Архив Војводине / Archives of Vojvodina

No. 19

ON JANUARY 20, 1942, THE POLICE INSTITUTION FROM BROD NA SAVI REPORTS TO THE USTASHA INSPECTORATE ABOUT THE INSURGENTS’ ATTACK ON THE VILLAGE OF KORAJ, THE NUMBER OF KILLED INHABITANTS AND DESTROYED HOUSES, AS WELL AS THE RETURN OF THE SURVIVORS.[1]

Transcript

Translation.

District police authority[2] in Brod na Savi

Nr.: Prs. 134/42

Brod na Savi, January 20, 1942

Subject: Insurgent attack on Koraj.

Reference to Prs. Nr. 117/1942.

Ustasha Inspectorate

Office I.[3]

Zagreb.

On November 27, 1941, the insurgents attacked the village of Koraj, Bijeljina District.

The attack was carried out at around 7 in the morning, from all sides.

There were about 1,600 insurgents, and about 700 of them were armed, followed by armed women and children.

The insurgents were from the villages of Tobut, Mrtvica, Maleševci, Korenita, Vodičino Brdo,[4] Bukovica, Piperci[5], Zabrada,[6] Priboj, Petima,[7] Puzekara,[8] Tutnjevac.

Our defense had a total of 150 militiamen or gendarmes. The combat lasted for 2 hours, when our side had to retreat due to the superiority of the insurgents in the combat. As the defense had to leave the village, the insurgents penetrated the village itself and slaughtered everything that could not escape, so that a total of about 400 people were slaughtered, women, children and the elderly.

On our side, there were 50 wounded and about 50 captured. Of the 900 houses in the village of Koraj, 200 were burnt to ashes and 700 completely demolished. Only the mosque (house of God of the Muslims) remained intact.

All the refugees from the village of Koraj asked to settle in Brčko, where they are still today, only slowly returning to their homes.

The attack came unexpectedly, so that only a company of Home Guards could come later, and then the Chetniks withdrew.

The head of the District in Bijeljina reports that he does not have any further details about this massacre, because the refugees are only now gradually returning to their homes and he was asked to collect all the details and deliver them as soon as possible.

[1] АВ, Ф. 562, 3.1.1.2, 214, translation from Croatian.

[2] Probably in original: Župska redarstvena oblast (District Police area).

[3] See: D. Kovačić, Redarstveno-obavještajni sustav, 147-155

[4] Bobetino Brdo.

[5] Piperi.

[6] Zabrđe.

[7] Unidentified.

[8] Unidentified.

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.