Talk:Yugoslav People's Army

War crimes
Why there is almost nothing about the cruel war crimes of the JNA??? Unbelieveable! And there was no confusion, it was clear that they kill everybody who is not serbian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.75.195.55 (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Right on. Move this page to "Serbian National Army", I believe they even killed dogs, cats and house pets, they knocked down trees and destroyed all organic life form for not being "of Serbian origin". This page is about the JNA, its creation up to its dissolution in 1992. The high profile atrocities happened mostly after this time, and were carried out by different people, in different places and against different people. Meanwhile, if you have any sources linking war crimes to the JNA, you don't have to ask me why I didn't display them, you are free to edit the article yourself. Balkantropolis 07:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You do realise that JNA stands for Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija [Yugoslav Peoples Army], Not Serbian peoples Army? The majority of atrocities were commited by Serbs [Mainly Bosnian Serb militants under the commands of Ratko Mladic and Arkan]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.40.140 (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

On ethnic composition
Please stop stipulating that upon Yugoslavia's demise, the officer corps was hemogenously Serbian and Montengegrin. The army's Chief of Staff, Veljko Kadijevic, was half Croatian, half Serb; air force chief Zvonko Jurijevic was Croatian, the Commander of the Navy, Stane Brovet, was Slovenian and Aleksandar Spirovski, a Macedonian, was commander of the First Army. Only later on as the war progressed did the JNA become primarily Serbian and Montenegrin, since loyalties shifted. I implore you, do not make any more edits to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.173.85.251 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 22 April 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, Tes, I agree. As long as you speak of JNA this is multinational army of no more existing SFRJ (socialist federate Yugoslavia).


 * Successor of this army is Army Of Serbia and Montenegro with official web site http://www.vj.yu/ which should be linked.


 * And yes, I hope there will be no more VJ (professional one) since civic service is now more popular in Serbia than military service.


 * Vojin /Belgrade —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.106.188.16 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * ETHNIC COMPOSITION


 * Some-one took off the stuff about ethnic composition, and re-wrote it making claims of Serb domination. The whole thing was just propaganda - what, for example, does connections with Iraq, or the representation of Serbs in the LCY, have to do with the ethnic composition of the JNA? In my version it says the facts - Serbs were over-represented in the lower and middle ranks, but underrepresented at the top, and the claim of discrimination is nonsense. If you wish to add the statistics of their over-representation in the lower and middle officer corps then that is fine. Deleting the statistics on the composition of the High Command is censorship. All the statistics are available here:
 * http://yugoslavtruth.blogspot.com/2005/09/myth-yugoslav-peoples-army-jna-was.html


 * If it is useful, there is also a list of the ethnicity of those in top JNA positions in 1989-91, available here:
 * http://yugoslavtruth.blogspot.com/2005/09/who-led-serb-dominated-jna.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.10.57 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Saw the change, added a NPOV flag for cleanup. Given that both before and after your change the article seems to be somewhat biased. Let the NPOV flag sit for a while and the article should get some attention. Palnu 01:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

REPLY TO ETHNIC COMPOSITION

You were criticising "some" Western sources for mentioning of over-representation of Serbs in the JNA. The truth is that they are "all standard sources" about the reality of the JNA and its ethnic composition. Over-representation of Serbs in the JNA is nothing bad for this Encyclopedia or from scientific point of view.

One or two members in the high command does not give you absolute power over the army or the state. The Prime Minister of the rump Yugoslavia (in 1998) was a Montenegrin (Momir Bulatovic). Are you trying to say that the high command was equally shared between Serbs and Montegrins, even though the number of Serb population was many times higher than the Montenegrins (at least 10 times, i.e. 6.5 million Serbs vs. some few houndred thousands Montenegrins in Serbia and Montenegro). Yet Bulatovic was only a formal man and he is not accused of war crimes. Many in lower ranks from rump Yugoslavia were, including among others, Slobodan Milosevic who was indicted even for the crimes while he was President of Serbia.The current President of Serbia and Montenegro is a Montenegrin (Svetozar Marovic). What does this high command means? If the Serbs want to do something, can Mr. Marovic stop them because he is President?

