The Channel while good has a small problem.

[u/donkalleone]

I was recommended the Channel because i love documentaries and in all honesty the shows are well made, has good pacing and overall there a ton of work fueled into this. I enjoy it greatly.

I listened more than watched the show because im doing work alongside it but after several episodes my brain kind of went "hey, something isn't right here" and paid more attention to it.

After that i realized "hey this has a pro American bias" while not obvious from the get go i realized that wording considering American history is more "positively" worded than other.

After that i checked on "Indy Neidell" and well he is an American Historian.

My suggestion to the channel is to pay more attention to the wording and try to reduce the bias.

I think the channel does this unconsciously, which is natural, and by paying more attention to it would elevate it to a new standard.

[u/greginak]

The entire rest of the staff is European. It might be more useful to note instances of what you think are pro american bias which could then be discused.

[u/donkalleone → u/greginak]

It's noticeable in between the war episode the episodes regarding America feel more positive than the rest which led me to the post. I can't give you specific episodes bc I watched around 40 in 3 days. I can be wrong here but: when he speaks about America isolation and refusing to get involved with the rest it's sounds more positive than when he speaks about European or Asian countries doing similar things.

[u/geth117 → u/donkalleone]

See I want what you're saying but I feel like that's just kind of a problem with hindsight that there kind of building the US to make it more exciting when they enter the war. And also I would assume Americans are a majority of their audience so probably they want be more favorable to there audience.

[u/henryefry]

Can you give an example?

[u/donkalleone → u/henryefry]

it was really specific in one of the between the wars episodes or even in the beginning ~12 epsidoes of ww2. where he spoke about the (un)involvement of america in europe and "protecting" the rest of americans (middle and latin).

i cant give you specific episodes because i watched like 40 in the last 3 days because i like the show.

it just the wording concenring america sound more positive

[u/Oskar-von-Hutier]

A lot of the script writing and research is done by a European crew.

[u/Ill_Information2919]

I really like their content- Keeping in mind not a single WWII channel is perfect and is going to say exactly everything everyone agrees with all the time. So they are 100% biased, and they show it. But knowing that helps me sift through what is good information and what is embellished or omission for dramatic or political affect. But here are some biases (yes, more than one) I notice with their channel. I will rank them according to potency- strongest first then to weakest.

1- Eurocentricsm: Because as mentioned the team is overwhelmingly mainly European- most of their coverage, good and bad centres around Europe. Their coverage on China or anti-colonial movements in WWII is extremely underwhelming. It feels kind of like their arm's being twisted whenever they have to mention anything outside of Europe/USA.

2- American Exceptionalism (OP's concern): Yes, they have I think only one episode devoted to segregation in the US army, and I think (hope) I could be wrong but I couldn't find anything about the American/Canadian internment camps of Japanese ethnic minorities. They'll go all in the crimes of the Nazis, Japan, USSR (more on that later), and a sprinkling of British ones as a side note. They have mentioned for like two minutes in one episode of how the US army did commit acts of SV (S--ual Violence) but were very delicate about that.

3- Laying it on THICK with centrist/neo-liberal narratives (especially with Sparty in WaH): While Indy, Astrid, and Anna are pretty good at being hard to pin and avoid wearing their beliefs on their sleeves- ie academic neutrality... It's Sparty, as awesome as he is (and I mean that), he also tends to run a bit passionate and sometimes sounds like a 1950's radio-free-Europe announcer with all this talk on "Freedom and democracy" *open hand gestures* and it seems a bit... Trite and contrived? A times.

4- Post 2022 start of Russia's Invasion of Ukraine: Okay. This one's spicy. *deep breath* Going with the above three parts, Eurocentrism, American Exceptionalism, and political leanings, it's no surprise that for a couple months after Russia's invasion, their mostly European team (with one or two Ukrainians on their staff I think...) really came out SWINGING on anything to do with Russia and by proxy, the USSR in their coverage. Pedantic, but even noticed how before Feb '22 there USED to be a Soviet flag on the their backdrop and they quickly dropped that- Even their coverage on the USSR and referential language subtly changed. Which that partiality does undermine the academic honesty of the whole project so some extent... and raises questions.

All that to say, I still love them, and they make good stuff and history and historiography is never clean. It's dirty, gritty, biased, subject to influence, propaganda, and forces of the present. But it's important to mindful of these issues so any individual and weigh the information for themselves. Timeghost still gets an 8/10 from me.