10TH MOUNTAIN DIVISION · WORLD WAR II
For the Men of the 10th
The Case for Recognition
Their story. The evidence. A request for a full and fair review.
By Joe Looby · An initiative of the Looby family
Why we are asking for another look
My father, Jim Looby, rarely spoke about his wartime service with the 10th Mountain Division. I began this project to understand what he had endured—and to share his story with the grandchildren he never got to meet.
That search became Meet the Men of the 10th. With help from Keli Schmid, the 10th Mountain Division Archivist at Denver Public Library, I also examined the original recommendations for a unit citation and the decisions denying the division-wide award.
We believe the men’s collective heroism deserves recognition.
We are asking for help obtaining renewed Army consideration of a Presidential Unit Citation for the WWII 10th Mountain Division and its documented attached units.
The original record contains substantial findings in favor of an award. Our research brings forward additional wartime accounts and personnel findings that we believe warrant review alongside that record.
Federal law enacted in 1996 provides a route for a Member of Congress to request Army review of an award proposal that would otherwise be too late. The Army must assess its merits. 10 U.S.C. §1130 ↗
WWII recognition has come decades later: the Army confirmed the 96th Infantry Division’s Okinawa citation in 2001, and in 2020 the President directed recognition of the previously uncited remainder of the 30th Infantry Division and its attached units for Mortain. DAGO 2001-29, Sec. II, pp. 2–4 ↗ · Presidential statement, 17 Mar. 2020 ↗
Additional evidence for renewed review
The award standard
The Distinguished Unit Citation—now called the Presidential Unit Citation—recognizes extraordinary heroism by a unit in combat, comparable in degree to the Distinguished Service Cross for an individual. The Army considers whether a unit’s courage, determination and esprit de corps in accomplishing its mission under extreme danger set it apart from and above other units in the same campaign.
Army reconsideration rules require new, substantive and material information. We believe the following records and findings warrant a renewed review. HRC, §1130 guidance ↗
- Company I’s cost of victory. Digitizing and cross-referencing morning reports, the company statistical survey and the regimental Roll of Honor has enabled a reconstruction of individual personnel and casualty histories. The working reconstruction identifies dated fatality or wound/injury evidence for 107 of the 194 men on the January 3, 1945 roster—more than half—through May 2, counting each man once. It adds detail about the losses and changing strength behind the company’s continuing missions.
- Loose’s platoon at Pizzo di Campiano. Our searchable Blizzard archive brought forward wartime accounts of Lt. James W. Loose’s detached platoon of Company A, 86th Mountain Infantry. The newspaper reported 36 hours of encirclement and at least six German counterattacks repelled. Loose called for artillery fire close around the position. This is a specific collective action to compare with the earlier operational narrative. The Blizzard, 27 Feb. 1945, pp. 2 ↗ · Published By And For The 10th Mtn. Division
- Hays’s wartime judgment, found in 2025. In 2025, we found General George P. Hays’s May 14, 1945 letter reproduced in a company history among my father’s papers. A World War I Medal of Honor recipient who landed in Normandy the day after D-Day, Hays wrote that the 10th’s battles were
as strongly contested and as bitter, and in many instances more intense than any I had experienced hitherto.
Hays letter, 14 May 1945, 2nd par. ↗ U.S. Army, Hays biography ↗ - The unanswered smaller-unit question. In 1946, Army Chief of Staff Dwight D. Eisenhower approved a recommendation to return the case for consideration of deserving subordinate units. The Army again invited smaller-unit recommendations in 1947. In the records examined as of November 2026, we have not yet established what followed: whether recommendations were submitted or how the Army acted on them. Doc. 5, Packet pg. 24 ↗ · Doc. 8, Packet pg. 31, Pars. 2–3 ↗
We believe these records and findings provide new, substantive and material information that may not have been considered in the earlier Army review. A renewed review should also establish whether deserving smaller units were recommended for citation and what action the Army took.
