WW2 historian here. AIM is absolutely on point, The German spent so much resources on tanks like Panthers, Tigers and the Dreaded Maus that they didn't built a Luftwaffe backup. They gradually lost planes to Red Airforce and couldn't replace them. German obsession with quality and Soviet pragmatism about quantity turned the tide of war
Quality pays off when you are evenly matched in all departments. If you are missing necessary machinery you will eventually be overwhelmed. Ten ants are not a problem for me but a thousand ants are a huge problem.
Well, that is true but, if Germany would have captured key Soviet cities and command posts by the time T-34s were mass produced, you wouldn’t have said so. Capturing fuel depots instead of focusing on Stalingrad was a grave mistake for Germany (and a blessing for us).
The Germans HAD to focus on quality. They could never win with mass. Schiff, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds ALL had been funding The Soviets from the 1920's. US industrialists built all their factories.
Incomplete transfer of population between India and newly formed Pakistan was one of the worst policy decisions, it can result in another disastrous partition of India bcoz Islam as a political doctrine never changes.
@ABHRA TALUKDER the Munich massacre happened in 1972. There were multiple islamic terror attacks in France in the decades you have mentioned which are listed on Wikipedia. Please read history before going lmao.
Or if not that then at least there should have been clarity about Islam and how Muslims will behave. Madrassa's should have been banned or be given clear instructions on what they can preach. There should have been clear rules about Muslims not being eligible for posts like PM, CM and other security wise sensitive posts in bureaucracy. If true history wasn't suppressed in our history books. Instead we did the worst thing possible, tried to do it the Gandhi way. Trying to be overly nice to them and placate them thinking they will eventually return the favor.
Indian Muslim population at that was 25% of total Indian population, but muslim only got less than 10% of total fertile agriculture land, 15% of resources, 10% of capital. If you wanna do population swap, atleast distribute resources equally. And secondly problem with India is not just Regressive Islamic community but also generally regressive Indian culture, Hindus have casteism and regressive ritual, lack of homogeneity i.e South India vs North India divide, language barriers e.t.c India could have never became like China because of cultural and geographical reasons. For example Chinese belong to east Asian culture, And in East Asia you have countries like South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Sigapore. Each of the countries is well connected through sea routes and trade connectivity that greatly helped to set up a supply chains that lead to export oriented economies. Also culturally East Asians i.e Koreans, Chinese, Japanese are not culturally and religious backward like South Asians, There is nothing like Casteism in their society and their majority population is Atheist, therefore there is no dogma related to Cows, inter-faith marriages, "Sharma ji ka beta" like mentality. In the great scheme of things its culture that help society to get better. More Homogenous societies have better chance of achieving prosperity than diverse and religiously regressive societies like India, Pakistan or Afghanistan. and finally i would like to share one of my experience with you, One of my Chinese friend got married to a Pakistani Christain girl. Pakistani Christain girl told me that her husband family happily accepted her. Now compare that with the society we have in India and Pakistan, Boy's family would have rejected straight away for marrying some one out of their caste. deprived us to achieve anything substantial.
Complete population exchange of millions across the country would have been impossible anyway. It would have been an unmitigated disaster because of geographical limitations and political limitations because of existence of Hyderabad state, etc. We can see many such examples, like the disastrous case of Turkey-Greece, etc. It could have been dealt with well even without going through all that. Look at how USSR completely de-radicalized Central Asian Muslim population.