You seem not to look at other sources on purpose because they tell you the truth. You mentioned only ONE reference, probably a non-standard work written by your friend. Veljko Kadijevic was a declared 'Yugoslav'. Again, he was one man as was the Croat Zvonko Jurijevic, the commander of the Air Force. But who controlled air bases and used the aircrafts? You sidestep other sources such as my reference to the official statistics of SKJ (i.e. LCY). I hope you understand the title of the Kongres ‘Šta pokazuju istraživanja SKJ’. It means: What Does the Research of LCY Show? That Kongress was held in Belgrade and included members of LCY from all nationalities of Yugoslavia. The document is the official one and it was the product of all LCY members, including the Serbs which showed that they are over-repsented.

You give evidence from websites which you may create days and nights, such as blogspots or any geocities, chats etc. Wikipedia cannot rely on these junk mails.

It is true that the JNA was dissolved into fighting fractions as you said, but the Serbs controlled the war arsenal. Croatia might have never needed Leopard tanks from Germany had it acquired a significant proportion of them from the JNA. When the JNA withdrew peacefully from Macedonia, it left almost no heavy weapons behind. Macedonia has imported all the tanks for its army from Bulgaria.

You have a tendecy of manipulating this Excellent and Neutral Encyclopedia for nationalist propaganda. We find plenty of examples when peoples of former Yugoslavia disagree between themselves and their compatriots engage in a propaganda war and revisionism. For example, Serb nationalists refer to the genocide of Ustasi against the Serbs during WWII, but do not want to recognise what many Serbs did during the 1990s.

Here is my NPOV:

Ustasi committed genocide against the Serbs and the Jews in WWII.

Serbs committed ethnic cleansing and genocide in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo.

Croats committed some ethnic cleansing in revenge against the Serbs in Krajina in 1995. The world knows that and Croatia is held accountable. Few Croats face trial in the Hague for that.

The JNA was in the hands of Serbs in the early 1990s. Me and you could have been in the high command. Who committed the genocide? Where did the Serbs get such a huge war arsenal?

There is nothing I have to disagree with you here. But your attempt to deteriorate reality and make Serbs under-represented in this or that level of JNA, I am afraid is wrong. Are you putting the truth on trial, MY FRIEND?! Let us cooperate together and put the things with verifiable sources through NPOV. We do not need to blame or defend someone in Wikipedia.

With my best regards, Isaac - West Midlands —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.99.193 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there are plenty other nice things about the JNA to put them in Wikipedia such as, ground forces (some 250,000 active soldiers), air force and anti-aircraft defence (that was the original definition in the JNA), marines, type of weapons (2,500 tanks, 2,400 cannons), etc. But since someone has dedicated much of the story only to Ethnic Composition to show that Serbs were under-represented here or there, it was necessary to challenge that approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.99.193 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I read the Copyright and Verifiable criteria of Wikipedia. My editing to the JNA uses various sources as opposed to ONLY ONE controversial reference used by someone else. The figures for ethnic composition of the LCY come from e genuine and official source (from LCY) published in Belgrade at the time when the nations of former Yugoslavia were still in a sort of loose "brotherhood and unity". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.99.193 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * ETHNIC COMPOSITION REPLY


 * I quoted one source, an academic book, because that source stated the facts that I was quoting. Do you want me to go and quote the same facts from other sources also?? Below is a table showing the facts about the JNA. The source of 1990 lower and middle raning officers is Broken Bonds, Cohen, p.182. The source for officers as a whole and the High Command is Fragmentation of Yugoslavia, Pavkovic, p.131-2. Both of these are good academic books, in no way biased in favour of the Serbs. Here are the stats:


 * Nationality, proportion of total Yugoslav population according to 1991 census, lower and middle ranking army officers, all army officers, army High Command


