Talk:106th Infantry Division (United States)

Military history: North America / United States / World War II C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

Citations

This article is really missing citations. I found a good website produced by the US Army. http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/cbtchron/cc/106id.htm I think you can use that for most of the citations. Jdanbeck (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. --dashiellx (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality issues

Words like "heroic", "courageous", "only [a few hundred]" and "stubborn" are too cheerleader-y for an encyclopedia article, but there are a bunch in this one. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment and noticed these non-neutral POV words as soon as I began reading the article. They should be removed, no matter how heroic or courageous the men fought, right? This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article and not a gripping news account - so what's the plan, Stan? Az x2 01:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I question the accuracy and relevance of both of the above comments. First of all, the word "heroic" appears exactly once in the referenced text, "courageous" not at all, and "stubborn" once. "A few hundred" is an accurate count of the initial group that was organized and led by Lt. Col. Riggs out to the Prumerberg to establish and hold the perimeter line of defense east of St. Vith. The group, consisting mostly of soldiers from the 81st Combat Engineers Battalion, of which Riggs was commander, and the 168th Combat Engineers Battalion, which had been placed under Riggs' command by Gen. Jones, held their defensive position without significant help for the first two days of the German attack,against German forces which, depending on the source, outnumbered them somewhere between 10 and 100 to 1. Supported by reinforcements from the 7th Armored Division who arrived in the early hours of Dec. 18th, the combined group, still under Riggs' command and still hugely outnumbered, held the position for an additional 3 - 4 days until they were ultimately overrun. To be more precise where numbers are concerned, the best estimate of the strength of Riggs' initial group was 110 men from his own 81St Engineers and other remnants of the 106th infantry division, and approximately 200 men from the 168th. By my math, that appears to add up to "a few hundred." On the German side, the central prong of the attack (the one directed against St. Vith directly from the west) was manned by the 5th Panzer ARMY, which at that time consisted of 4 panzer divisions, one panzer brigade, and 5 volksgrenadier divisions. To put this in some kind of perspective, a single German division in WW II typically numbered between 10,000 and 15,000 men.

Lastly, on the above writers' objection to the word "heroic", I would inform that of the initial group of "a few hundred", only something like 70 survived the action. Riggs himself was wounded and taken prisoner on December 22 (he later escaped from the prison camp, located in Poland, to which he was taken, and fought his way back to allied command with a Russian tank battalion). For his actions in St. Vith, he was awarded the Silver Star, Purple Heart and the Croix de Querre from both Belgium and France. But rather than get into a semantic debate over the meaning of the word "heroic", I believe the Presidential Unit Citation awarded to the 81st and 168th Battalions and other participating units for their actions in defense of St. Vith speaks for itself.

Regarding the PUC generally, U.S. Army Regulation 600-8-22, which establishes the order of precedence and standards for awarding of all combat decorations, states as follows:

"Reg. 600-8-22 Section III U.S. Unit Decorations 7–12. Description a. The following U.S. unit decorations, in order of precedence, have been established to recognize outstanding heroism or exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services: (1) Presidential Unit Citation (Army and Air Force). (2) Presidential Unit Citation (Navy). (3) Joint Meritorious Unit Award. (4) Valorous Unit Award. (5) Meritorious Unit Commendation (Army). (6) Navy Unit Commendation. (7) Meritorious Unit Commendation (Navy). (8) Air Force Outstanding Unit Award. (9) Air Force Organizational Excellence Award. (10) Army Superior Unit Award. (11) Citation in Orders—Unit Recognition.

7–13. Presidential Unit Citation (Army) a. The Distinguished Unit Citation (DUC) is the predecessor of the Presidential Unit Citation (PUC) (Army). On 3November 1966, the DUC was redesignated the PUC (Army). The PUC is awarded to units of the Armed Forces of the United States and cobelligerent nations for extraordinary heroism in action against an armed enemy occurring on or after 7 December 1941. The unit must display such gallantry, determination, and esprit de corps in accomplishing its mission under extremely difficult and hazardous conditions as to set it apart from and above other units participating in the same campaign. The degree of heroism required is the same as that which would warrant award of a Distinguished Service Cross to an individual. Extended periods of combat duty or participation in a large number of operational missions, either ground or air is not sufficient. This award will normally be earned by units that have participated in single or successive actions covering relatively brief time spans. It is not reasonable to presume that entire units can sustain Distinguished Service Cross performance for extended periods except under the most unusual circumstances. Only on rare occasions will a unit larger than a battalion qualify for award of this decoration."

I would note that the word "heroism" is repeated 3 times in this regulation, which I would hardly characterize as a "cheerleading" document. The word is also accompanied by the words "outstanding" and "extraordinary." Should these words not justify the use of the word "heroic" to accurately describe the actions of the soldiers who fought on the Prumerberg, perhaps the following excerpts from the text of the award itself will:

"[C]ited for outstanding performance of duty in action from 17 to 23 December 1944, inclusive, at St. Vith, Belgium. The command was subjected to repeated tank and infantry attacks, which grew in intensity as the German forces attempted to destroy the stubborn defenses that were denying to them the use of the key communication center at St. Vith. By the second day, the flanks were constantly threatened by enemy forces that had bypassed the St. Vith area and pushed far to the rear in an effort to encircle the command east of the Salm River. The attacking forces were repeatedly thrown back by the gallant troops who rose from their fox holes and fought in fierce hand to hand combat to stop the penetrations and inflict heavy losses on the numerically superior foe. As the command continued to deny the important St. Vith highway and railroad center to the Germans, the entire offensive lost its initial impetus and their supply columns became immobilized. By 21 December, the German timetable was so disrupted that the enemy was forced to divert a corps to the capture of St. Vith. Under extreme pressure from overwhelming forces, this command, which for 6 days had held the St. Vith area so gallantly, was ordered to withdraw west of the Salm River. By their epic stand, without prepared defenses and despite heavy casualties, the command inflicted crippling losses and imposed great delay upon the enemy by a masterful and grimly determined defense in keeping with the highest traditions of the Army of the United States."

The heroic nature of the actions of Riggs, his 81st Engineers battalion, and the other participating units are matters of established, undisputed, historical fact.

This comment is submitted by Jeff Riggs, a son of Col. Thomas J. Riggs, Jr. Col. Riggs passed on NOvember 5, 1998. He was buried with full military honors at Arlington National Cemetery in Washington, D.C.---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riggsco (talk • contribs) 06:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not correctly signing the above comment properly. It is the first time I have commented on anything in Wikipedia. here is my proper signature, by typing of the 4 tildes.Riggsco (talk) 06:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. Wikipedia adheres to a neutral point of view. We are here to write an impartial, fact-based encyclopedia using measurable and doccumentable details, and not to pass any kind of judgment or opinion off as fact. Calling someone "heroic" is an opinion, not an indisputable fact. —Ed!^(talk) 05:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the non-neutral wording. It still needs sourcing, though. —Ed!^(talk) 05:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say, you are the one missing the point. "Neutral point of view" would, or should, mean free from embellishment beyond the documented historical account of record. Under your policy, would it be considered an "opinion" to say that the Allies won WW II? 50.208.251.137 (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]