What the original record says
The undated award assessment contains this finding:
“The 10th Mountain Division with attachments distinguished itself by conspicuous battle action of a character that would merit the award to an individual of the Distinguished Service Cross.”
Doc. 8, Packet pg. 35, Par. 7(a)(5) ↗
On April 1, 1946, a majority of the War Department Decorations Board recommended a citation for the division and designated attachments. Doc. 5, Packet pg. 25, Par. 2 ↗ The award was then not approved.
Recommendations and decisions, 1945–1951
| Date | Name | Rank / role | Decision / recommendation | Key excerpts |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14 June 1945 | Willis D. Crittenberger★★ | Major GeneralCommanding General IV Corps | Recommends award | it is recommended that the 10th Mountain Division be cited in War Department General Orders for outstanding performance of duty in action against the enemy contributed more than its share to the complete collapse of enemy resistance in Italy. |
Night attack · Belvedere and Gorgolesco A night attack was considered the only means possible to succeed in this operation. The M. BELVEDERE objective was taken at 200610A after one regiment had forced its way by night through the minefields in rear of enemy strong points at CORONA and VALPIANA. The M. BELVEDERE-GORGOLESCO ridge was consolidated during continuous enemy artillery and mortar fire and against repeated and well-organized counterattacks by the 1044th Infantry Regiment and the 741st Jaeger Regiment, which caused numerous casualties to infantry, medical and artillery troops. | ||||
Counterattacks · Fresh German troops in addition to facing completely fresh troops in fortified bunkers, it crushed resistance from these positions After repelling a series of well-prepared and fanatic counterattacks by the fresh Mittenwald Mountain Training Battalion, beginning at 241600A and continuing until after dark, the final objective was secured at 242400A February 1945. During this phase of the operations, the division had been opposed by all 3 battalions of the 741st Jaeger Regiment, the 1044th Infantry Regiment, some men from the 232d Artillery Regiment and others from the 2d Battalion, 1043d Infantry Regiment who had been training with the Mittenwald Mountain Training Battalion. | ||||
Exposure across the division practically all troops assigned or attached to the division During the entire period from the concentration of the division in the LIZZANO IN BELVEDERE area, until this final objective had been taken, practically all troops assigned or attached to the division were under constant observation and received incessant fire from enemy artillery and mortars.Doc. 1, Packet pg. 3, 1st par. ↗ | ||||
| 11 July 1945 | Lucian K. Truscott Jr.★★★ | Lieutenant GeneralCommanding General Fifth Army | Recommends denial of the divisional citation. The recommendation continues up the chain for review. | While the performance of the 10th Mtn. Div. has been outstanding in the operations described in the basic communication, its accomplishments are not so superior to other fine divisions which have fought in this army as to justify this award.Doc. 1, Packet pg. 19, Par. 2 ↗ |
| Received 14 February 1946Signing date unstated | Mark W. Clark★★★★ | GeneralCommanding General U.S. Forces in Austria Wartime: 15th Army Group | Disagrees with Truscott’s recommendation to deny the citation. Recommends approval for the division and specified attached units. | The actions of the 10th Mountain Division, in contributing in an outstanding manner to the collapse of enemy resistance in Italy, are considered worthy of a recommendation for an award of a unit citation. The actions of the 10th Mountain Division as a unit, in both the battle for Mt Belvedere and the main Spring Offensive of 1945, are comparable to the aggressive, unselfish and determined actions of an individual recommended for the Distinguished Service Cross.Doc. 3, Packet pg. 21, Pars. 1–2, 4 ↗ |
| 23 February 1946 | John C. H. Lee★★★ | Lieutenant GeneralCommanding General Mediterranean Theater of Operations | Recommends award, including attached units | Concur with basic letter and 2nd indorsement recommending Unit Citation be awarded the 10th Mountain Division for the period 19 February to 2 May 1945. distinguished themselves equally as much as organic units of the Division |
| 1 April 1946 | War Department Decorations Board | Awards review board | The dated board report records a majority recommendation for the division and designated attachments for 19 February–2 May 1945. The recommendation was subsequently disapproved. | Doc. 5, Packet pg. 25, Par. 2 ↗ |