 * Serbs, 36.5%, 54.3%, 42.63%, -
 * Montenegrins, 2.3%, 5.2%, 9.45%, -
 * Yugoslavs, 3%, 9.6%, 10%, -
 * Serbs, Montenegrins and Yugoslavs put together, 41.8%, 66.2%, 58.83%, 33%
 * Croats, 19.7%, 12.5%, 14.21%, 38%
 * Slovenes, 7.5%, 2.3%, 6.4%, 8.3%
 * Macedonians, 5.8%, 7.3%, 6.3%, 8.3%
 * Muslims, 10%, 5.3%, 5.6%, 4.1%
 * Albanians, 9.3%, 1.5%, 3.15%, -


 * So here are the facts:


 * - the national composition of recruits was almost exactly proportionate to the national composition of the population, due to conscription


 * - but some groups - Serbs, Montenegrins, those who declared themselves Yugoslavs, and Macedonians - had a higher preference than others for actually embarking on a career in the JNA, for a number of cultural, economic, historic, etc reasons (e.g. Croats and Slovenes were richer, Serbs had a proud military tradition and identified most with the JNA, etc)


 * - the Partisan legacy was very important. This is why it was primarily Bosnian and Croatian Serbs, not Serbs from Serbia, who were over-represented, as they had formed the backbone of the Partisan resistance movement. This fact also partially explains why there were more Croats, Slovenes, and Montenegrins as one went higher up, as these groups particapated more in the liberation war than Croats and Slovenes were these days interested in joining the army, while Montenegrins participated in a far greater proportion than their numbers could now provide


 * - the Titoist policy of equal representation was employed most in the higher ranks. Serbs were much less likely to be promoted than others, as this proportion had to be kept to, so they were actually represented in the top ranks. So for this reason, "there was one general of the same ethnic group for every 20 Serb, 18 Yugoslav, 14 Montenegrin, 10 Croat, 9 Macedonian and Muslim, 6 Sovene and 3 Albanian colonels". (Bosnia-Herzegovina: The End of a Legacy, Neven Andjelic, p.201)


 * - although I do not have the statistics for the generals in 1990, in the 1970s and 1980s, the statistics show that Croats were over-represented, and Serbs represented about proportionate to their population.


 * - I do not have the statistics available, but it is a well known fact, available in all academic books, that the air force and navy were "dominated" by Croats and Slovenes. Even in December 1991, 41% of the air force staff, and 48% of the actual pilots, were neither Serbs nor Montenegrins, and this was after almost all the Slovenes and Croats had defected, Macedonians and Albanians were leaving, and Muslims were no longer responding to the call up


 * - non-Serbs, though in 1991 they were called on by their governments to leave the JNA, and most did (including 17,000 Croat officers, who defected during the war), continued to remain in high posts. Stane Brovet, a Slovene, remained Deputy Defence Minister until January 1992 when he left of his own accord. The Deputy Commander of the Second Military District, which covered Bosnia, when war broke out there, was also a Slovene.


 * You state that the composition of the High Command makes no difference, given the composition of the lower ranking officers. This is nonsense. It was the High Command that gave the orders, not the lower ranking officers!! And Serbian over-represention in the LCY membership is completely irrelevant to the question of ethnic composition of the JNA. (The head of the army LCY, btw, in case you're interested, was a Croat)


 * And by the way, I am not a Serb, I am British.


 * The Wikipedia article should include all the above facts. I am too busy to write it properly now, but will do so at some point in the near future.


 * ADDITION: You refer to Kadijevic as "just one man". He was the Secretary for National Defence, and, if you read any book on the former Yugoslavia, you will see that he was the most important man in the army! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.10.57 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * ETHNIC COMPOSITION REPLY
 * As I see, someone has posted a new recount of ethnic composition of the JNA, I would like it if someone can change it on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.137.171 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag
I see nothing but facts in the article. Isn't it time to remove the NPOV tag? btw, the statistics above should be included, but if we cannot reach consensus, I don't insist.--Bora Nesic 00:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested in knowing which sources were used to find the the ethnic distribution the leadership in the JNA; does this include all lower officers as well or just the ones at the top?

