Архив Војводине / Archives of Vojvodina

No. 17

REPORT OF THE DISTRICT CHIEF FROM BIJELJINA TO THE POLICE ADMINISTRATION IN ZAGREB ON NOVEMBER 29, 1941, ABOUT THE ATTACK OF THE CHETNIKS (INSURGENTS) ON KORAJ, THE NUMBER OF THE DEAD AND THE ACCOMMODATION OF REFUGEES.[1]

Transcript

Translation.

Independent State of Croatia – District Administration in Bijeljina

Nr. 7054/41

Subject: Chetnik attack on Koraj               Bijeljina, November 29 1941

Directorate for Public Order and Security

Zagreb.

Regarding today’s telephone report on the attack by Chetniks on Koraj, Koraj Municipality, in the territory of my district, I report the following:

The municipal notary from Koraj, who escaped the insurgents’ attack on Koraj, informed me from Čelić, where he is together with the other refugees, that this attack was carried out on the 25th of this month at around 7 am. According to his statement, there could have been about 3,000 insurgents, while based on the evidence obtained, there were actually about 400. According to the notary, about 300 people could be counted as killed in this attack, while, according to the received reports, it is estimated that there are far less.

The refugees are now in Čelić, Brčko District, and urgent steps have been taken to provide medical assistance to the wounded, as well as to find the necessary accommodation for the remaining refugees.

The sent army liberated Koraj, and on this occasion, one officer was killed, as well as 4-5 Home Guards, while 12 Home Guards were wounded.

Upon arrival of more precise data, it will be reported later.

Delivered to:      District Chief:

Ministry of the Interior [illegible]

Directorate for Public Order and Security

County of Posavje

County Police of Brod na Savi[2]

[1] АВ, Ф. 562, 3.1.1.2, 215. This document is attached to document no. 72 in this book, the one of March 18, 1942.

[2] Slavonski Brod.

This – English – edition of the book is a translation of the one in the Serbian language, published in 2022 under the title Ustaška zverstva: Zbornik dokumenata (1941–1942). As far as the corpus of the Dossier from the personal fonds of Slavko Odić is concerned – and it makes the essential body of this book – the translation team worked from its Serbian version given in the said book and not from the German original.

The Serbian edition, with the documents translated from German, was printed in the Cyrillic alphabet, which necessitated some explanations provided by the Editor, Dr. Milan Koljanin, with regard to the linguistic traits, orthography and punctuation resorted to by the translators from German into Serbian (Tatjana Janićijević, Akademija Oxford) and the Editor. Naturally enough, numerous clarifications referring to the Serbian edition do not apply on the English one in most of the aspects of translation work. Hence the need to write this Note.

To begin with, the translators basically opted for the varieties of the American English rather than British English.

Personal names in the officially processed documents are most often written in what is today considered inverse order: family name/surname first, followed by one’s first/Christian name, without a comma in between.

Originally, the documents (letters, reports, statements etc.) were written (typed) in bureaucratic style and with a page layout practised by German offices, so these traits have been retained herein, and so have the obvious spelling and/or typing errors (personal names, toponyms); the latter have been corrected in the footnotes. The parts of text/sentences which are underlined or written with spaces between letters as means of emphasis correspond to the German original and its Serbian/Croat counterpart. The same applies to whole words or lines written in capital letters.

Punctuation has been kept almost completely, except when the meaning demanded comma (usually related to the rules of word order in an English sentence). Some marks, such as hyphens, dashes or slashes may impress the Reader as outdated or misplaced. Earlier typewriters did not have buttons with parentheses, and the slash was used instead of them.

Dates are written with differing uses or omissions of period (full stop), whereby month is written in three ways: fully in letters (20 January), in Arabic numerals (e.g. 20.1.) or Roman numerals (e.g. 20.I.). In rare cases, the slash can be found in dates (e.g. 12./X. 1941), but not as a regular separator between their constituents. Years are occasionaly written without the first digit, e.g. 942 instead of 1942, which is a frequent occurrence in oral communication.

Abbreviations, other than official identification means for offices, titles or codenames (VB, MA, RSHA etc.), have been translated (e.g. ’etc.’). The translators chose to retain the Croat/Serbian abbreviation for the name of the wartime ’state’, that is, ’NDH’ is standing for Nezavisna Država Hrvatska (Independent State of Croatia) instead of the less known English name (ISC). Some words were written in a shortened form for the reason of economy of expression, and the habit has been transferred to the translation, including the Editor’s intervention in the Serbian edition: Reg.[ister], Gend.[armerie], Gor[nja] Tuzla.

Footnotes in the English edition partially differ from those in the Serbian version. Some proved to be unnecessary (those that provided original names which were transliterated into the phonetical Cyrillic alphabet). New footnotes have been added by the Subeditor in order to explain/clarify the specific, locally used, words or phrases with which the Reader may not be familiar (such as slava, din, sokolski dom), or to indicate some nuances in the meaning (student, profesor). Here and there, the Reader will find notes in brackets inserted into the main body of the text by translators or the Editor where immediate understanding was needed.

Finally, it is noteworthy that the above-mentioned bureaucratic style of the presented documents mirrors the established conventions of communication in Central Europe and the Balkans of the first half of the 20th century, particularly in state and military affairs, yet also illustrates the specific ’hierarchy’ of various authorities on the occupied territories during World War Two, accentuating the relations between the German organs/institutions in power and the various offices subordinated to the administrative and military system of the Third Reich. As to the information, facts and accounts of events recorded in these documents, they are the subject of the history science and studies related thereto.

A. Č. P.