@@_Ironhide there were only 2.9 crore muslims left in 1947 india. 72 lacs had already migrated across. It was possible to do it within 4-5 yrs. Also Greece is much kore peaceful today coz of exchange. Princely states could also be done with exchange. Greece also exchanged many turks even after it kept annexing Dione islands in late 1940s and 1950s.
okay, so let me elaborate near 22:00 about the maths AIM used to explain where he confused with 'redundancy' with 'attack surface area' : Case 1 : you need AT LEAST ONE engine to function properly in that case having 4 over 2 actually improves probability because (assuming 50% chance of an engine failure)... the probability of failing all engines is (1/2)^4 i.e. 1/16 in quad engine and in double engine, the probability of failing is (1/2)^2 i.e. 1/4 which is 4 times the quad engine. SO, BY INTRODUCING 2 MORE ENGINES, YOUR PLANE IS 4 TIMES LESS LIKELY TO FAIL. Intuitively, in case of 4 engines even if 2 fail, they'll still be as good as double engine. THIS IS REDUNDANCY && THIS IS HOW ALL DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS WORK (INCLUDING RU-vid). Case 2 : you need ALL the engines to function properly to fly. In that case, the probabilities are now reversed, i.e. for a 4 engine machine, the probability of proper functionality is now 1/16 and probability of dual engine working properly is 1/4. THIS IS DUE TO AN INCREASE IN THE 'ATTACK SURFACE AREA' THAT COMPROMISING EVEN ONE COMPROMISES EVERYTHING && THIS IS WHY HACKERS TRY TO BREAK INTO AT LEAST ONE MACHINE TO COMPROMISE EVERYTHING. Now, of course this is a very simplistic explanation but, it's enough to point out the mathematical flaw.
Rightly so. While the current historians say Ashoka the great, Ashoka is mentioned as Chandda Ashoka( cruel Ashoka) in our texts. He was never glorified. A sure short way to identify if something is fishy with a particular historical figure is to see if our present historians praise him/her beyond heavens. Be it Ashoka or Raja rammohan roy or turks or Gandhi.
@@lookintoit4537He was a British stooge. He worked for East India company. He was of the same old view that Hindus are backward, non scientific and Sanskrit education should be replaced with an anglicised version. He was against moorti puja too. He contributed a lot to the atrocity literature in India. Especially his stand and understanding of "sati pratha", how Indians burn their widows, allegedly. All in all he propounded missionary propaganda. A typical brown saheb. Interestingly Macaulays English education policy came after rammohan Roy wrote a letter to the crown in 1823 how sanskrit is keeping Indians in the dark.
16:54 I fact checked this info on many news websites, auto websites but I didn't found the info you gave. What I found was that in the top 10 list most unreliable cars were American manufacturer. Maybe because American consumer are more demanding.
3D printing cannot be applied on a scale. It is not for mass production.it is good for prototype or any specialized product which is required in small numbers.
@@SwastikLIA it all changed but not in the manner which was accepted to change. Introduction of computer was expected to create massive joblessness but rather than creating it. It had helped in solving it to a great extent. It had opened new avenues for the people to get self employed.
U don't understand exponential growth potential of technology then.... Ofcourse 3d printing will be used for scale in the future... He's talking about future. U already have 3d printing taking over in western industries
Engine maths doesn't work out, unless dead weight of engines are problem in case of all 4 failing. The probably of all four failing is lower than all 2 failing, that is common sense. Using 2 engines vs 4 is mostly to do with economics and maintenance issues.
I don't think it is about all engines failing. It is more to do with individual engin e failing. So if you have 2, you only have to worry about 2. If you have 4, twice the worry, and as you point out, maintenance, upkeep etc.
It’s not so simple, 1. For safety purpose even if one engine fails in a twin engined it not going to plummet immediately, there is safety redundancy even in twin engine. 2. There is a critical limit for redundancy, upto a point it is a necessity, beyond the critical limit it’s liability.
AIM is wrong .... about Britain subsidizing India from 1911 .... by then they had introduced a financial system that was later perfected by Bretton Woods .... around that time they introduced a system of allowing Indians to export .... but all payments had to be in the form of a British paper which could only be encashed into Indian currency at London. In addition there were taxes.