Swiss Army
Isn't the concept of total national defence similar to the Swiss Army? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.203.200.2 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Response: It's exactly that, as a concept.

Aircraft number seems dubious - 700?
All sources I've seen so far mention only 300 aircraft. The figure of 700 seems much too high. The proportion I've read about is basically: about 130 MiG-21s, 20 MiG-29s (which goes along with the article) and the rest local craft.

The figure of 300 probbably includes only combat aircraft, but 700 is still way off the mark. It is possible it includes all training, transport and recon craft. There were almost certainly no "700 combat aircraft". Right? The Spanish Inquisitor 12:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just went to air force link above and it shows total rundown: ~500 fighter & ground/attack (i.e. combat) and 300 training. Still think it's too high, but it's definetly less then 700.The Spanish Inquisitor 12:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My figures haven't been updated in a while Equipment of YAF but nothing was thrown out in Yugoslav Armed Forces so number of combat aircraft (tanks, guns etc.) were massively inflated since totally obsolete aircraft were listed as combat/light attack when they were no longer even fit for training service. Size of YAF post WW2 is also huge but most of the aircraft were piston engine when most of the World moved to jet aircraft. --Ivan Bajlo 12:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, so it's more then 300 but not by that much. I will just remove the word "combat" where 700 are mentioned, since it's probbably about half of that, until we can find a better source. Thanx.The Spanish Inquisitor 13:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Separate page for KoV, i.e. Ground Forces
Went ahead and created a new (separate) page for Ground Forces, as this would bring article(s) organization into line with actual JNA organization. As the Air Force (RV i PVO) and Navy (JRV) already have separate pages/articles it would be normal to have an article for the largest of the JNA services, KoV.

Also, went ahead and cleaned-up the headings in this article, with proper linking to the new Ground Forces article. Gaston200 (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

