essay over ww1

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

World War I

By: History.com Editors

Updated: August 11, 2023 | Original: October 29, 2009

World War I, also known as the Great War, started in 1914 after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. His murder catapulted into a war across Europe that lasted until 1918. During the four-year conflict, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire (the Central Powers) fought against Great Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Romania, Canada, Japan and the United States (the Allied Powers). Thanks to new military technologies and the horrors of trench warfare, World War I saw unprecedented levels of carnage and destruction. By the time the war was over and the Allied Powers had won, more than 16 million people—soldiers and civilians alike—were dead.

Archduke Franz Ferdinand

Tensions had been brewing throughout Europe—especially in the troubled Balkan region of southeast Europe—for years before World War I actually broke out.

A number of alliances involving European powers, the Ottoman Empire , Russia and other parties had existed for years, but political instability in the Balkans (particularly Bosnia, Serbia and Herzegovina) threatened to destroy these agreements.

The spark that ignited World War I was struck in Sarajevo, Bosnia, where Archduke Franz Ferdinand —heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire—was shot to death along with his wife, Sophie, by the Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip on June 28, 1914. Princip and other nationalists were struggling to end Austro-Hungarian rule over Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The assassination of Franz Ferdinand set off a rapidly escalating chain of events: Austria-Hungary , like many countries around the world, blamed the Serbian government for the attack and hoped to use the incident as justification for settling the question of Serbian nationalism once and for all.

Kaiser Wilhelm II

Because mighty Russia supported Serbia, Austria-Hungary waited to declare war until its leaders received assurance from German leader Kaiser Wilhelm II that Germany would support their cause. Austro-Hungarian leaders feared that a Russian intervention would involve Russia’s ally, France, and possibly Great Britain as well.

On July 5, Kaiser Wilhelm secretly pledged his support, giving Austria-Hungary a so-called carte blanche, or “blank check” assurance of Germany’s backing in the case of war. The Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary then sent an ultimatum to Serbia, with such harsh terms as to make it almost impossible to accept.

World War I Begins

Convinced that Austria-Hungary was readying for war, the Serbian government ordered the Serbian army to mobilize and appealed to Russia for assistance. On July 28, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, and the tenuous peace between Europe’s great powers quickly collapsed.

Within a week, Russia, Belgium, France, Great Britain and Serbia had lined up against Austria-Hungary and Germany, and World War I had begun.

The Western Front

According to an aggressive military strategy known as the Schlieffen Plan (named for its mastermind, German Field Marshal Alfred von Schlieffen ), Germany began fighting World War I on two fronts, invading France through neutral Belgium in the west and confronting Russia in the east.

On August 4, 1914, German troops crossed the border into Belgium. In the first battle of World War I, the Germans assaulted the heavily fortified city of Liege , using the most powerful weapons in their arsenal—enormous siege cannons—to capture the city by August 15. The Germans left death and destruction in their wake as they advanced through Belgium toward France, shooting civilians and executing a Belgian priest they had accused of inciting civilian resistance. 

First Battle of the Marne

In the First Battle of the Marne , fought from September 6-9, 1914, French and British forces confronted the invading German army, which had by then penetrated deep into northeastern France, within 30 miles of Paris. The Allied troops checked the German advance and mounted a successful counterattack, driving the Germans back to the north of the Aisne River.

The defeat meant the end of German plans for a quick victory in France. Both sides dug into trenches , and the Western Front was the setting for a hellish war of attrition that would last more than three years.

Particularly long and costly battles in this campaign were fought at Verdun (February-December 1916) and the Battle of the Somme (July-November 1916). German and French troops suffered close to a million casualties in the Battle of Verdun alone.

HISTORY Vault: World War I Documentaries

Stream World War I videos commercial-free in HISTORY Vault.

World War I Books and Art

The bloodshed on the battlefields of the Western Front, and the difficulties its soldiers had for years after the fighting had ended, inspired such works of art as “ All Quiet on the Western Front ” by Erich Maria Remarque and “ In Flanders Fields ” by Canadian doctor Lieutenant-Colonel John McCrae . In the latter poem, McCrae writes from the perspective of the fallen soldiers:

Published in 1915, the poem inspired the use of the poppy as a symbol of remembrance.

Visual artists like Otto Dix of Germany and British painters Wyndham Lewis, Paul Nash and David Bomberg used their firsthand experience as soldiers in World War I to create their art, capturing the anguish of trench warfare and exploring the themes of technology, violence and landscapes decimated by war.

The Eastern Front

On the Eastern Front of World War I, Russian forces invaded the German-held regions of East Prussia and Poland but were stopped short by German and Austrian forces at the Battle of Tannenberg in late August 1914.

Despite that victory, Russia’s assault forced Germany to move two corps from the Western Front to the Eastern, contributing to the German loss in the Battle of the Marne.

Combined with the fierce Allied resistance in France, the ability of Russia’s huge war machine to mobilize relatively quickly in the east ensured a longer, more grueling conflict instead of the quick victory Germany had hoped to win under the Schlieffen Plan .

Russian Revolution

From 1914 to 1916, Russia’s army mounted several offensives on World War I’s Eastern Front but was unable to break through German lines.

Defeat on the battlefield, combined with economic instability and the scarcity of food and other essentials, led to mounting discontent among the bulk of Russia’s population, especially the poverty-stricken workers and peasants. This increased hostility was directed toward the imperial regime of Czar Nicholas II and his unpopular German-born wife, Alexandra.

Russia’s simmering instability exploded in the Russian Revolution of 1917, spearheaded by Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks , which ended czarist rule and brought a halt to Russian participation in World War I.

Russia reached an armistice with the Central Powers in early December 1917, freeing German troops to face the remaining Allies on the Western Front.

America Enters World War I

At the outbreak of fighting in 1914, the United States remained on the sidelines of World War I, adopting the policy of neutrality favored by President Woodrow Wilson while continuing to engage in commerce and shipping with European countries on both sides of the conflict.

Neutrality, however, it was increasingly difficult to maintain in the face of Germany’s unchecked submarine aggression against neutral ships, including those carrying passengers. In 1915, Germany declared the waters surrounding the British Isles to be a war zone, and German U-boats sunk several commercial and passenger vessels, including some U.S. ships.

Widespread protest over the sinking by U-boat of the British ocean liner Lusitania —traveling from New York to Liverpool, England with hundreds of American passengers onboard—in May 1915 helped turn the tide of American public opinion against Germany. In February 1917, Congress passed a $250 million arms appropriations bill intended to make the United States ready for war.

Germany sunk four more U.S. merchant ships the following month, and on April 2 Woodrow Wilson appeared before Congress and called for a declaration of war against Germany.

Gallipoli Campaign

With World War I having effectively settled into a stalemate in Europe, the Allies attempted to score a victory against the Ottoman Empire, which entered the conflict on the side of the Central Powers in late 1914.

After a failed attack on the Dardanelles (the strait linking the Sea of Marmara with the Aegean Sea), Allied forces led by Britain launched a large-scale land invasion of the Gallipoli Peninsula in April 1915. The invasion also proved a dismal failure, and in January 1916 Allied forces staged a full retreat from the shores of the peninsula after suffering 250,000 casualties.

Did you know? The young Winston Churchill, then first lord of the British Admiralty, resigned his command after the failed Gallipoli campaign in 1916, accepting a commission with an infantry battalion in France.

British-led forces also combated the Ottoman Turks in Egypt and Mesopotamia , while in northern Italy, Austrian and Italian troops faced off in a series of 12 battles along the Isonzo River, located at the border between the two nations.

Battle of the Isonzo

The First Battle of the Isonzo took place in the late spring of 1915, soon after Italy’s entrance into the war on the Allied side. In the Twelfth Battle of the Isonzo, also known as the Battle of Caporetto (October 1917), German reinforcements helped Austria-Hungary win a decisive victory.

After Caporetto, Italy’s allies jumped in to offer increased assistance. British and French—and later, American—troops arrived in the region, and the Allies began to take back the Italian Front.

World War I at Sea

In the years before World War I, the superiority of Britain’s Royal Navy was unchallenged by any other nation’s fleet, but the Imperial German Navy had made substantial strides in closing the gap between the two naval powers. Germany’s strength on the high seas was also aided by its lethal fleet of U-boat submarines.

After the Battle of Dogger Bank in January 1915, in which the British mounted a surprise attack on German ships in the North Sea, the German navy chose not to confront Britain’s mighty Royal Navy in a major battle for more than a year, preferring to rest the bulk of its naval strategy on its U-boats.

The biggest naval engagement of World War I, the Battle of Jutland (May 1916) left British naval superiority on the North Sea intact, and Germany would make no further attempts to break an Allied naval blockade for the remainder of the war.

World War I Planes

World War I was the first major conflict to harness the power of planes. Though not as impactful as the British Royal Navy or Germany’s U-boats, the use of planes in World War I presaged their later, pivotal role in military conflicts around the globe.

At the dawn of World War I, aviation was a relatively new field; the Wright brothers took their first sustained flight just eleven years before, in 1903. Aircraft were initially used primarily for reconnaissance missions. During the First Battle of the Marne, information passed from pilots allowed the allies to exploit weak spots in the German lines, helping the Allies to push Germany out of France.

The first machine guns were successfully mounted on planes in June of 1912 in the United States, but were imperfect; if timed incorrectly, a bullet could easily destroy the propeller of the plane it came from. The Morane-Saulnier L, a French plane, provided a solution: The propeller was armored with deflector wedges that prevented bullets from hitting it. The Morane-Saulnier Type L was used by the French, the British Royal Flying Corps (part of the Army), the British Royal Navy Air Service and the Imperial Russian Air Service. The British Bristol Type 22 was another popular model used for both reconnaissance work and as a fighter plane.