| 2 May 1946 | W. S. Paul★★ | Major GeneralAssistant Chief of Staff, G-1 Army personnel staff | Recommends denying the divisional citation and returning the case for consideration of deserving subordinate units. | the Unit Citation is primarily an award for smaller units The operations outlined show outstanding accomplishment by the divisions concerned and extraordinary heroism by numerous small units. It is not believed possible however, that all organizations of a unit the size of a division could have contributed in such a high degree in the operations described. recommendations be returned to the interested headquarters with a view toward recognizing any deserving subordinate units which have not already been cited for these operations. |
| Approval notation undatedDisapproval recorded 15 June 1946 | Dwight D. Eisenhower★★★★★ | General of the ArmyArmy Chief of Staff | The 2 May 1946 memorandum bears an undated approval of Paul’s recommendation to deny the divisional citations and consider deserving subordinate units. A separate disposition records disapproval of the 10th’s award on 15 June 1946. The memorandum’s “Approved” notation concerns Paul’s recommendation. | Paul’s recommendation, approved by Eisenhower That divisional citations for the 1st Infantry Division and 10th Mountain Division be disapproved and that recommendations be returned to the interested headquarters with a view toward recognizing any deserving subordinate units which have not already been cited for these operations.Doc. 5, Packet pg. 24 ↗ Separate disapproval disposition · 15 June 1946 DISAPPROVEDDoc. 5, Packet pg. 26 ↗ |
| 19 June 1946Notification | Adjutant General’s office | By order of the Secretary of War | Notifies theater of denial | the conclusion was reached that the requirements of Circular No. 333, War Department, 1943, as amended, have not been met. Disapproved by WD on 15 June 1946 |
| 9 October 1946 | COMGENMED | Commanding General Mediterranean Theater | Urges reconsideration | strongly urge favorable action on reconsideration of recommendation for citation for Tenth Mountain Division. I adhere to recommendations contained therein |
| 28 November 1947 | Edward F. Witsell★★ | Major GeneralThe Adjutant General By order of the Secretary of the Army | Declines division award; invites smaller-unit proposals | Your recommendations for smaller units up to and including the size of regiments will receive final action by the Department of the Army as promptly as possible. no additional awards of the Distinguished Unit Citation will be made to divisions or higher units. only on rare occasions will regimental units qualify. |
| 6 July 1951Copy also marked 12 July | J. Lawton Collins★★★★ | GeneralArmy Chief of Staff Officers cited in Collins’s memorandum: George C. Marshall, General of the Army ★★★★★, Secretary of Defense; Omar N. Bradley, General of the Army ★★★★★, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. | Declines further WWII divisional citations. Reports agreement from Marshall and Bradley. | I have decided to take no further action with respect to divisional citations for units participating in World War II. General Marshall thoroughly agreed that it would be inadvisable at this time to cite any additional divisions for World War II performance. In a separate discussion with General Bradley, he indicated similar approval of this course of action. Too much time has passed and the adverse morale effect on units not cited would far outweigh the value to be gained from the citation of a number of other divisions. |
Two undated review summaries
The packet contains two distinct undated summaries. The two-page summary recommends a citation for 19 February–2 May 1945. The four-page assessment recommends 19 February–24 April 1945.
The 10th Mountain Division with attachments distinguished itself by conspicuous battle action of a character that would merit the award to an individual of the DSC.
The Division endured hazards of battle more severe than those normally encountered.
The terrain over which this operation was fought is more rugged than that the 3d Infantry Division operated over at Colmar.
The mission of the infantry elements of the 10th Mountain Division during the period 18 to 24 February 1945 and from 3 through 5 March 1945 appeared to be as nearly impossible of accomplishment as any other offensive mission of like proportion fought during the war.
