused in this case?”

Major Wilson proceeded for the defense. “Weiss,” he asked, “how old are you?”

“Nineteen, sir.”

Wilson’s direct examination elicited from the defendant that he had completed high school at the age of sixteen, taken college courses in psychology, pathology and chemistry at night and worked for the Office of War Information before he enlisted in the army. In a rapid exchange of questions and answers, Weiss provided a précis of his military career: training for seventeen weeks at Fort Blanding; rifle instruction at Fort Meade; waiting at replacement depots in Oran, Algeria, and Caserta, Italy; joining the 36th Division north of Civitavecchia on 12 June 1944; and serving as a first scout in Company C, 143rd Regiment, 36th Infantry Division, from that time until late August 1944 on the outskirts of Valence. As 36th Division officers, the trial judges did not require additional background on the campaigns that Weiss had fought in Italy and France. Major Wilson asked, “Have you ever shot at a German?”

“Yes, sir.”

Wilson asked Weiss to tell the court about the Valence battle and “the circumstances under which this separation occurred.” Weiss’s account was the briefest of summaries, a few hundred words to relate a tale that a veteran could spend hours telling his grandchildren. Weiss’s testimony was preserved, with the court reporter’s misspellings, in the official transcript:

It was night and we ran into enemy opposition. I was first scout and we were proceeding on a mission to destroy a machine gune [
sic
] next [
sic
] which was parallel to the road. On either side of the road it was open terrain. The Germans shot at us. They fired two shots and I fired one back at them. They threw two grenades at me and I got down into a ditch on the side of the road. The company commander had instructed us that my squad was to flank this position and wipe it out. The tank destroyers couldn’t come up; they couldn’t see the target. We went out and started to flank the gun when the tank destroyers moved up and opened fire on us. We decided to go back to our outfit and started out but we were unable as we ran into German machine guns. We came to an irrigation ditch and stayed there until next morning.

Weiss continued telling in headline form what he had done with the Resistance and the OSS, neglecting to mention that he had attacked a farmhouse where German soldiers had been hiding and chased the Germans cross-country to Soyons. Nor did he include in his testimony his missions to guard OSS parachute drops of men and equipment. Major Wilson asked how long he had served “with this Recon outfit.”

“I stayed with the outfit from approximately September 2nd to October 9th.”

The questions and answers established that Sergeant Scruby and the other men of his squad left the OSS at Lyons, which court reporter Corporal Trunkfield consistently spelled “Leone.” Weiss explained that he did not return to the 36th Division when the rest of the squad did, because he was sick. When he recovered, he hitchhiked to Charlie Company’s command post in the Vosges.

Major Wilson asked, “Did you report to your company commander after this?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Who is your company commander?”

“
Captain Simmons.”

“Did he ask where you had been?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Was he satisfied with your story?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Do you know whether or not Captain Simmons received any communication from this Paratrooper Recon outfit as to your activities when you were with them?”

“He received a citation for our fighting.”

“What date did you return to your Company—Company C?”

“October 10th.”

Major Wilson did not ask about Major Cox’s official request for Weiss’s transfer to the OSS and Weiss’s offer to parachute with the OSS into enemy territory. This would have indicated to the court that Weiss was not a coward seeking to avoid the war, but a soldier who had found his métier with the special forces rather than under a company commander he distrusted. Weiss had not had time to explain his case to his counsel before the trial. He was also, as he said later, too depressed to make his condition clear to the court.

“Weiss,” Wilson asked his client, “what caused you to leave your company on or about 16 October 1944?”

“I came back to the company and I was pretty nervous on account of the Valence deal. I nearly got killed there. I also found out that a lot of my buddies who I palled around with had been killed or wounded. I didn’t think the war was natural for America and was pretty shaken up. The fellows had been killed or wounded.”

Wilson’s next line of questioning established that Weiss went to a village on 16 October and returned after “eight days,” although he had in fact returned six days later. It further demonstrated that Weiss returned of his own will. When Wilson asked for the date he returned to the company, Weiss’s response was confused: “I believe that was on the 25th of October, or the 28th of October.”