Dutch inventor Anthony Fokker improved upon the French deflector system in 1915. His “interrupter” synchronized the firing of the guns with the plane’s propeller to avoid collisions. Though his most popular plane during WWI was the single-seat Fokker Eindecker, Fokker created over 40 kinds of airplanes for the Germans.

The Allies debuted the Handley-Page HP O/400, the first two-engine bomber, in 1915. As aerial technology progressed, long-range heavy bombers like Germany’s Gotha G.V. (first introduced in 1917) were used to strike cities like London. Their speed and maneuverability proved to be far deadlier than Germany’s earlier Zeppelin raids.

By the war’s end, the Allies were producing five times more aircraft than the Germans. On April 1, 1918, the British created the Royal Air Force, or RAF, the first air force to be a separate military branch independent from the navy or army. 

Second Battle of the Marne

With Germany able to build up its strength on the Western Front after the armistice with Russia, Allied troops struggled to hold off another German offensive until promised reinforcements from the United States were able to arrive.

On July 15, 1918, German troops launched what would become the last German offensive of the war, attacking French forces (joined by 85,000 American troops as well as some of the British Expeditionary Force) in the Second Battle of the Marne . The Allies successfully pushed back the German offensive and launched their own counteroffensive just three days later.

After suffering massive casualties, Germany was forced to call off a planned offensive further north, in the Flanders region stretching between France and Belgium, which was envisioned as Germany’s best hope of victory.

The Second Battle of the Marne turned the tide of war decisively towards the Allies, who were able to regain much of France and Belgium in the months that followed.

The Harlem Hellfighters and Other All-Black Regiments

By the time World War I began, there were four all-Black regiments in the U.S. military: the 24th and 25th Infantry and the 9th and 10th Cavalry. All four regiments comprised of celebrated soldiers who fought in the Spanish-American War and American-Indian Wars , and served in the American territories. But they were not deployed for overseas combat in World War I. 

Blacks serving alongside white soldiers on the front lines in Europe was inconceivable to the U.S. military. Instead, the first African American troops sent overseas served in segregated labor battalions, restricted to menial roles in the Army and Navy, and shutout of the Marines, entirely. Their duties mostly included unloading ships, transporting materials from train depots, bases and ports, digging trenches, cooking and maintenance, removing barbed wire and inoperable equipment, and burying soldiers.

Facing criticism from the Black community and civil rights organizations for its quotas and treatment of African American soldiers in the war effort, the military formed two Black combat units in 1917, the 92nd and 93rd Divisions . Trained separately and inadequately in the United States, the divisions fared differently in the war. The 92nd faced criticism for their performance in the Meuse-Argonne campaign in September 1918. The 93rd Division, however, had more success. 

With dwindling armies, France asked America for reinforcements, and General John Pershing , commander of the American Expeditionary Forces, sent regiments in the 93 Division to over, since France had experience fighting alongside Black soldiers from their Senegalese French Colonial army. The 93 Division’s 369 regiment, nicknamed the Harlem Hellfighters , fought so gallantly, with a total of 191 days on the front lines, longer than any AEF regiment, that France awarded them the Croix de Guerre for their heroism. More than 350,000 African American soldiers would serve in World War I in various capacities.

Toward Armistice

By the fall of 1918, the Central Powers were unraveling on all fronts.

Despite the Turkish victory at Gallipoli, later defeats by invading forces and an Arab revolt that destroyed the Ottoman economy and devastated its land, and the Turks signed a treaty with the Allies in late October 1918.

Austria-Hungary, dissolving from within due to growing nationalist movements among its diverse population, reached an armistice on November 4. Facing dwindling resources on the battlefield, discontent on the homefront and the surrender of its allies, Germany was finally forced to seek an armistice on November 11, 1918, ending World War I.

Treaty of Versailles

At the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, Allied leaders stated their desire to build a post-war world that would safeguard itself against future conflicts of such a devastating scale.

Some hopeful participants had even begun calling World War I “the War to End All Wars.” But the Treaty of Versailles , signed on June 28, 1919, would not achieve that lofty goal.

Saddled with war guilt, heavy reparations and denied entrance into the League of Nations , Germany felt tricked into signing the treaty, having believed any peace would be a “peace without victory,” as put forward by President Wilson in his famous Fourteen Points speech of January 1918.

As the years passed, hatred of the Versailles treaty and its authors settled into a smoldering resentment in Germany that would, two decades later, be counted among the causes of World War II .

World War I Casualties

World War I took the lives of more than 9 million soldiers; 21 million more were wounded. Civilian casualties numbered close to 10 million. The two nations most affected were Germany and France, each of which sent some 80 percent of their male populations between the ages of 15 and 49 into battle.

The political disruption surrounding World War I also contributed to the fall of four venerable imperial dynasties: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia and Turkey.

Legacy of World War I

World War I brought about massive social upheaval, as millions of women entered the workforce to replace men who went to war and those who never came back. The first global war also helped to spread one of the world’s deadliest global pandemics, the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918, which killed an estimated 20 to 50 million people.

World War I has also been referred to as “the first modern war.” Many of the technologies now associated with military conflict—machine guns, tanks , aerial combat and radio communications—were introduced on a massive scale during World War I.

The severe effects that chemical weapons such as mustard gas and phosgene had on soldiers and civilians during World War I galvanized public and military attitudes against their continued use. The Geneva Convention agreements, signed in 1925, restricted the use of chemical and biological agents in warfare and remain in effect today.

Photo Galleries

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

MA in American History : Apply now and enroll in graduate courses with top historians this summer!

• AP US History Study Guide
• History U: Courses for High School Students
• History School: Summer Enrichment
• Lesson Plans
• Classroom Resources
• Spotlights on Primary Sources
• Professional Development (Academic Year)
• Professional Development (Summer)
• Book Breaks
• Inside the Vault
• Self-Paced Courses
• Browse All Resources
• Search by Issue
• Search by Essay
• Become a Member (Free)
• Monthly Offer (Free for Members)
• Program Information
• Scholarships and Financial Aid
• Applying and Enrolling
• Eligibility (In-Person)
• EduHam Online
• Hamilton Cast Read Alongs
• Official Website
• Press Coverage
• Veterans Legacy Program
• The Declaration at 250
• Black Lives in the Founding Era
• Celebrating American Historical Holidays
• Browse All Programs
• Donate Items to the Collection
• Search Our Catalog
• Research Guides
• Rights and Reproductions
• See Our Documents on Display
• Bring an Exhibition to Your Organization
• Interactive Exhibitions Online
• About the Transcription Program
• Civil War Letters
• Founding Era Newspapers
• College Fellowships in American History
• Scholarly Fellowship Program
• Richard Gilder History Prize
• David McCullough Essay Prize
• Affiliate School Scholarships
• Nominate a Teacher
• Eligibility
• State Winners
• National Winners
• Gilder Lehrman Lincoln Prize
• Gilder Lehrman Military History Prize
• George Washington Prize
• Frederick Douglass Book Prize
• Our Mission and History
• Annual Report
• Contact Information
• Student Advisory Council
• Teacher Advisory Council
• Board of Trustees
• Remembering Richard Gilder
• President's Council
• Scholarly Advisory Board
• Internships
• Our Partners
• Press Releases

History Resources

Historical Context: The Global Effect of World War I

By steven mintz.

A recent list of the hundred most important news stories of the twentieth century ranked the onset of World War I eighth. This is a great error. Just about everything that happened in the remainder of the century was in one way or another a result of World War I, including the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, World War II, the Holocaust, and the development of the atomic bomb. The Great Depression, the Cold War, and the collapse of European colonialism can also be traced, at least indirectly, to the First World War.

World War I killed more people--more than 9 million soldiers, sailors, and flyers and another 5 million civilians--involved more countries--28--and cost more money--$186 billion in direct costs and another $151 billion in indirect costs--than any previous war in history. It was the first war to use airplanes, tanks, long range artillery, submarines, and poison gas. It left at least 7 million men permanently disabled.

World War I probably had more far-reaching consequences than any other proceeding war. Politically, it resulted in the downfall of four monarchies--in Russia in 1917, in Austria-Hungary and Germany in 1918, and in Turkey in 1922. It contributed to the Bolshevik rise to power in Russia in 1917 and the triumph of fascism in Italy in 1922. It ignited colonial revolts in the Middle East and in Southeast Asia.

Economically, the war severely disrupted the European economies and allowed the United States to become the world's leading creditor and industrial power. The war also brought vast social consequences, including the mass murder of Armenians in Turkey and an influenza epidemic that killed over 25 million people worldwide.

Few events better reveal the utter unpredictability of the future. At the dawn of the 20th century, most Europeans looked forward to a future of peace and prosperity. Europe had not fought a major war for 100 years. But a belief in human progress was shattered by World War I, a war few wanted or expected. At any point during the five weeks leading up to the outbreak of fighting the conflict might have been averted. World War I was a product of miscalculation, misunderstanding, and miscommunication.

No one expected a war of the magnitude or duration of World War I. At first the armies relied on outdated methods of communication, such as carrier pigeons. The great powers mobilized more than a million horses. But by the time the conflict was over, tanks, submarines, airplane-dropped bombs, machine guns, and poison gas had transformed the nature of modern warfare. In 1918, the Germans fired shells containing both tear gas and lethal chlorine. The tear gas forced the British to remove their gas masks; the chlorine then scarred their faces and killed them.