Great insight into compilation of data, definitely worth a listen. What I don't understand why are listeners asking AIM about India's future for him its all dim and grim. He is an ivory tower thinker. The ground reality is as follows why industrialization is still not full on. 1) Capital is very expensive in India, while in west is 1-2%, in India it can be anything from 6-11% this is a major killer. 2) Infrastructure: Now BJP is building it relentlessly, prior to it there was none. 3) Because of point 2 land is expensive, i.e. to get a land to get ready for manufacturing you need road, electricity, water. 4) Trained Labor and casual Labor shortage, has AIM ever checked on what sort of labor shortage India has ? because India is practically a capitalist's society buttered by socialism and lack of communication links means getting good and cheap labour is very challenging. Appreciate if AIM can ready this comment and get back !! Rather than being a critic if he can offer solution then he will see what challenges lie ahead for the system.
Hey Kushal ,ask abhijit to write a book depicting future india, showing the probable state of india due to lack of industrialization. Similar in format to George Orwell's 1984. Say, abhijit iyer mitra's 2047(or even later)
@@a_02_prakashnayak59 We are different kind of labourers. We are Tech-coolies. Americans and Chinese create and export their own technologies, they are R&D based economies while we are still making money through labour arbitrage (tech labourers in this case).
@@AyushRaj-rt6bb bro, service sector means more than IT companies. It includes many medium to small size enterprises like small shopowners, service and utility providers, transport personnels and many more. Who are the backbone of our workforce and these are the people who have recently move on from their agricultural roots with time they would move on to higher socioeconomic strata because of our growing economy whose size had became 10 folds from the time . Since I was born in 1997.
AIM should stick to this which he is good at analyzing defence tactics, policies, implementation instead of lecturing on bollywood which he does not have knowledge of.
Half the time he lectures on areas where he has no knowledge. This is the problem with these 'analyst'. They single handedly destroyed army by Agnipath policy.
Since we have to 'liberalise' our economy in the 90s due to sheer desperation then, how more you think is the best way to modernise more. What policies should our Indian government at Central level adopt to improve our weak areas? Will soviet style 5 year plan help in the future too?
Land reform, Labour reform, agricultural reform, judicial reform, police reform, industrial reform, privatisation, education reform, investment in infrastructure (BJP is doing a great job here), investment in education and Healthcare, investment in research and development. There are so many things to be done.
Colonial expropriation has to be counted in terms of today's money (that is with inflation related adjustment). One pound sterling in 1890 would buy you lot more in quantity than it does for the same product today. Similarly per capita is not a good yardstick of living standard of the masses be it from past or present; it has to be median household income (to adjust for income/wealth disparity between the political elites, ruling classes, influential traders close to echelons of political and military power and the grassroot masses) and that too measured in terms of PPP (and not exchange rate), corrected for historical inflation. The british narrative of the british subsidising India (just because the british colonialists stopped diverting Indian taxpayers' money into bearing the expenses of the India Office in London after 1919 that anyway used to be absorbed back into the british economy through british staff of the India Office in London spending their salaries and also the extraneous charges both of which were spent inside the british economy mostly much like US financial assistance to Afghanistan) is a myth at its best. Flight of Remittances of british colonial staff "earned" in India (ostentaciously high compared to contemporary west) to Britain continued after 1919, so did the monopoly profit by british mercantilists out of the Indian colony treated as an appendage of raw materials as well as a captive market and these british "investors" did not really acquire original assets in India through any remitting of their british homeland capital funds to India but instead acquired by rerouting of savings made by them on earnings they made in India locally most of the time, both through terms and conditions favorable to them under the auspieces of the colonial reign. As per economist Gurcharan Das, "The British government transferred its surplus revenues back to England. Since India consistently exported more than she imported in the second half of the 19th century and early 20th century, Britain used India’s trade surplus to finance her own trade deficit with the rest of the world, to pay for her exports to India, and for capital repayments in London. This represented a massive drain of India’s wealth." So, after East India Company's monopoly ended, Indian producers began exporting their products as well. However, rather than gold and silver, the British dealer used to pay Indian exporters in “Special Council Bills.” SCBs functioned similarly to checks, allowing Indian manufacturers to withdraw funds from colonial offices. However, the British regime played a trick by paying the money using funds collected from India’s own tax revenue. So technically there was no export revenue inflow into the Indian economy despite export from India. India's cumulative export between 1900 and 1928 was the second highest in the world but India remained a trade deficit country instead of becoming a trade surplus country because of this con pulled off the british colonialists. How do you counter that? In October, 1931, the British colonialist regime also depressed silver and gold prices in India and raised interest rates with the resulting money famine pushing Indian masses to sell their gold and silver savings that were shipped to Britain. In a nutshell, nett colonialist expropriation of India continued with almost equal vigor between 1920-1947.