YPA's article demonized by 89.17.21.154! Needs to be corrected like it was before he harmed it.
The 'corrections' that this nationalist ( 89.17.21.154 ) made in the section of "Dissolution of YPA" are totally UNTRUE and they are miserably demonizing YPA. The truth is the opposite: - The irregullar croatian forces were provoking YPA on every corner, and the cro-propaganda of HATRED and EVIL towards everything yugoslavian was brainwashing the majority of the honest Croatian people, who didn't want to attack YPA barracks and get involved in a brother-killing war. And, by the way, who's controlling this article? Can't you see what's going on in this section? Like it is now, it's totally untrue and needs to be corrected back like it was before this evil nationalist (89.17.21.154) harmed it. Regards;173.183.96.125 (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you for bringing this to attention. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 10:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks DIREKTOR. It's my pleasure to contribute to wikipedia this way, by checking the pages relevant to the yugoslavian issues and reporting any lies, done by the sick nationalistic propaganda. This is another victory for the reason and truth, like many times before. I guess the fight will go on until the last remaints of the nationalistic elements, together with their evil propaganda are eliminated from wikipedia for good. Kindest Regards. 173.183.96.125 (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I dont want to get into who-did-what argument on this article and who is right, I just have to mention that I dont see you two guys (DIREKTOR and anonymus user) providing any relevant resources on this article.... Cheers, Kolpo. --95.178.200.235 (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Um... what? You act as though he or I were somehow supposed to do that.. Excuse me for editing where, when, and how ever much I please. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 01:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly that one. Well, do as you please as you surely will, I made my point. And also my share of editing on this article in the manner it was made from the beginning. Unresourced. Kolpo ;-) --95.178.208.69 (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are again making no sense. What is your point? That i should've been editing this article?? :P
 * Just make sure you don't start edit-warring to push this nonsense POV. A report will follow in a second should that be the case. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 17:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, no that is definitely not my intention, as the matter of fact, thats the reason why I pointed out that you two guys dont use any resources in the first place. The only thing you got resourced in the whole section is Martin Spegelj video tape, which is of questionable value anyway, but let it be. And please mind your language, you are attacking me "ad homminem" by declaring my edit as nonsense POV, while you dont use any sources also, what makes you so superiror to me on this one? Kolpo --95.178.208.69 (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You are directly contradicting yourself, in one and the same sentence. Please learn what "ad hominem" means and read WP:NPA. By discussing the nature of your edits, and not you yourself, I am by definition avoiding an ad hominem argument. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 20:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, right. I already told you what I mean about "discussion" level you showed in your brief and insulting comment and Im not gonna repeat myself over this again. Since you explicitely threaten with edit warring (and projectig that one on me, after first edit I made on this article!?), sending reports, and reverting to your POV, then it would be at least decent from you to do the work properly and source claims you made/support in the article. How simpler from that can it be? Kolpo --95.178.205.29 (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The sources are all honest and NORMAL people, who followed what was going on during the civil war in ex-Yugoslavia, in its 'croatian' episode.
 * The sources are all neutral TV and written media, also the media from non-involved ex-yugoslav republics, who reported objectivelly and trully, totally opposite to the evil-spreading cro-nationalistic media, who were only brainwashing Croatians. These sources, deeply engraved in the minds of all honest ex-yugoslavian people, are now slowly showing off as the rotten nationalist HDZ regime in 'Croatia' is going to a total collaps. Some of these sources will be on internet very soon and it will be THE FINAL END of all pathetic nationalistic provokers like you, Kolpo.
 * Those are the facts, everything else including any contra-comment or 'contra-argument' to this will be absolutelly worthless. The truth hurts and kills those who try to misiterpret it, right my dear friend DIRECTOR? -:))-Cheers and a Happy New Year! 207.216.132.111 (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Which sources are you talking about ? There are none in the concerned article section, that's simply what Kolpo's point is. Educate yourself by reading Citing sources. --Jerome Potts (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a link from an article from 2009 from 'Slobodna Dalmacija', the best selling Dalmatian newspaper, where the former defense minister of Croatia-Josip Boljkovac openly admits that the war in Croatia was started by the illegal paramilitary croatian nationalistic formations, who first attacked JNA(YPA). This is a crystally clear fact, said by an ex croatian official, and there's no room for any other dirty lies. The text is in Serbo-Croatian: http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/Hrvatska/tabid/66/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/42151/Default.aspx
 * Regards;207.216.132.111 (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well can you quote the section of that article which states what you claim, and give us an English translation of it too, please ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The article he linked that is written in Croatian, has nothing to do with what he stated it does and doesn't even mention Josip Boljkovac. 207.216.132.111 is (or was) an IP of an serbian nationalist. This is evident by his POV. "civil war in ex-Yugoslavia, in its 'croatian' episode". There was no civil war in ex-Yugoslavia, let alone a 'croatian' 'episode'. It was greater-serbian agression that has been brewing for some time and killing,raping, pillaging it's neighbours. If it was a civil war there wouldn't be an agressor on innocent countries and there would be casualties in serbia just like other ex-yugoslav countries have theirs. The only casualties in serbia are from the NATO bombing, but that was a necessary evil to finally stop the serbian agression on it's neighbours. While people in serbia were hanging around and watching movies, living life, their chetniks that they cheered for were committing crimes against humanity, all for the sake of greater-serbia. Serbs just couldn't wait for other nations to be conquered and ethnically cleansed. And if you want to talk about brainwashing and evil spreading media, please check this documentary out(made by serbs that didn't fall for serbian propaganda): SLIKE I REČI MRŽNJE - Vukovar 1991.=>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akAc0rlEemg The IP is just trying to project the blame off of serbia. VEcev (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Dissolution
this section is clearly biased and evrything but NPOV.--Severino (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Severino is absolutely right. This section is absolutely biased and does not correspond to any facts that are actually common knowledge. Urban empress (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It's also incomprehensible to anyone without a knowledge of the subject. (What, for instance, is "TO"?) 205.227.88.253 (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The section needs clear expansion and much work. It is limited by the mention of facts. Anyway, what you mean by "common sense"? I made a minor edit where I hope I solved the TO question. Just as note, it was my first edit ever on that section. FkpCascais (talk) 07:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Technically, this section could be deleted as it is completely without citations from Reliable Sources. 104.169.37.15 (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Yugoslav People's Army or Yugoslav National Army
In Serbo-Croatian (or Croato-Serbian), word "narod" means both the "people" and the "nation". So, in case of Yugoslav People's Army, correct translations of "Jugoslovenska narodna armija" are both Yugoslav People's Army and Yugoslav National Army. In materials of US DoD, JNA is translated in both ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.149.232.157 (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It would be incorrect to translate YPA as national army, first because national is most time used as single and describe one nation or one citizen and not plural and when describing "Narodna" in this case it is plural denoting all people or in wider meaning all citizens or all nations that live in Yugoslavia not a single one, so even if "national" it was used it should have been used more correctly in plural as "Yugoslav Nationals Army" and not "Yugoslav National Army" but it is still incorrect(example - "U.S. nationals living abroad" - form of "national" plural use). Next example is National People's Army that is translation from German "Nationale Volksarmee" and in same name or sentence we have "national" and "people's" and that how it is correctly done translation because it indicates its true meaning - first there is only one nation or state - German - that formed that army and yet in same that it is all peoples army - belongs to all of people - Volksarmee - peoples army. So German "Volksarmee" is never correctly translated as "national army" but correctly as "people's army" because German "Volks" is people in general not national and in this example we have it in one name - "Nationale Volksarmee" simila to YPA and "national" is obliviously more about state then it is about people living in state. If we go further in use as a noun "national" in next example - A "German national" - has following meaning - a citizen of a particular country - Germany - and that for sure is not all citizens and yet YPA is all citizens or more correctly all people's army. "National" as adjective is for most of time similar in use as a "state" or "governmental" or "one nation" and does not have meaning as all people of some state.