In a single day at the Battle of the Somme in 1916, 100,000 British troops plodded across no man's land into steady machine-gun fire from German trenches a few yards away. Some 60,000 were killed or wounded. At the end of the battle, 419,654 British men were killed, missing, or wounded.Four years of war killed a million troops from the British Empire, 1.5 million troops from the Hapsburg Empire, 1.7 million French troops, 1.7 million Russians, and 2 million German troops. The war left a legacy of bitterness that contributed to World War II twenty-one years later.

Stay up to date, and subscribe to our quarterly newsletter.

Learn how the Institute impacts history education through our work guiding teachers, energizing students, and supporting research.

The First World War and Its Impact on American Society Essay

Introduction, main discussion, conclusions, annotated bibliography.

The First World War of 1914-1918 encountered the United States with one of the most horrible crises in human history. The military politics of the greatest states of the world caused disruption and psychological frustration that germinated even more ruinous consequences for later generations. The horrors of the Great War, human tragedy, and games of politicians who resorted to mass violence – all these factors effected American people and distorted their culture and social welfare. In particular, the war contributed to formation of political ideology, which is commonly known as Wilsonian idealism. This policy consisted in democracy proliferation and freedom of speech manifestation both in the United States and in the European countries suppressed by common rivals. However, the concepts were accepted by people differently, as the majority criticized the principles of overt demonstration of capitalism leading to unnecessary military invasions.

Thesis Statement: On the one hand, the Wilson planned to advocate the democratic principles at the international level and to provide a shelter for ethnical minorities. On the other hand, American society experienced great changes that led to a total reevaluation of the meaning of war. The United States did not fully realize their relation to the European conflicts and the reason for sacrificing lives in the ideological war. The Wilsonian policy is also brightly reflected in the ideological strategies of George Bush Jr. whose reasons for invading to Iraq have still been disputable.

Overview of preconditions and events of the First World War

German invasion to european countries and heavy repressions.

German invasion was not only aimed at manifesting the absolute power of the nation. The Nazi troops were also attempting to suppress any displays of political independence and uniqueness. Indeed, the declaration of warfare had very sophisticated undertones spread at the international level. However, the most evident motive of the War was the creation of a powerful Empire with homogenous political strategies and ideologies deprived of any displays of liberal thinking and freedom of choice. Germany took a firm path of destruction and declared itself as the supreme nation.

As the result of these futile repressions, Germany managed to reveal the most vulnerable points of such powerful economies as France, Britain, Italy, and Russia. Michael Howard writes, “The Germans prided themselves on a uniquely superior culture that held the balance between the despotic barbarism of their eastern neighbor and the decadent democracy of the West” (2003, 11). It meant that this nation wanted to prevent the prosperity and modernization of the best European democracy and their technological advancement.

German intervention on all frontiers and the distortion of socialism and liberalism

As the United States were keeping pace with the events taking place in Europe, the government realized that this war could gnaw the entire world and the American nation in particular. They also understood that the military actions were directed against the democratic display as Germany was geared up for the elimination of all geographical and ideological boundaries. Their first raids on France and Belgium made those countries.

The outbreak of the First World War was also a calling to socialist systems and isolated policies of such countries as France and Great Britain. France and Britain expressed their pacifist spirits and were reluctant to accept the war. Liberal tendencies were also disclosed through the creation of liberally oriented trade unions so that middle class intellectual heritage had little impact on the country development (Strachman 2003, 132).

The war was also an outcome of the arm races and the result of concealed debates over these issues. The fight for military supremacy considerably contradicted the policy of pacifism and the international liberalism in the nineteenth century. In fact, those races were aimed at forming the military alliances and enhancing the political and social positions of the countries. Political and military confrontations and rapid growth of European countries could not make American people be indifferent. As a result, the world witnessed the creation of antagonistic and polarized Eastern and Western blocks.

Viewing the War as an effective tool for economic and social reforms

The political economy and american consciousness with the advent of the first world war.

Kennedy states that Americans “elaborated vigorous and quite various ideas about the war and its meaning for America” (2004, 45). Their false remoteness from the war and a two-decade position of neutrality still kept Americans attached to the ongoing actions in Europe. This period allowed the United States to ponder on the significance of the war for American society and how the government could benefit from it. Hidden motives of entering the war provoked numerous discussions concerning the veritable stakes of military actions on the American part.

The American government firmly believed that war could become the immediate trigger of economical and social reforms. It sought for the reason to penetrate to the European Arena and established its firm ideological ground. Political leaders managed to make American soldiers to fight for the ideological principles of freedom and democracy.

Wilsonian Idealism and American relation to war in Europe

In the beginning of the Great War, Americans were trying to hold the positions of neutrality and, therefore, the government believed that, according to the international law, they had the right to conduct free trade with both sides. In this respect, Woodrow Wilson thought that the countries involved in the War completely ignored the possibility of peaceful negotiations. Instead, the President was confident that their neutral position would serve as an outright example for other nations to terminate the war (Keene, 2006, 5). The Great War has brought such elements as technological advancement and social marginalization into one course. The global industrialization and the arm races made all world nations face the modernity generating ethnic and international conflicts.

Neutral Policy of the United States based on of Wilson strategy

America’s intricate policy of neutrality revealed the ideological ground of Wilson’s political philosophy. Wilsonian idealism originated from a particular culture and social class. The supporters of these concepts discouraged mass politics and firmly believed that political groups had been formed to protect their own interest but not the common good (Steigerwald, 1994, 9). As a result, their politics was more oriented the international liberalism and democracy proliferation. This is why the economic needs of the European countries contradicted the American international policy. This, probably, influenced the Wilson’s decision to enter the First World War.

Wilson’s ideology also involved cultural and ethnical issues; “Wilsonians drew from America’s common-sense tradition and defined the common good as the result of enlightened self-interest tempered by human reason” (Steigerwald, 1994, 11). In this respect, the policy of self-interest revealed by German government was another solid ground for the United States to start a military invasion. Germany was the country that neglected the interests of American economic partners thus striving to restore the imperialistic dictatorship.

International Dimension

For Wilsonians, the internationalism was the best instrument for upholding liberal idealisms. Internationalism contributed to reconciliation of technological outbreak, as the world interdependence and cooperation lessened people’s necessity for creating technology of mass destruction.

In respect to the World Wars, America resorted to belligerence owing to Wilson’s assumption that “a saving mission was a part of the providential plan for the world” (Streib 1948, 272) The idealism presented in this War could be compared with Utopian concept about an ideal political and social system peacefully cooperating. Hence, the main slogan of the Great War sounded as follows: “They are fighting to uphold the principles and ideals of civilization and human process” (Streib 1948, 277). The American state took the role of the national hero that would save the world from the totalitarian invasion. The above-cited slogans showed that most of American people did not perceive the veritable scope of their sacrifices in the War. This reveals the ambiguous motives of America’s participation both in First World War and in the Second World War and the idealistic accent made it even more absurd.

The post war period and current situation

Wilsonianism its application in the policy of george bush.

Wilsonianism policy of global policy and international democracy sounded like a utopia, especially for times of the Great War. This was a calling to the age of technological modernization and revolution and the fight for the international liberalism. Therefore, the controversy of this political ideology continues to be the main topic for discussion nowadays, as most Wilson’s provisions have become the main principles of ‘American democracy’ (Clements 2004, p. 63). Wilson’s policy has not gained a unanimous approval as on the other hand the declaration of war was no the most reasonable decisions for satisfying the political and ideological purposes. On the other hand, German politics did not have any reasonable justification at all.

Historical heritage predicted the future of America’s international cooperation. Wilson’s strategies have been also perpetuated in the policies of George Bush Jr. in Iraq. His military action against the East, which had no rational ground, fostered a wave of indignation and disapproval on the part of European and Asian countries. Indeed, the situation was aggravated by the fact that Bush had apparent motives of material enrichment rather than other noble incentives.

The outcomes of the First Word War of contemporary America

The events of the Great War have remained rather disputable and ambiguous due to many nuances and unsolved disputes. Wilsonian idealism, therefore, have greatly contributed to contemporary image of the government and its political culture.

The Great War was a logical outcome of the economical and ideological crises. Therefore, this war has different meaning for each country pursuing different ambitions. American society, hence, perceived the warfare as the ideological struggle generated by Wilsonian idealism.

Clements, Kendrick. 2004. Wilson and World War I. Presidential Studies Quarterly. 34, no. 1: 62-82.

The article investigates the underpinning of America’s decision to enter World War I. Clements argues that Wilson’s policy against German government as the result of complex interactions of ideological assumptions and historical personalities during 1914-1915. The peaceful politics and neutral position of the United States led Americans to misconceptions concerning the real intentions of German government. By applying the qualitative approach to research, the author tries to discover the evidence of inevitability of America’s entering the war. Hence, he provides numerous arguments in defense of his points of view and relies of legal issues stipulating the freedom and right of American submarines to pass though the war territory freely. In this way, Clements proves that Wilson’s decision was superficial and did imply any in-depth analysis of the situation. The article is of great value for this particular research, as it disclose some aspects of reasons of American’s participation in the Great War.

Howard, Michael. 2003. The First World War. US: Oxford University Press.

The books is a historical narration about the origins and outcomes of the international conflict between Germany and other developed countries of the world seeking for political and social self-determination. According to the author, the war embodies the principles of the governmental policy, military activities, and personal factor. This, perhaps explains some gaps of Wilson’s rational concepts and, therefore, it will be of high importance of the research under consideration.

Keene, Jennifer D. 2006. World War I. US: Greenwood Publishing Group.