After hearing that German engineering thing in WW1 I remembered how a German soldier of WW2 (after the war in a interview) said that German Tiger tanks had no problem in fighting against 10 American Sherman tanks but the problem came when the another Sherman tank came. In WW2 USA basically outindustrialised Germany on scalability
PLEASE EXPLAIN Abhijeet hamesha bolta hai ki industrialisation humesha autocracy ya dictator ship me hua hai ya hota hai toh kya koi bta skta ki 1920 me America ne industrialise kiya tha lekin tab toh vaha democracy thi.
Having four engines and using all four does not mean redundancy. Redundancy is important. It means if one thing fails, you have a backup. The probability of failure does not increase.
Redundancy does not either necessarily mean presence of dedicated backup only meant for use in suddenly arisen emergency scenario and not to be used in regular operations. Quadraplex redundancy in FBW (Fly By Wire) systems in fighter aircaft may be dedicated for redundancy but nobody is out of their mind to carry extra two turbofans (that would add up lot of extra weight) JUST FOR REDUNDANCY'S SAKE. When there are four engines/turboprops/turbofans in an aircraft, it means they all are needed to keep the aircraft flying with its mass, load and making it capable of exploiting all its flight envelope (for example A380 where two turbofans with less cumulative less thrust wont keep it flying with desired performance level but a reliable significantly higher thrust turbofans meeting all performance parameters and reducing the number of turbofans needed, is not simply around- the problem arose of the mindset "bigger is just better" instead of out of actual necessityand without due considerations paid to financial viability). But that does not mean that extra two engines wont double up as back ups in certain emergency situations. If a turbofan is bird-hit, the aircraft can jettison its fuel, lighten its weight and keep flying with other functional engines doubled up as built in redundancy measure to land safely at a nearby airport. Similarly for a two engined fighter jet, if one engine suffers from sudden engine shut off or FOD, the other engine that is not a dedicated emergency backup rather needed to exploit the aircraft's full flight envelope with full fuel and weapons payload, doubles up as redundancy measure to help the fighter jet fly back to friendly airspace and land at the nearest friendly airbase safely while the aircraft will not be combat capable at this point with reduced thrust, jettisoning of fuel and weapons payload but your fighter is saved and you can make it combat capable again by servicing the damaged engine instead of having to cope with an aircrash crash. Having more engines causes definitely more logistical, servicing and maintenance headache and as opposed to two engined aircraft where the engines are closer to the fuselage or center of mass, two extra engines in four engined aircraft cause vectoring issues leading to uncontrolled yaw in flight in a situation where alternate engines (say, 1,3 or 2,4) or both engines on one wing (say 1,2 or 3,4) are dysfunctional, hence having to incorporate more complex flight control laws, more electronics and software and to support the functions of the control panels to compensate in such an emergency situation which creates more failure points and maintenance headache and the end product is not really a cost effective solution.
The North has been richer than the South in Italy since Renaissance. The very reason people rallied behind Piedmont for unification of Italy and they were able to do it was because Piedmont was the most industrialised region in Italy. Not as industrialised as European levels but the most in Italy.
Hi Sir, Could you do a video on the Northeastern States of India. The current situation and why there is disparity between Northeastern States and rest of India. If you can enlighten about the Insurgency in Nagaland and the Special Status of Northeast States. Big fan, Thank you.