“Was your company at the time you returned engaged with the enemy?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What caused you to leave again?”

“It was artillery, sir. The shells coming in. I seemed to go all to pieces and broke down. I felt tired and worn out.”

Rather than pursue this line of inquiry, which might have revealed a psychological state that pointed toward treatment rather than punishment, Major Wilson posed no further questions.

The assistant trial judge advocate, Captain Jess W. Jones, conducted the cross-examination. “Weiss,” he began, “where did you say you were located when you were with the Maquis?”

“Right across the Rhone River from Valence.” The question was irrelevant, because Weiss’s service with the
maquis
was not disputed and was not an offense. In the next exchange, Weiss admitted leaving the line on 16 October.

“Why did you leave the line on the 16th?” Captain Jones asked.

“Because I broke down inside; the artillery shells were coming in and I shook all over and just went to pieces.”

“Now, did you leave the organization again on the 28th of October 1944?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Were you tactically before the enemy on the 28th?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Why did you leave then?”

“Intensified artillery barrage. I went to pieces again.”

“Do you know what the 75th Article of War is?”

“Yes, sir.”

“On the 16th of October 1944 did you understand what that was?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Tell the court just how you left on the 16th of October? When did you leave? At what time of day?”

“It was early in the morning, about seven-thirty.”

“How did you leave without anyone detecting you?”

“I don’t know if anyone detected me or not.”

“Did you walk away?”

“I got up and ran down the hill.”

“Was there shelling at the time?”

“Yes, sir.”

The next questions concerned Weiss’s two-and-a-half-hour flight through the woods, which ended with his arrival near a village. There was no reference to the French North African armored crew who gave him shelter.

“When you left this first time did you know you were leaving your organization?” Jones asked.

“Do you mean did I realize it?”

“Yes.”

“Yes, I realized it.”

“Did you definitely make up your mind? Had you been thinking about it the night before?”

“No, sir.”

“When did you make up your mind to leave your organization?”

“When the artillery fell, sir.”

“When you got away from the artillery fire—say down to the foot of the hill—what did you think about down there?”

“I could hear it and was shaking.”

“On the next day, did you feel it was your duty to return to your company?”

“I was still nervous, sir.”

“Were you trembling the next day?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Did you feel a duty to return to your company?”

“I felt a duty, sir.”

“Did you make an attempt to go back the next day?”

“I thought it over, sir.”

“What conclusion did you come to?”

“I wasn’t fit; I would be a detriment to my unit.”

“When you finally did decide to go back to your organization what made you pick that particular day to go back?”

“My mind was clearer and I realized in the full sense of the word that I had a duty to fulfill to my organization.”

“And what did you do then?”

“I returned to my unit, sir.”

Weiss, in response to more prosecution questions, said that he was bivouacked with the company in a “little town” on 24 October and went into the line on 25 October. The Germans were firing rifles and machine guns, he recalled, but no heavy artillery. The assistant trial judge advocate asked when he left the company again, and Weiss answered it had been 28 October at about 4:00 in the morning. “What made you leave at that time?” Captain Jones asked.

“The artillery barrage, sir.”

“How did you get away? Did anybody see you when you left?”

“I imagine the soldiers saw me.”

“What did you do when you left?”

“I walked down the road for a while. I got a ‘hitch’ on a truck and went through a few villages I can’t remember by name. I stayed in a barn and cried.”

“What were you crying about?”

“I was all shaken up inside.”

“How long were you gone?”

“Two days, sir.”

“Until the 30th?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What happened then?”

“I turned myself in to the MPs.”

“Where?”

“At Vesoul.”

Captain Jones asked why Weiss went to Vesoul, to which he responded, “It was just as good a place as any. It was a town and I wanted to get away from the artillery.”

“I ask you on both of these times when this artillery barrage started coming in, did you really try to stay there?”

“Yes, sir.”