The book is based on narrated experiences of American victims of the horrific war. The author also describes the events of trench warfare and brave soldiers coping with devastating military actions. Impressive bibliographies narrating the abhorrent pictures of military actions provide a better idea of strategies of political leaders. The book will greatly contribute to our research as it places an emphasis of the ambiguity of motives established by German government and Wilsonian ideolism.

Strachan, Hew. 2003. The First World War: To Arms. US: Business Media, Inc.

The main aspects of the book are more focused on the impact of the First World War on further events in the twentieth century. The author manages to cover the economic, diplomatic, and social history and combine these angles with military actions held in 1914-1918. Further, the researcher provides an analysis of such events as arms races and issues of national security as the trigger of the war. Therefore, the book will be rather helpful for the research, as it clarifies some ambiguous points.

Streib, Gordon F. 1948. Idealism and War Bonds: Comparative Study of the Two World Wars. Oxford University Press. 12, no.2: 272-279.

Streib provides a comparative analysis of motives and outcomes of two Word Wars that have totally changed the contemporary world and international policies. In particular, the author puts forward the idea that the First World War was more ideologically predetermined, as it encompasses solid strategic and political incentives of the rise of military actions. The researcher also compares cultural and social underpinnings of the wars and their outcomes thus submitting an assumption that in both cases America had an insufficient ground for entering the war. The article closely relates to the thesis of the given research, as it discloses certain motives of participation of the United States in the international conflict.

Streigerwald, David.1994. Wilsonian Idealism in America. US: Cornell University Press.

The book presents the chronicles of the main concepts of Wilsonian Idealism as the introduction of American policy against modernization and technological revolution. The author also pursues the development of the American internationalist movements, and the rise Wilsonian liberalism based on self-interest as an access to political prosperity. The author also describes the post-idealistic views and the way they influenced the free market irrespective of the World Wars and ongoing repression in first half of the twentieth century. The article is of great values for our scientific exploration, as it also investigates the future outcomes of the international liberalism and its contribution to liberal industrialization.

Kennedy, David M. 2004. Over Here: The First World War and American Society. US: Oxford University Press.

Streib, Gordon F. 1948. Idealism and War Bonds: Comparative Study of the Two World Wars. Oxford University Press. 12, no.2 (Summer): 272-279.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 17). The First World War and Its Impact on American Society. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-first-world-war-and-its-impact-on-american-society/

"The First World War and Its Impact on American Society." IvyPanda , 17 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/the-first-world-war-and-its-impact-on-american-society/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'The First World War and Its Impact on American Society'. 17 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "The First World War and Its Impact on American Society." March 17, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-first-world-war-and-its-impact-on-american-society/.

1. IvyPanda . "The First World War and Its Impact on American Society." March 17, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-first-world-war-and-its-impact-on-american-society/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The First World War and Its Impact on American Society." March 17, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-first-world-war-and-its-impact-on-american-society/.

• Political Leadership During the Wilsonian Century
• Wilsonian Idealism and Its Relevance in Today's US
• Four Schoolmasters and American Foreign Policy
• American Foreign Policy by Frank Ninkovich
• Richard Nixon’s Politics
• Realism, Idealism and Progressive Idealism
• Idealism in Hegel's Definition
• The Concept of Idealism in the Book Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer
• George Hegel: The Philosophy of Idealism
• Idealism and Realism
• Go to War or Not Go to War
• America in World War I
• What WW One Did to the American Economy
• Treaty of Versailles History: The Pact of Peace After WWI
• First World War Impact and Treaty of Versailles

World War One Essay

Germany was responsible for World War One. To what extent do you agree with this statement? 

Essay by Laura Iafur, 3rd Form

Taking place on 28th July 1914 until 11th November 1918, World War One was one of the deadliest conflicts in history, ending the lives of millions of people. Although no one country deserves more blame than the other countries, many would argue that the country of Serbia, after all, it was a group of Serbian terrorists who killed the hero of the Austrian-Hungarian empire, Franz Ferdinand. This is considered by many, what triggered this war. Others suggest Austria-Hungarian is to blame the most, they wanted war with Serbia even before Franz Ferdinand’s assassination, it seems like the assassination was the opportunity they were waiting for. Some could even say that it was Russia, who was the first to mobilize its troops, creating even more tension in an already unstable Europe. These countries are all guilty for such a violent war, but Germany, being the one that has the blank cheque to Austria-Hungary, is the most responsible of all; without backing up Austria-Hungary, it is improbable that Austria-Hungary would have acted so recklessly.

On 5th July 1914, Germany gave the “blank cheque” of unconditional support to the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, fully aware of the consequences it was probably going to bring. At that moment, Germany had the strongest army, with 2,200,000 soldiers and warships, this guaranteed Austria-Hungary that no matter how drastically they acted, they would receive massive support from Germany. If Germany had not given this back up to Austria-Hungary, they most likely would have done something other than declaring war. Germany knew that Russia would most likely help Serbia, which meant that a local war would escalate into a Global war, but they did it anyway.

Germany also dragged Britain into the war when using the Schlieffen plan. On 2nd August, Germany asked for permission for their army to pass through Belgium, to get to France, but they were refused. Sir Edward Grey proposed to Germany that Britain would stay if Germany did not attack France, but the German generals denied this. On 3rd August, Germany violated international treaties by invading Belgium, a neutral country; knowing that Britain was obligated to help Belgium if an invasion occurred. Therefore, Britain declared war on Germany on 4th August 1914.

The enormous increase in tension between these countries was one of the main reasons for this war to start, there are various factors that led to more tension, many in which Germany was involved. One of these factors was the German and British naval race which did not make Britain happy. (“Britannia rules the waves”), and at the end of 1914, Britain was this race.

The Moroccan crisis, 1906, was another factor. The French wanted to conquer Morocco and Britain agreed to help, but in 1905 Kaiser Wilhelm visited Morocco and promised to protect it against anyone who threatened it. The French and British were furious. Germany had to promise to stay out of Morocco, which didn’t make them happy at all. In 1911, there was a revolution in Morocco, the French sent in an army to control it. Kaiser Wilhelm sent a gunboat to the Moroccan part of Agadir; this angered the French and British. Germany was forced to back down, which made them very angry, it increased their resentment. Kaiser Wilhelm was determined to win the next crisis.  All this evidence shows that Germany, at that point was ashamed. They had lost various crisis issues and since they could not allow themselves another defeat. Germany had decided they needed to prove their power, this being the reason they acted in such a careless manner.

Austria-Hungary also deserves part of the blame; they were the ones who declared war first on Serbia on 28th July, 1914. Before 1914, assassinations of royal figures did not usually result in war. However, Austria-Hungary saw the Sarajevo assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife as an opportunity to conquer and destroy Serbia. The Austrian Chief of Staff General Hotzendoz wanted to attack Serbia long before the assassination.

Austria-Hungary sent an ultimatum to Serbia (23rd  July) with ten very exigent requests that needed to be accepted to avoid military conflict. Serbia accepted all requests apart from one, which was to allow Austria-Hungary to enter Serbia and oversee investigation and prosecution on the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. Nonetheless, this was not enough for Austria-Hungary, so they declared war, and with Germany’s support, it would’ve provided an easy win.

On the other hand, if Austria-Hungary did not make a move against Serbia, the different nationalities living in the Austria-Hungarian territory could act against their leaders giving the impression to other countries that there won’t have been any consequences. Austria-Hungary could have acted in a different manner on the Serbia war, but it was due to Germany who empowered them to act this way.

The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was conducted by a Serbian terrorist named Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo, Bosnia, 28th June 1914. This was the spark that caused the war. Gavrilo was a nationalist who wanted Bosnia to be its own country, and when Ferdinand announced his trip to SaraJevo, it was the perfect opportunity to strike against Austria-Hungary. Gavrilo was a member of a terrorist group named, Black Hand. Austria-Hungary suspected the involvement of Serbia in the Bosnian attack, thus representing the final act in a long-standing rivalry between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. Russia did not want a war, the Russian Grand Council decided if Serbia was to be invaded, it would have to request a conference to asses the issue. However, Russia had previous issues with Serbia regarding the Bosnian crisis in 1908.

To conclude, World War One was a chain reaction triggered by the assassination Franz Ferdinand; however, Serbia wasn’t mostly responsible but Germany, who pushed Austria-Hungary in making those decisions leading to the global conflict. The alliance system was created to prevent war, but it did the total opposite, where all the countries were forced to join the war.

House Magazine Archive

Over There: The U.S. Soldier in World War I

Written by: Jennifer D. Keene, Chapman University

By the end of this section, you will:.

• Explain the causes and consequences of U.S. involvement in World War I

Suggested Sequencing

Use this Narrative with the George M. Cohan, Over There , 1917 Primary Source to study military culture and propaganda during World War I.

The United States entered World War I in April 1917 with a small military force of approximately 300,000 men, the combined strength of the regular Army (peacetime volunteers) and the National Guard (volunteer military units controlled by state governors but placed under federal control during the war). It took months for the United States to recruit and train an army capable of fighting overseas. During this interval, Germany hoped to win the war with renewed assaults on the Western Front and an aggressive U-boat (submarine) campaign that cut off the supply line between the United States and Europe. Defying the odds, the United States managed to quickly raise a wartime force that eventually totaled 4.7 million soldiers and transported two million troops to France in time to participate in the final Allied assaults that ultimately won the war.