In Yugoslavia case of YPA such use of word "national" would be obviously incorrect because Yugoslavia as mentioned is formed from many people or many nations and "narodna" or "people's" indicates that while "national" has not such meaning. One more example that we can use to describe why not is correct to use "national" is "People's Republic of China" that again indicates all people living in that country and yet it is not translated or used correctly anywhere as "National Republic of China" which would give it incorrect meaning and in Serbian is from English language correctly translated as "Narodna Republika Kina" so it should be used vice versa in same way in some English translation from Serbian if it is done correctly. Loesorion (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Active and reserve personnel number of YPA
It is important when talking about active and reserve personnel number first to have actual year for that number. YPA active personnel varied from about 800.000 immediately after end of WWII and late 1940's to less then 200.000 thousand in beginning of 1990's. Given number can not be bigger then YPA had units according to their own plans where that personnel would have some job or function as part of military, so numbers must be tied with actual formations - army's, corps, divisions, brigades etc. It can not be given random numbers we like but actual maximum that units could hold at some time in total or had during their existence within actual year. Reserve for active troops is about number active troops could receive into existing units according to mobilizations plans. Each branch of Yugoslavia armed forces had its own mobilization plans to form units or to replace combat losses. Reserve could be active(usually tied for some active formations with low numbers of personnel but called often for trainings or to be used) or passive(as pool for drafting in order to replace combat losses and other different purposes). Passive reserve sometimes could be also given as total number of all personnel that had some military training that are decommissioned after receiving such training and numbers also vary by year so we need to be clear about what year we are talking about and for what units or branch of armed forces is that reserve as it can not be same number for all branches. In case of Yugoslavia reserve for both branch of armed forces - YPA and TO are different things and reserve for one branch was tied only for that branch trough mobilization plans and should be given separately or total numbers would be inaccurate and doubled. Loesorion (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Removed copyedit tag
I just removed the copyedit tag after a huge edit. However, now the multiple issues tag only has one issue. Easy fix, right? But the refimprove tag was added in April 2008. I could just make it one tag, but then it would look like it was added recently. Should I just do that?

Asparagusus  (interaction)  13:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Arny of Yugoslavia" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Arny of Yugoslavia and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Joy (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)