10TH MOUNTAIN DIVISION · WORLD WAR II
The Case for Recognition
Select a date to open the record and supporting excerpts. Decisions are explained in plain language; quotations retain the source wording. Stars show rank at the document date.
1945–46 gap markers: 1 pixel = 5 days. Undated records have no time marker.
Ask Congress to Review Their Case ↓
| Date | Name | Rank / role | Decision / recommendation | Key excerpts |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14 May 1945 | George P. Hays★★ | Major GeneralCommanding General 10th Mountain Division | Personal letter | the battles of the 10th Mountain were as strongly contested and as bitter, and in many instances more intense than any I had experienced hitherto. I personally participated in the Battle of the Marne and Meuse Argonne offensive in the last war; |
31 days | ||||
| 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, p. 3 · packet p. 3 ↗ | ||||
27 days | ||||
| 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, p. 19 · packet p. 19 ↗ |
218 days | ||||
| 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, p. 1 · packet p. 21 ↗ |
9 days | ||||
| 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 |
37 days | ||||
| 1 April 1946 | War Department Decorations Board | Awards review board | A majority recommends the award. The separately preserved, undated assessment below compares the 10th with the 3d Infantry at Colmar and the 101st Airborne at Bastogne. | 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. Undated supporting assessment · Full excerpts below 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, p. 4 · packet p. 34 ↗ |
Undated assessment · Comparison with cited divisionsUndated; preserved with the 1947 correspondence. Proposed citation period: 19 February–24 April 1945. 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. | ||||
Undated assessment · Recommended citation periodUndated; preserved with the 1947 correspondence. Proposed citation period: 19 February–24 April 1945. 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. | ||||
31 days | ||||
| 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. | 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. the Unit Citation is primarily an award for smaller units |
| Approval undatedOn the 2 May memorandum | Dwight D. Eisenhower★★★★★ | General of the ArmyArmy Chief of Staff | Approves Paul’s recommendation to deny the divisional citation and return the case for consideration of deserving subordinate units. “Approved” refers to that recommendation—not approval of the award. | 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. DISAPPROVEDDoc. 5, pp. 1, 3 · packet pp. 24, 26 ↗ |
48 days from 2 May | ||||
| 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. |
| 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 |
| 24 November 2003 | Congress | Public Law 108–136, §1031(a)(10) | Revises the explanation reported to Congress | a detailed discussion of the rationale supporting the determination.Public Law 108–136 · §1031(a)(10) ↗ |
| 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 | Descendants of the WWII 10th Mountain Division | Families and supporters | We invite descendants and supporters to contact their U.S. Representatives and Senators, seeking help obtaining renewed Army consideration of Presidential Unit Citation recognition for the WWII 10th Mountain Division and its attached units under 10 U.S.C. §1130. | Contact Congress · Letter and official directories ↓ |
Denver Public Library · WH1001, Box 7, Folder 52 · Documents 1–9 and Hays’s letter. Source links open the document packet.
Ranks follow the dated signatures and the Army Center of Military History’s Commanding Generals and Chiefs of Staff ↗. Emphasis in quotations is added.
HELP THEIR CASE BE HEARD
Ask Congress to Review Their Case
If this history matters to you, you can ask your U.S. Representative or either of your Senators to help obtain renewed Army consideration. Descendants, families, and other supporters can write in their own words, directly to their congressional offices.
- 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. The Army evaluates the merits; a request for review does not guarantee an award.
A supporter’s letter does not replace the documented award recommendation. The practical aim is to secure one congressional office willing to coordinate the formal submission, with other offices supporting the effort.
Army guidance on §1130 and reconsideration ↗ · Army requirements for retroactive unit-award recommendations ↗