I may not have the same WD Circular 186 as you, because I do not find the requirement for MOS of an infantryman. The requirement to be assigned to an infantry unit is valid, but has been wavered numerous times during WWII.
The 56 officers assigned to 540th Engineer Regiment were awarded by mistake? How was Colonel Marvin able to order the awards with the Adjutant authorizing. Furthermore, the General Order Number 24, dated 13 October 1944 was accepted by the Adjutant General, Washington, D.C., Attention: Awards & Decorations Branch; the Commanding General NATOUSA, Personnel branch, AGO Section; and the Commanding General 7th Army, AGO Section. Were they all wrong?
I believe I presented ample evidence that the CIB was awarded to hundreds of WWII combatants in accordance with. I can accept the recommendation by General Truscott. I gather between the lines you do not. Have you ever heard of wavers being applied? According to evidence they were.
From previous correspondence with you, I only learned it is a waste of time. That was the reason I put a block on your email letters.
Finally, I am waiting patiently for a response to my letter from an authority even you will not deter. It will settle the disagreement one way or another.
Robert
Robert,
We have always spoken via telephone so I do not understand your reference to blocking my emails. I think you have me confused with someone else.
Please note there is a tremendous difference in being assigned to an infantry unit and being attached to one. They are not the same thing.
Do you not find it odd in the extreme that only the officers of the 540th were awarded the CIB?
Were there not more than a few NCOs and enlisted men enrolled in this regiment? Did they not fight too? Why only the officers? The answer is rather obvious.
This would certainly not be the only time that someone managed to slip one over on the guys in the War Department, now would it. And this is a pretty clear instance in which the officers managed to get some extra points on their service records while giving the enlisted men and NCOs the shaft. Please check the "Ethics Papers" at the CGSC Library for some insight regarding the ongoing problems with unethical recommendations and awards of military decorations.
As to the Truscott letter,... he may very well have had good reason to request an exemption in the case of the 36th Engineers. However, the very fact that he is requesting such an exemption is proof that non- infantrymen were prohibited by the existing regulations from receiving the CIB, and that such an award to non-infantrymen required said exemption, and was probably quite rare.
I look forward to seeing the contents of the reply you are expecting to receive from what I assume is an authoritative source.
Jim