The enemy had ample time to organize this terrain into a comforting defense. It is believed that the performance of the 10th Mountain Division is the equal of that of the 3d Infantry or 101st Airborne Divisions (for their cited actions at Colmar and Bastogne, respectively).
By improving the positions for Fifth Army, the 10th Mountain Division enabled the line to be held with fewer troops, an important factor in the Italian Campaign.
It was not necessarily the bloodiest, but from a standpoint of physical endurance and courage, it was truly exceptional.
The action between 18 and 24 February and between 3 and 5 March 1945 stands out as being some of the bitterest and most difficult of the war.
The Board considers the period from 14 to 24 April also sufficiently outstanding and therefore recommends that the period for the citation include 19 February to 24 April 1945.
Reading the source packet
Correspondence establishes that two supporting exhibits were missing when Clark forwarded the recommendation. Their later status remains unknown. A review of the complete file should determine whether they were recovered and considered. Doc. 3, Packet pg. 22, 1st par. ↗
The source packet contains Denver Public Library’s supplied selection on packet pages 1–38, including the formal board report (Doc. 5, Packet pg. 25, Pars. 1–2 ↗) and two distinct undated summaries: Doc. 5, Packet pgs. 27–28 ↗ and Doc. 8, Packet pgs. 33–36 ↗. Hays’s letter is available separately in Meet the Men of the 10th: Hays letter, 14 May 1945 ↗.
How the cited actions compare
Contemporary action comparisons help assess mission performance, opposition and award scope. Later WWII awards show that recognition has come decades after the fighting. Each comparison has its own evidentiary limits.
“It is believed that the performance of the 10th Mountain Division is the equal of that of the 3d Infantry or 101st Airborne Divisions (for their cited actions at Colmar and Bastogne, respectively).”
Doc. 8, Packet pg. 34, Par. 6(a) ↗.
Contemporary action comparisons: missions, opposition and award scope
| Action and award scope | What the existing record establishes | Why it matters to the 10th |
|---|---|---|
| 10th Mountain Division Italy, 1945 Assessment highlights: Feb 18-24; Mar 3-5; Apr 14-24. | Seized Riva-Belvedere heights and broke mountain defenses in April. The assessment favored a Feb 19-Apr 24 division award; the original proposal extended to May 2. Doc. 8, Packet pg. 36, 1st par. ↗ | Favorable collective-valor findings and a dated board recommendation, alongside adverse military judgments and a restrictive award policy. |
| 3d Infantry Division Colmar, France Jan 22-Feb 6, 1945 Division with attachments. | Breached fortified positions and water barriers; helped isolate Colmar from the Rhine. Published WD GO 44, June 6, 1945 | Division-level offensive achievement, expressly named by the 10th’s assessors. Different terrain and operation. |
| 101st Airborne Division Bastogne, Belgium Dec 18-27, 1944 Less 2/401st Glider Infantry; with attachments. | Held a key road center under encirclement and repeated attacks. Published WD GO 17, March 13, 1945 | Collective endurance and coordinated defense; also expressly named in the assessment. Encircled defense differs from mountain assault. |
| 4th Armored Division Bastogne relief and subsequent operations Reported award period: December 22, 1944–March 27, 1945. Contemporary account identifies the entire division. | A contemporary division publication reports a 96-day award period. Army lineage material identifies WD GO 54, 1945. Contemporary account · Army lineage | Illuminates award duration and division scope. Its armored missions differ from the 10th’s mountain operations. |
| 442d Regimental Combat Team Gothic Line, Italy Apr 5-14, 1945 Less 2d Bn and 522d FA Bn; includes 232d Combat Engineer Company. | Broke prepared mountain defenses; a diversion developed into a consequential offensive. Army-published WD GO 34 (1946), amended GO 106 | A close mission comparison within the same Italian offensive, involving a smaller and precisely defined cited force. |
Recognition can come decades later · the 96th and 30th Divisions
| Later WWII recognition | What the official record establishes |
|---|---|
| 96th Infantry Division Okinawa April 1-June 30, 1945 | On December 31, 2001, more than 56 years after Okinawa, the Army confirmed the PUC for the division and its attached units for extraordinary heroism during the campaign. DAGO 2001-29, Sec. II, pp. 2–4 ↗ |
| 30th Infantry Division Mortain, France August 1944 | On March 17, 2020, the President directed the Army to award the PUC to the previously uncited remainder of the division and its attached units, noting eight units already recognized. Presidential statement, 17 Mar. 2020 ↗ |
HELP THEIR CASE BE HEARD
Ask Congress to Seek Army Review
If this history matters to you, ask your U.S. Representative or either of your Senators to help obtain renewed Army consideration.