In World War I, for the first time in American history, the government relied on conscription to raise the bulk of its wartime force. The men coming into the army represented the regional, ethnic, class, and racial diversity of the American population. Reflecting the recent waves of immigration from Europe, 18 percent of the army or about half a million men were foreign-born; among them they spoke 46 languages. Some 12,000 American Indians also served, motivated by the desire to demonstrate patriotism and honor their families’ warrior traditions. Government officials believed military service would help assimilate and “Americanize” immigrants and American Indians; consequently, these troops served alongside native-born white soldiers in the same units.

The military incorporated into its training many progressive ideals that reflected the broader reform goals of the period. Guided by the idea of using the military experience to bring about social order and efficiency, the armed forces sought to homogenize and “Americanize” the diverse soldiers who were conscripted. The physical training, recreational activities, and instructional movies warning the soldiers against vices like the use of alcohol and prostitution in camps and overseas were part of this progressive crusade. It showed a darker side to progressivism for African Americans, however, because many whites believed order and efficiency in the armed forces required the segregation of the races.

The military thus remained racially segregated. Thirteen percent of the wartime force (approximately 370,000 men) was African American, and racial discrimination limited opportunities for them to fight or become officers. The vast majority of black soldiers (89 percent) were classified as noncombatants and worked long days loading and unloading ships, building training camps and roads, or burying the dead. The 369th Infantry Regiment, the Harlem Hellfighters, was one of four black combatant regiments that gained acclaim by fighting under French rather than American command. The willingness of the French to recognize black soldiers’ valor by awarding them the Croix de Guerre (a medal for bravery) contrasted sharply with the experiences of African American soldiers in the U.S. army.

Soldiers of the 369th Infantry, pictured here in 1919, were nicknamed “Men of Bronze” by the French alongside whom they fought. Men in the regiment earned several honors from both the United States and France, including the Medal of Honor and Distinguished Service Cross.

The Harlem Hellfighters served in the front lines for 191 days, the longest combat tour of any U.S. regiment, and discovered firsthand the horrors of trench warfare. On the western front, the Allied and Central powers had developed intricate defenses that included multiple lines of reinforced trenches, machine-gun pillboxes, long-range artillery, and airplane reconnaissance. No Man’s Land, a desolate area filled with barbed wire, craters, and corpses, separated the two sides. The often-muddy trenches were infested with rats and lice, and soldiers lived under the constant strain and noise of artillery barrages that included shells filled with poison gas. Thousands suffered from “shellshock,” a term widely used to describe any combat-related mental breakdown (and now termed post-traumatic stress disorder). Attempts to break out of the trenches in 1916 during the battles of Verdun and the Somme had resulted in catastrophic causalities, yet they brought no discernable territorial gain for either side.

General John J. “Black Jack” Pershing, the commander of the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF), hoped to fight differently. He embraced the concept of “open warfare”, which relied on infantry firepower and maneuver to advance, rather than frontal assaults supported by artillery. Pershing’s nickname referred to his earlier command of the Tenth Cavalry, an African American regiment. Having led troops in the Spanish-American War, in the Philippine Insurrection, and in Mexico, pursuing the Mexican rebel Francisco “Pancho” Villa, Pershing was already an experienced field commander when President Woodrow Wilson picked him to lead the AEF. “I hope that you have not arrived too late,” the U.S. ambassador to France told Pershing when he arrived overseas.

In March 1918, the Germans launched a series of breakthrough attacks intended to win the war while they still had a numerical advantage on the battlefield. Russia had just left the war after signing a separate peace treaty with Germany, but the American soldiers were beginning to arrive in force. On the high seas, the introduction of American and British convoys that protected merchant and troop ships as they crossed the Atlantic derailed Germany’s U-boat campaign. Germany fared better on land, breaking the trench deadlock for the first time since 1914. By May, the German army was within 40 miles of Paris. Pershing ultimately wanted to command an independent sector along the Western Front, but with the Germans advancing, he agreed to fight alongside the French. At the battles of Château-Thierry and Belleau Wood, the American forces played a key role in halting the German drive. In the subsequent Second Battle of the Marne, the American army fought as part of an Allied coalition that deflected a German attack on the French city of Reims. For the rest of the summer, this coalition force counterattacked to push the German army back to its original jumping-off point.

By August, Pershing controlled an American sector of the western front. On September 12-16, the U.S. army fought the Saint-Mihiel offensive to reduce a German salient (a bulge into Allied lines) between Verdun and Toul. Nearly half a million U.S. troops attacked German trench defenses and caught the Germans by surprise as they were retreating to a more fortified position. Overwhelming German machine guns and artillery, the Americans gained 200 square miles at the cost of 7,000 casualties. General Billy Mitchell assembled the greatest concentration of airpower of the war to win control of the skies, bombing and strafing German troops. In World War I, planes were used mostly for reconnaissance, that is, to observe or take pictures of enemy trenches. Mitchell demonstrated their offensive capabilities during the Saint-Mihiel offensive, foreshadowing the future of air combat.

This print, created by Lucien Jonas in 1927, shows U.S. soldiers firing machine guns during the Battle of Saint-Mihiel.

The American victory positioned Pershing’s forces perfectly for a much larger attack on the city of Metz, near the German border, and its valuable railroad lines, but two weeks before launching the attack on Saint-Mihiel, Pershing received word that the Allies’ strategic goals had changed. The Supreme Allied Commander, Marshal Ferdinand Foch, had decided to launch four coordinated attacks along the western front. Foch now wanted the Americans to fight their next offensive in the Meuse-Argonne region 60 miles away, while the French and British struck further north and west.

On September 26, 1918, therefore, American forces began fighting against formidable German defenses in a narrow strip of land between the heights of the unfordable Meuse River and the dense, hilly Argonne forest. Nearly 1.2 million American soldiers participated in the 47-day battle, which lasted until the armistice on November 11, 1918. The Meuse-Argonne was one of the most lethal battles in American history, resulting in 117,000 casualties 40 percent of the American men killed or wounded during the war. Inexperience, the difficult terrain, and strong German defenses all contributed to the high casualty rate. Early on, American supply lines broke down, and massive traffic jams slowed the arrival of food and ammunition to front-line units. Nonetheless, the Americans learned quickly from experience. In the final weeks of the campaign, infantry-artillery coordination improved, aerial bombing supported infantry troop movements, and specially trained teams targeted German machine-gun crews. Over the course of the campaign, the AEF advanced nearly 40 miles and captured 26,000 German soldiers.

On November 11, 1918, American troops occupied 21 percent of the western front, and their combat victories had earned President Woodrow Wilson a prominent seat at the peace table. Overall, 53,402 Americans died in battle, and 204,002 were wounded. Another 63,114 perished from other causes, primarily the Spanish influenza epidemic that followed the war.

Knowing that the American army would only get bigger and stronger, Germany sought an armistice rather than continuing the fight. Pershing believed it was a mistake to end the war on French rather than German soil. “What I dread is that Germany doesn’t know that she was licked, had they given us another week, we’d have taught them,” he remarked. Correcting this mistake took another world war, fought by commanders including Douglas MacArthur, George Patton, and George Marshall who had learned their craft by serving under Pershing in World War I.

Review Questions

1. During World War I, the United States raised the majority of its fighting force by

• seeking volunteer enlistment
• instituting conscription
• recruiting men and women for combat positions
• creating a racial integrated military

2. Conditions encountered by Americans fighting on the front lines in World War I included all the following except

• trench warfare
• weaponization of poison gases
• racially integrated military units
• emphasis on infantry and artillery

3. How did the entry of the United States into World War I immediately affect the German war strategy?

• Germany renewed its assaults on the western front and launched an aggressive U-boat campaign.
• Germany convinced Russia to switch sides and attack France.
• Germany bombed London and attacked the Panama Canal.
• Germany sued for peace in the face of overwhelming American military strength.

4. During World War I, the German U-boat campaign was countered by British and American use of

• aircraft reconnaissance
• reinforced trenches

5. The offensive capabilities of which weapon led American General Billy Mitchell to champion its expanded use during World War I?

• The machine gun
• Barbed wire
• Chlorine and mustard gases
• The airplane

6. American entry into World War I most immediately led to

• Germany’s surrender and implementation of the Fourteen Points
• Allied and American victories leading to the German armistice
• numerous draft riots in American cities
• the opening of an eastern front along the Soviet border

Free Response Questions

• Evaluate the experiences of African American soldiers in the United States military during World War I.
• Evaluate the impact of the U.S. entry into World War I on the Allied victory in 1918.

AP Practice Questions

A 1919 poster of an allegorical America, standing in front of the flag and holding a wreath over an “honor roll” listing soldiers who died in action.

1. This poster most directly reflects

• the need for mobilization of wartime industries
• an effort to increase the number of enlisted servicemen
• encouragement to buy defense bonds to finance the war effort
• promotion of women in the wartime workforce

2. The publication of this poster was most directly shaped by

• the anti-imperialist movement
• isolationist sentiment
• the impact of the Great Migration from the American South
• increased immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe

3. Which of the following developments challenged the sentiments portrayed in the poster?

• Establishment of a number of federal committees to mobilize the American economy
• Prosecution of dissenters under the Sedition Act
• Congressional approval for a wartime conscription act
• Establishment of a League of Nations

Primary Sources

Notable Registrants of the World War I Draft at the National Archives at Atlanta. https://www.archives.gov/atlanta/wwi-draft

Pershing, John J. “Final Report of General John J. Pershing.” https://archive.org/details/finalreportofgen00unit_0

Thompson, Hugh S. “Your Trench Orientation Tour.” http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/trenchkn.htm

Suggested Resources

“1914-1918-online.” International Encyclopedia of the First World War . https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/home/

Bristow, Nancy K. Making Men Moral: Social Engineering during the Great War . New York: New York University Press, 1996.