@@pb4028 Please search "Meet the real hero behind demonetization". He is the man who first developed this idea and presented to the government but government disappointed him badly by not fully implementing his idea.
@@AyushRaj-rt6bb Yes I heard him on Rajiv Malhotra ji's channel long ago. I think I remember him saying that the present revolution of UPI was to come before demonetization. He also proposed to end all types of taxes except the tax on money transfer from one account to another. Modi rushed it.
However he is right tho...I've seen videos where they have started to make houses out of 3 d printed things...recently I saw some videos where they were producing objects for the disabled using 3d printers...sadly that low quality manufacturing market is gone 😢
@@Wisdom-i1v even there are technologies where you can use plant and algaes to make crude oil which then can be transported to any local oil refinery to extract petroleum products.. But is it viable? Is it commercially feasible and safe? There's one thing called proof of concept and other one is applicability
Industrialization is a painful process. It's a process of depeasantization and proletariatization. So technically even your kamwali bai is more of a peasant rather than a proletariat and thus comes in rural class rather than urban class despite living in urban areas.
In the first example, wasn't Prussia even before German unification and consolidation came about, counted amongst the foremost military states even though it was smaller in size compared to France or Austria or England? So there must have been some excellence there and not the case that all things German were shit quality
Being a great military power doesn't always mean excellent technology. The Mongols mowed down the Chinese who were among the most technologically advanced nations back then.
Abhijit is talking nonsense. Germans had much better logistics network and used rail roads to devastating effects in the Franco Prussian war. Germans were more adaptable and adjusted rapidly while French were stuck in time in terms of their tactics and mindset.
Not doing complete population exchange between United Pakistan We can solve our internal problems (casteism, gender issues) way faster if we are not much polarized which was reaction to Islamic fundamentalism
Sir if you could kindly list the reading list and recommendations for these topics, that would be awesome. I would love to learn more about them but I just don't know how to go about it.
Is there any book or article through which we can understand how Brits start subsidizing India after 1911 and this economic disparity under mughal rule.
Failed invasion of Russia by napoleon & Hitler proved worse for both the country. Napoleon abandoned France and Hitler committed suicide after Russian invasion of France and Germany.
Don’t be so dumb Mitra. He is the interviewer who has to put the viewers perspective before the subject. Do you expect a Sartre vs Maynard Keynes debate?
@@randoanon probably he is referring to the knowledge of discussed topics. AIM has a tendency to ask for facts and quiz around while discussing a topic. The discussion does not appear bidirectional.
U ALL ARE MOST IMMATURE N LESS KNOWLEDGEABLE U TUBERS, i IMPLORE PLESE WATCH MIND BLOGGING ANALYSIS FROM EXTREMELY PATRIOTIC GAURAV PRADHAN ON CANDID MEENA SHOW, HIS DEEPEST KNOWLEDGE ABOUT INDIA'S THOROUGHLY THOUGHT OUT POLICIES WILL RENDER U SPEECHLESS. JAI HIND, HAMHARA BHARAT MAHAN UNDER MODIJI'S LEADERSHIP,VANDE MATARAM 🙏🙏🙏💪💪💪🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳
I have read History of Economic Thought by Ajit Dasgupta, in it, I have read Chanakya's policies. He was a socialist, he wanted full state ownership over everything except farming land which too was heavily regulated. The goal of his text was to maximize tax revenue for the king. Not for economic development. Chanakya was a german socialist rather than an austrian economist.
@ABHRA TALUKDER imagine today we can rougly divide India into east and west . Where west is much more developed and Industrialized there are only few exceptions like Chennai, Hyderabad
@ABHRA TALUKDER I don't think so there is that type of unity among them and center has resources to crush rebel movements like they have managed in Punjab, Kashmir ,Nagaland etc and they also had external support being border states , . I feel that bhubneshwar and Visakhapatnam have good potential and state government are in good terms with center compared to Kolkata so they should focus on them.