Descendants, families and other supporters can use the letter below. Congressional staff can use the suggested Army request and the evidence brief.
- Copy the letter below. Add your name and, if you wish, a sentence about your family’s connection or why this history matters to you.
- Find your Representative or Senators. Use the official directories to reach an office’s contact page.
- Send your letter directly. Use the office’s contact form or postal address.
The congressional office may request your address and contact details to confirm that you are a constituent. Those details go directly to that office. Editing this letter does not send or submit it.
How a congressional request can help
10 U.S.C. §1130 provides a route for a Member of Congress to request review of an individual or unit award proposal that would otherwise be barred by submission time limits.
Army reconsideration rule · AR 600-8-22, paragraph 1-16 ↗ · Army requirements for retroactive unit-award recommendations ↗
For congressional staff: suggested request to the Army
This draft can be adapted for a congressional office’s request. The evidence brief identifies the proposed additional material; the formal submission must include the supporting records and a defined unit and action period.
Reconsideration rule · paragraph 1-16 · Congressional procedure · Appendix J · Unit-award submission requirements · Appendix G
Follow the path to renewed review
The entries below distinguish the statutory route, the later Okinawa and Mortain recognition, and this family initiative. Further entries can record documented submissions, support and official responses.
| Date | Name | Rank / role | Decision / recommendation | Key excerpts |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 February 1996 | Congress | Public Law 104–106, §526 10 U.S.C. §1130 | Creates a route for a Member of Congress to request review of an otherwise untimely individual or unit award proposal. Review does not guarantee an award. | Upon request of a Member of Congress, the Secretary concerned shall review a proposal either for an individual or a unit |
| 31 December 2001 | Department of the Army | General Orders 2001-29 96th Infantry Division | Confirms the Presidential Unit Citation for the 96th Infantry Division and its listed assigned or attached units for Okinawa, April 1–June 30, 1945, more than 56 years after the campaign. | 96th Infantry Division · Okinawa · April 1–June 30, 1945. extraordinary heroism and gallantry in action against the enemy in the conquest of OkinawaDAGO 2001-29, Sec. II, pp. 2–4 ↗ |
| 17 March 2020 | President of the United States | Presidential statement 30th Infantry Division | Directs Presidential Unit Citation recognition for the remainder of the 30th Infantry Division and attached units—more than 75 years after the August 1944 battle at Mortain. | Mortain, France · August 1944. German armored forces tried to break through to the coast and cut off the American advance from Normandy. The 30th held on despite penetrations and isolated positions, supported by artillery and American and British aircraft. The German attack stalled, followed by days of fighting to relieve trapped units. Eight units had already received citations after the war; the 2020 announcement extended recognition to the division’s remaining units and attachments. honor the remainder of the division and attached units with the Presidential Unit CitationPresidential statement · Mortain ↗ |
| 11 November 2026 | For the Men of the 10th | An initiative of the Looby family | Invites descendants, families and supporters to ask their congressional offices to help obtain renewed Army consideration of Presidential Unit Citation recognition for the WWII 10th Mountain Division and its documented attachments under 10 U.S.C. §1130. | Contact Congress · Letter and official directories ↓ |