Keene, Jennifer D. World War I: The American Soldier Experience . Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2011.

Lentz-Smith, Adriane. Freedom Struggles: African Americans and World War I . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.

Smythe, Donald. Pershing, General of the Armies . Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1986.

Related Content

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

In our resource history is presented through a series of narratives, primary sources, and point-counterpoint debates that invites students to participate in the ongoing conversation about the American experiment.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

NPR suspends veteran editor as it grapples with his public criticism

David Folkenflik

NPR suspended senior editor Uri Berliner for five days without pay after he wrote an essay accusing the network of losing the public's trust and appeared on a podcast to explain his argument. Uri Berliner hide caption

NPR suspended senior editor Uri Berliner for five days without pay after he wrote an essay accusing the network of losing the public's trust and appeared on a podcast to explain his argument.

NPR has formally punished Uri Berliner, the senior editor who publicly argued a week ago that the network had "lost America's trust" by approaching news stories with a rigidly progressive mindset.

Berliner's five-day suspension without pay, which began last Friday, has not been previously reported.

Yet the public radio network is grappling in other ways with the fallout from Berliner's essay for the online news site The Free Press . It angered many of his colleagues, led NPR leaders to announce monthly internal reviews of the network's coverage, and gave fresh ammunition to conservative and partisan Republican critics of NPR, including former President Donald Trump.

Conservative activist Christopher Rufo is among those now targeting NPR's new chief executive, Katherine Maher, for messages she posted to social media years before joining the network. Among others, those posts include a 2020 tweet that called Trump racist and another that appeared to minimize rioting during social justice protests that year. Maher took the job at NPR last month — her first at a news organization .

In a statement Monday about the messages she had posted, Maher praised the integrity of NPR's journalists and underscored the independence of their reporting.

"In America everyone is entitled to free speech as a private citizen," she said. "What matters is NPR's work and my commitment as its CEO: public service, editorial independence, and the mission to serve all of the American public. NPR is independent, beholden to no party, and without commercial interests."

The network noted that "the CEO is not involved in editorial decisions."

In an interview with me later on Monday, Berliner said the social media posts demonstrated Maher was all but incapable of being the person best poised to direct the organization.

"We're looking for a leader right now who's going to be unifying and bring more people into the tent and have a broader perspective on, sort of, what America is all about," Berliner said. "And this seems to be the opposite of that."

Conservative critics of NPR are now targeting its new chief executive, Katherine Maher, for messages she posted to social media years before joining the public radio network last month. Stephen Voss/Stephen Voss hide caption

Conservative critics of NPR are now targeting its new chief executive, Katherine Maher, for messages she posted to social media years before joining the public radio network last month.

He said that he tried repeatedly to make his concerns over NPR's coverage known to news leaders and to Maher's predecessor as chief executive before publishing his essay.

Berliner has singled out coverage of several issues dominating the 2020s for criticism, including trans rights, the Israel-Hamas war and COVID. Berliner says he sees the same problems at other news organizations, but argues NPR, as a mission-driven institution, has a greater obligation to fairness.

"I love NPR and feel it's a national trust," Berliner says. "We have great journalists here. If they shed their opinions and did the great journalism they're capable of, this would be a much more interesting and fulfilling organization for our listeners."

A "final warning"

The circumstances surrounding the interview were singular.

Berliner provided me with a copy of the formal rebuke to review. NPR did not confirm or comment upon his suspension for this article.

In presenting Berliner's suspension Thursday afternoon, the organization told the editor he had failed to secure its approval for outside work for other news outlets, as is required of NPR journalists. It called the letter a "final warning," saying Berliner would be fired if he violated NPR's policy again. Berliner is a dues-paying member of NPR's newsroom union but says he is not appealing the punishment.

The Free Press is a site that has become a haven for journalists who believe that mainstream media outlets have become too liberal. In addition to his essay, Berliner appeared in an episode of its podcast Honestly with Bari Weiss.

A few hours after the essay appeared online, NPR chief business editor Pallavi Gogoi reminded Berliner of the requirement that he secure approval before appearing in outside press, according to a copy of the note provided by Berliner.

In its formal rebuke, NPR did not cite Berliner's appearance on Chris Cuomo's NewsNation program last Tuesday night, for which NPR gave him the green light. (NPR's chief communications officer told Berliner to focus on his own experience and not share proprietary information.) The NPR letter also did not cite his remarks to The New York Times , which ran its article mid-afternoon Thursday, shortly before the reprimand was sent. Berliner says he did not seek approval before talking with the Times .

NPR defends its journalism after senior editor says it has lost the public's trust

Berliner says he did not get permission from NPR to speak with me for this story but that he was not worried about the consequences: "Talking to an NPR journalist and being fired for that would be extraordinary, I think."

Berliner is a member of NPR's business desk, as am I, and he has helped to edit many of my stories. He had no involvement in the preparation of this article and did not see it before it was posted publicly.

In rebuking Berliner, NPR said he had also publicly released proprietary information about audience demographics, which it considers confidential. He said those figures "were essentially marketing material. If they had been really good, they probably would have distributed them and sent them out to the world."

Feelings of anger and betrayal inside the newsroom

His essay and subsequent public remarks stirred deep anger and dismay within NPR. Colleagues contend Berliner cherry-picked examples to fit his arguments and challenge the accuracy of his accounts. They also note he did not seek comment from the journalists involved in the work he cited.

Morning Edition host Michel Martin told me some colleagues at the network share Berliner's concerns that coverage is frequently presented through an ideological or idealistic prism that can alienate listeners.

"The way to address that is through training and mentorship," says Martin, herself a veteran of nearly two decades at the network who has also reported for The Wall Street Journal and ABC News. "It's not by blowing the place up, by trashing your colleagues, in full view of people who don't really care about it anyway."

Several NPR journalists told me they are no longer willing to work with Berliner as they no longer have confidence that he will keep private their internal musings about stories as they work through coverage.

"Newsrooms run on trust," NPR political correspondent Danielle Kurtzleben tweeted last week, without mentioning Berliner by name. "If you violate everyone's trust by going to another outlet and sh--ing on your colleagues (while doing a bad job journalistically, for that matter), I don't know how you do your job now."

Berliner rejected that critique, saying nothing in his essay or subsequent remarks betrayed private observations or arguments about coverage.

Other newsrooms are also grappling with questions over news judgment and confidentiality. On Monday, New York Times Executive Editor Joseph Kahn announced to his staff that the newspaper's inquiry into who leaked internal dissent over a planned episode of its podcast The Daily to another news outlet proved inconclusive. The episode was to focus on a December report on the use of sexual assault as part of the Hamas attack on Israel in October. Audio staffers aired doubts over how well the reporting stood up to scrutiny.

"We work together with trust and collegiality everyday on everything we produce, and I have every expectation that this incident will prove to be a singular exception to an important rule," Kahn wrote to Times staffers.

At NPR, some of Berliner's colleagues have weighed in online against his claim that the network has focused on diversifying its workforce without a concomitant commitment to diversity of viewpoint. Recently retired Chief Executive John Lansing has referred to this pursuit of diversity within NPR's workforce as its " North Star ," a moral imperative and chief business strategy.

In his essay, Berliner tagged the strategy as a failure, citing the drop in NPR's broadcast audiences and its struggle to attract more Black and Latino listeners in particular.

"During most of my tenure here, an open-minded, curious culture prevailed. We were nerdy, but not knee-jerk, activist, or scolding," Berliner writes. "In recent years, however, that has changed."

Berliner writes, "For NPR, which purports to consider all things, it's devastating both for its journalism and its business model."

NPR investigative reporter Chiara Eisner wrote in a comment for this story: "Minorities do not all think the same and do not report the same. Good reporters and editors should know that by now. It's embarrassing to me as a reporter at NPR that a senior editor here missed that point in 2024."

Some colleagues drafted a letter to Maher and NPR's chief news executive, Edith Chapin, seeking greater clarity on NPR's standards for its coverage and the behavior of its journalists — clearly pointed at Berliner.

A plan for "healthy discussion"

On Friday, CEO Maher stood up for the network's mission and the journalism, taking issue with Berliner's critique, though never mentioning him by name. Among her chief issues, she said Berliner's essay offered "a criticism of our people on the basis of who we are."

Berliner took great exception to that, saying she had denigrated him. He said that he supported diversifying NPR's workforce to look more like the U.S. population at large. She did not address that in a subsequent private exchange he shared with me for this story. (An NPR spokesperson declined further comment.)

Late Monday afternoon, Chapin announced to the newsroom that Executive Editor Eva Rodriguez would lead monthly meetings to review coverage.

"Among the questions we'll ask of ourselves each month: Did we capture the diversity of this country — racial, ethnic, religious, economic, political geographic, etc — in all of its complexity and in a way that helped listeners and readers recognize themselves and their communities?" Chapin wrote in the memo. "Did we offer coverage that helped them understand — even if just a bit better — those neighbors with whom they share little in common?"

Berliner said he welcomed the announcement but would withhold judgment until those meetings played out.

In a text for this story, Chapin said such sessions had been discussed since Lansing unified the news and programming divisions under her acting leadership last year.

"Now seemed [the] time to deliver if we were going to do it," Chapin said. "Healthy discussion is something we need more of."

Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik and edited by Deputy Business Editor Emily Kopp and Managing Editor Gerry Holmes. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no NPR corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.

• Katherine Maher
• uri berliner

• International

Second day of testimony wraps in Trump hush money trial

From CNN's Jeremy Herb, Lauren del Valle and Kara Scannell in the courthouse

Trump posts from the courthouse about gag order and calls for judge to recuse himself

Donald Trump has posted on Truth Social about the gag order following the gag order hearing, calling for Judge Juan Merchan to recuse himself.

Trump alleges he is "not allowed" to defend himself, but he has indicated he is willing to take the stand to testify .

Trump and his attorney are looking through a stack of papers he brought to court

As we wait for the judge to return to the bench, Trump has resumed chatting with his attorney Todd Blanche. They are looking at the stack of papers Trump brought in with him.

Trump and his attorney are whispering before judge enters courtroom

Attorney Todd Blanche and Trump were whispering before Judge Juan Merchan entered the courtroom.

He and Blanche were leaning in close to each other to talk. Trump then veered to his right to talk to attorney Emil Bove, who in now sitting in the first chair.

Trump back in courtroom

Former President Donald Trump has reentered the courtroom. He is holding a stack of papers, some held together by binder clips.

Analysis: This was a "disaster for the defense," CNN legal analyst says of gag order hearing

From CNN's Antoinette Radford

CNN’s Chief Legal Correspondent Paula Reid has described the outcome of today’s gag order hearing as a “disaster for the defense.”

During the hearing, Judge Juan Merchan questioned whether Donald Trump recognized that he had breached the gag order, even asking him to take the stand and swear under oath that he did not know he had done so.

Merchan went as far as to tell Trump’s lawyer, Todd Blanche, that he was “losing all credibility with the court.”

Reid said that was a “disaster” for how Trump’s team had hoped to tackle the hearing.

“This just went completely off the rails because while they wanted to do the macro big-picture, the judge wanted to go post-by post through each of these alleged violations of the gag order that in many instances, are indefensible.”

“I knew this wasn’t going to go well legally for the team… but this was much worse than I could’ve expected.”

Defense says Trump is "very careful" with gag order arguing he is allowed to respond to political attacks 

From CNN's Kaanita Iyer

Donald Trump's attorney Todd Blanche faced a tough task Tuesday morning as he sought to avoid a maximum fine for his client for violating a gag order.  

Under the order, Trump is barred from publicly discussing witnesses or jurors in the case and prosecutors have pointed to eight social media posts and two campaign website posts to argue that “going after Michael Cohen is a recurring theme in these posts.” The prosecution is seeking $1,000 per violation — the maximum fine.  

But Blanche argued that specific attacks from Cohen, Trump's former personal attorney, and adult film star Stormy Daniels prompted the former president to respond, but he has yet to point to specific attacks by them despite several requests to do so from Judge Juan Merchan.  

"I keep asking you over and over again for a specific answer, and I’m not getting an answer," Merchan said to Blanche.   But Blanche later told Merchan: "President Trump is being very careful to comply with your order.”  

The former president was not visibly reacting to any of the proceedings at the time, according to journalists in the courtroom, but did talk to his attorneys at least twice.  

Analysis: Why David Pecker is an important witness in the prosecutor's quest to prove criminal intent

From CNN's Elise Hammond

David Pecker will be back on the stand on Tuesday to continue testimony in the hush money trial against former President Donald Trump. Not only is he the first witness to answer questions from the prosecution, but he is also a critical piece of how the state is trying to prove criminal intent, one former federal prosecutor said.

Criminal intent means that “not just an act happened, but an act happened for a purpose,” said Elliot Williams, a CNN legal analyst. “The defendant did something wrong to carry out some criminal purpose.”

As the then-chairman of American Media Inc., which publishes the National Enquirer, Pecker was involved in numerous “catch-and-kill” schemes he orchestrated on behalf of Trump, and he allegedly helped broker the deal with adult film star Stormy Daniels which is at the center of  the case.

“It’s not just the catch-and-kill payments, but catch-and-kill payments for the purpose of concealing information from voters in the context of an election,” Williams explained, referring to the 2016 presidential election. 

Williams said it’s likely that prosecutors will focus much of their questioning trying to uncover what was discussed in meetings between Pecker and Trump. The question at the heart of the argument, Williams said, is if the payments were intended to conceal information from voters, “or was it just Donald Trump saying, ‘Well, you know, this is embarrassing to my wife and my kids, I really want to keep this hidden.’”

Prosecution argues Trump deliberately violates gag order in hearing, seeks max fine

Before witnesses can continue to offer testimony in the historic criminal hush money trial of Donald Trump, Judge Juan Merchan held a hearing on whether the former president violated the gag order in the hush money case.  

Under the order, Trump is barred from publicly discussing witnesses or jurors in the case.  

The prosecution has pointed to eight social media posts and two campaign website posts where Trump was primarily sharing commentary about expected trial witness Michael Cohen, and prosecutor Chris Conroy is seeking a $1,000 fine for each post — the max fine. 

Conroy made the case that Trump “knows about the order” and “knows what he’s not allowed to do” but violates it anyway. The prosecutor has also called the defense’s argument that the former president can respond to attacks by Cohen as an attempt to “muddy the waters,” and said those 10 posts “pose a very real threat” to the proceedings.  

Prosecutors also want the judge to remind Trump that “future violations of this Court’s restrictions on his extrajudicial statements can be punished not only with additional fines but also with a term of incarceration of up to thirty days.” 

Trump was not visibly reacting to the accusations, according to CNN’s reporters in the courtroom.  

Judge says court will go from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. straight after short break

As court was breaking, Judge Juan Merchan said he plans to go from 11 a.m. ET to 2 p.m. ET straight with the jury.

Please enable JavaScript for a better experience.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

NPR Suspends Editor Whose Essay Criticized the Broadcaster

Uri Berliner, a senior business editor at NPR, said the public radio network’s liberal bias had tainted its coverage of important stories.

By Benjamin Mullin

NPR has suspended Uri Berliner, the senior business editor who broke ranks and published an essay arguing that the nonprofit radio network had allowed liberal bias to affect its coverage.

Mr. Berliner was suspended by the network for five days, starting Friday, for violating the network’s policy against doing work outside the organization without first getting permission.

Mr. Berliner acknowledged his suspension in an interview with NPR on Monday , providing one of the network’s reporters with a copy of the written rebuke. In presenting the warning, NPR said Mr. Berliner had failed to clear his work for outside outlets, adding that he would be fired if he violated the policy again.

Mr. Berliner’s essay was published last week in The Free Press, a popular Substack publication.

He declined to comment about the suspension. NPR said it did not comment on personnel matters.

The revelation of Mr. Berliner’s punishment is the latest aftershock to rattle NPR since he published his essay. Employees at the public radio network were taken aback by Mr. Berliner’s public condemnation of the broadcaster, and several have said they no longer trust him because of his remarks. Mr. Berliner told The New York Times last week that he did not reach out to the network before publishing his essay.

After Mr. Berliner’s essay was published, NPR’s new chief executive, Katherine Maher, came under renewed scrutiny as conservative activists resurfaced a series of years-old social media posts criticizing former President Donald J. Trump and embracing progressive causes. One of the activists, Christopher Rufo, has pressured media organizations into covering controversies involving influential figures, such as the plagiarism allegations against Claudine Gay, the former Harvard president.

NPR said on Monday that Ms. Maher’s social media posts were written long before she was named chief executive of NPR, and that she was not working in the news industry at the time. NPR also said that while she managed the business side of the nonprofit, she was not involved in its editorial process. Ms. Maher said in a statement that “in America everyone is entitled to free speech as a private citizen.”

Several NPR employees have urged the network’s leaders to more forcefully renounce Mr. Berliner’s claims in his essay. Edith Chapin, NPR’s top editor, said in a statement last week that managers “strongly disagree with Uri’s assessment of the quality of our journalism,” adding that the network was “proud to stand behind” its work.

Some employees have begun to speak out. Tony Cavin, NPR’s managing editor for standards and practices, took issue with many of Mr. Berliner’s claims in an interview with The Times on Tuesday, saying Mr. Berliner’s essay mischaracterized NPR’s coverage of crucial stories.

Mr. Cavin said NPR’s coverage of Covid-19, one of the lines of reporting that Mr. Berliner criticized, was in step with reporting from other mainstream news organizations at the time. The coverage, he said, attributed the origins of the virus to a market in Wuhan, China. He also defended NPR’s coverage of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, another area Mr. Berliner focused on, noting that Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating the issue, concluded that Russian state actors had made attempts to sway the election.

Mr. Cavin also pointed out that NPR had no way to verify early articles about Hunter Biden’s laptop after the story broke but pursued follow-up stories examining the situation. Mr. Berliner wrote that NPR had “turned a blind eye” to the story about Mr. Biden’s laptop.

“To somehow think that we were driven by politics is both wrong and unfair,” Mr. Cavin said.

Benjamin Mullin reports on the major companies behind news and entertainment. Contact Ben securely on Signal at +1 530-961-3223 or email at [email protected] . More about Benjamin Mullin

Turmoil at NPR after editor rips network for political bias

The public radio network is being targeted by conservative activists over the editor’s essay, which many staffers say is misleading and inaccurate.

Uri Berliner had worked at NPR for a quarter-century when he wrote the essay that would abruptly end his tenure. On April 9, the Free Press published 3,500 words from Berliner, a senior business editor, about how the public radio network is guilty of journalistic malpractice — for conforming to a politically liberal worldview at the expense of fairness and accuracy.

“It’s true NPR has always had a liberal bent, but during most of my tenure here, an open-minded, curious culture prevailed,” Berliner wrote. “We were nerdy, but not knee-jerk, activist, or scolding. In recent years, however, that has changed.”

The essay, whose arguments were disputed by NPR management and many staffers, plunged the network into a week-long public controversy.

Last week NPR’s new CEO, Katherine Maher, indirectly referenced Berliner’s essay in a note to staff that NPR also published online. “Asking a question about whether we’re living up to our mission should always be fair game: after all, journalism is nothing if not hard questions,” she wrote. “Questioning whether our people are serving our mission with integrity, based on little more than the recognition of their identity, is profoundly disrespectful, hurtful, and demeaning.”

The drama reached a pinnacle Wednesday, when Berliner resigned while taking a shot at Maher.

In his resignation letter, Berliner called NPR “a great American institution” that should not be defunded. “I respect the integrity of my colleagues and wish for NPR to thrive and do important journalism,” he wrote in the letter, posted on his X account. “But I cannot work in a newsroom where I am disparaged by a new CEO whose divisive views confirm the very problems I cite in my Free Press essay.”

Berliner’s comments have angered many of his now-former colleagues, who dismissed as inaccurate his depiction of their workplace and who say his faulty criticisms have been weaponized against them.

Berliner’s essay is titled “ I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust .” On its face, it seemed to confirm the worst suspicions held by NPR’s critics on the right: that the legendary media organization had an ideological, progressive agenda that dictates its journalism. The Free Press is an online publication started by journalist Bari Weiss, whose own resignation from the New York Times in 2020 was used by conservative politicians as evidence that the Times stifled certain ideas and ideologies; Weiss accused the Times of catering to a rigid, politically left-leaning worldview and of refusing to defend her against online “bullies” when she expressed views to the contrary. Berliner’s essay was accompanied by several glossy portraits and a nearly hour-long podcast interview with Weiss. He also went on NewsNation, where the host Chris Cuomo — who had been cast out from CNN for crossing ethical lines to help his governor-brother — called Berliner a “whistleblower.”

Initially, Berliner was suspended for not getting approval for doing work for another publication. NPR policy requires receiving written permission from supervisors “for all outside freelance and journalistic work,” according to the employee handbook.

An NPR spokeswoman said Wednesday that the network does not comment on personnel matters. Berliner declined The Washington Post’s request for further comment.

In an interview Tuesday with NPR’s David Folkenflik — whose work is also criticized in the Free Press essay — Berliner said “we have great journalists here. If they shed their opinions and did the great journalism they’re capable of, this would be a much more interesting and fulfilling organization for our listeners.”

Berliner’s future at NPR became an open question. NPR leaders were pressed by staff in meetings this week as to why he was still employed there. And some reporters made clear they didn’t want to be edited by Berliner anymore because they now questioned his journalistic judgment, said one prominent NPR journalist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to preserve relationships. “How are you supposed to have honest debates about coverage if you think it’s going to be fodder for the point he’s trying to make?” the staffer said.

Berliner had written that “there’s an unspoken consensus” about stories to pursue at NPR — “of supposed racism, transphobia, signs of the climate apocalypse, Israel doing something bad, and the dire threat of Republican policies” — and that the network operated without friction, “almost like an assembly line.”

Several prominent NPR journalists countered that impression. “We have strong, heated editorial debates every day to try and get the most appropriate language and nuanced reporting in a landscape that is divisive and difficult to work in as a journalist,” Leila Fadel, host of “Morning Edition,” told The Post. “Media and free independent press are often under attack for the fact-based reporting that we do.” She called Berliner’s essay “a bad-faith effort” and a “factually inaccurate take on our work that was filled with omissions to back his arguments.”

Other staffers noted that Berliner did not seek comment from NPR for his piece. No news organization is above reproach, “Weekend Edition” host Ayesha Rascoe told The Post, but someone should not “be able to tear down an entire organization’s work without any sort of response or context provided, or pushback.” There are many legitimate critiques to make of NPR’s coverage, she added, “but the way this has been done — it’s to invalidate all the work NPR does.”

NPR is known to have a very collegial culture, and the manner in which Berliner aired his criticism — perhaps even more than the substance of it — is what upset so many of his co-workers, according to one staffer.

“Morning Edition” host Steve Inskeep, writing on his Substack on Tuesday , fact-checked or contextualized several of the arguments Berliner made. For instance: Berliner wrote that he once asked “why we keep using that word that many Hispanics hate — Latinx.” Inskeep said he searched 90 days of NPR’s content and found “Latinx” was used nine times — “usually by a guest” — compared to the nearly 400 times “Latina” and “Latino” were used.

“This article needed a better editor,” Inskeep wrote. “I don’t know who, if anyone, edited Uri’s story, but they let him publish an article that discredited itself. … A careful read of the article shows many sweeping statements for which the writer is unable to offer evidence.”

This week conservative activist Christopher Rufo — who rose to fame for targeting “critical race theory,” and whose scrutiny of Harvard President Claudine Gay preceded her resignation — set his sights on Maher, surfacing old social media posts she wrote before she joined the news organization. In one 2020 tweet, she referred to Trump as a “deranged racist.” Others posts show her wearing a Biden hat, or wistfully daydreaming about hanging out with Kamala D. Harris. Rufo has called for Maher’s resignation.

“In America everyone is entitled to free speech as a private citizen,” Maher wrote in a statement to The Post, when asked about the social media posts. “What matters is NPR’s work and my commitment as its CEO: public service, editorial independence, and the mission to serve all of the American public.”

Maher, who started her job as NPR CEO last month, previously was the head of the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that operates the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. An NPR spokesperson said in a statement Tuesday that Maher “was not working in journalism at the time” of the social media posts; she was “exercising her first amendment right to express herself like any other American citizen,” and “the CEO is not involved in editorial decisions.”

In a statement, an NPR spokesperson described the outcry over Maher’s old posts as “a bad faith attack that follows an established playbook, as online actors with explicit agendas work to discredit independent news organizations.”

Meanwhile, some NPR staffers want a more forceful defense of NPR journalism by management. An internal letter — signed by about 50 NPR staffers as of Wednesday afternoon — called on Maher and NPR editor in chief Edith Chapin to “publicly and directly” call out Berliner’s “factual inaccuracies and elisions.”

In the essay, Berliner accuses NPR of mishandling three major stories: the allegations of the 2016 Trump campaign’s collusion with Russia, the origins of the coronavirus , and the authenticity and relevance of Hunter Biden’s laptop. Berliner’s critics note that he didn’t oversee coverage of these stories. They also say that his essay indirectly maligns employee affinity groups — he name-checks groups for Muslim, Jewish, queer and Black employees, which he wrote “reflect broader movement in the culture of people clustering together based on ideology or a characteristic at birth.” (Berliner belonged to the group for Jewish employees, according to an NPR staffer with knowledge of membership.) He also writes that he found NPR’s D.C. newsroom employed 87 registered Democrats and zero Republicans in editorial positions in 2021. His critics say this figure lacks proper context.

Tony Cavin, NPR’s managing editor of standards and practices, told The Post that “I have no idea where he got that number,” that NPR’s newsroom has 660 employees, and that “I know a number of our hosts and staff are registered as independents.” That includes Inskeep, who, on his Substack, backed up Cavin’s assessment.

Berliner also wrote that, during the administration of Donald Trump , NPR “hitched our wagon” to top Trump antagonist Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) by interviewing him 25 times about Trump and Russia. Cavin told The Post NPR aired 900 interviews with lawmakers during the same period of time, “so that’s 3 percent. He’s a business reporter, he knows about statistics and it seems he’s selectively using statistics.”

Cavin said some inside the organization agree with points Berliner made, even if they “don’t like the way he went about it. The irony of this is it tells you how diverse as an organization we are, in ideological terms.”

“There are a few bits of truth in this,” NPR international correspondent Eyder Peralta wrote on Facebook. But he said the essay “uses a selecting reading to serve the author’s own world views” and paints with “too broad a brush.”

“I have covered wars, I have been thrown in jail for my work,” Peralta told The Post, “and for him to question part of what is in our nature, which is intellectual curiosity and that we follow our noses where they lead us, that hurts. And I think that damages NPR.”

Some staffers have also been attacked online since the essay’s publication. Rascoe, who, as a Black woman host for NPR, says she’s no stranger to online vitriol, but one message after Berliner’s essay labeled her as a “DEI hire” who has “never read a book in her life.”

“What stung about this one was it came on the basis of a supposed colleague’s op-ed,” whose words were “being used as fodder to attack me,” Rascoe said. “And my concern is not about me, but all the younger journalists who don’t have the platform I have and who will be attacked and their integrity questioned simply on the basis of who they are.”

NPR, like much of the media industry, has struggled in recent years with a declining audience and a tough ad market. NPR laid off 100 workers in 2023, one of its largest layoffs ever , citing fewer sponsorships and a projected $30 million decline in revenue.

Going forward, some staffers worry about the ramifications of Berliner’s essay and the reactions to it. The open letter to Maher and Chapin said that “sending the message that a public essay is the easiest way to make change is setting a bad precedent, regardless of the ideologies being expressed.”

An earlier version of this article included a reference to Uri Berliner's Free Press essay in which Berliner cited voter registration data for editorial employees of NPR's D.C. newsroom. The article has been updated to clarify that this data was from 2021, not the present day.

• A history of CNN’s Laura Coates, who calmly narrated a self-immolation April 20, 2024 A history of CNN’s Laura Coates, who calmly narrated a self-immolation April 20, 2024
• Are some reporters putting Trump jurors at risk? April 18, 2024 Are some reporters putting Trump jurors at risk? April 18, 2024
• Turmoil at NPR after editor rips network for political bias April 17, 2024 Turmoil at NPR after editor rips network for political bias April 17, 2024