Reactions to the conflict in Ukraine have included the well-known quote “The first casualty of War is Truth” – but it would seem that Truth has been seriously endangered in the Peace of our interconnected world, well before the first shots in the current conflict. This is surely something to which we should regularly draw our students’ attention.

But where did that quote come from? I wondered. Checking on the internet, I find that the consensus is that it was first formulated by Aeschylus (525-456 BC) – although this is merely “attributed”, and no-one seems to explain exactly how and when he stated the idea. Then, some well-read individual cites Samuel Johnson writing in "The Idler" magazine from 11/11/1758 that "...among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of the love of truth…” which is not quite the same idea, and not so pithy. The best-known source seems to be the US Republican Senator Hiram Johnson, who said in 1918 "The first casualty when war comes is truth" – although once again people complain that this attribution cannot be clearly documented.

So, the idea has been around for 2,500 years or so, but doesn’t seem to have been repeated by anybody until we reach the 20^th century. Does this mean that we humans have only recently become interested in the idea of ‘Truth’ in relation to war?

It is useful to make a distinction between ‘Truth as Objective Reality’ and ‘Truth as Justification’. The objective reality of the origins and conduct of a war is perhaps something which only truly interests historians – whereas the justification of a war is always a matter of fierce contention. War efforts function better if one can say ‘WE are right – and THEY are wrong’ – truth becomes simply an engine of motivation. In that case, truth becomes a casualty of war in the sense that it becomes ’So-called Truth as Justification’, which has only tenuous connections with ‘Truth as Objective Reality’.

I would argue that humans have always been interested in the nature of truth in warfare, but the nature of the debate was perhaps different. Consider the religious wars in Europe in the 16C and the 17C – both sides were profoundly committed to their own version of (religious) Truth, and the wars can be seen to a large extent as simply theological debate by other means (to adapt the phrase of Clausewitz). There was passionate disagreement about Truth in peacetime, and that eventually extended to converting debate into killing.

What may have changed from Hiram Johnson onwards is the developing complexity and depth of modern communications. Beginning with the radio and leading up to the internet, modern communication networks make colossal amounts of information (and disinformation) available to vast numbers of people – and so ‘Truth’ is much more debateable for anyone who is paying any attention. There is much more to discuss, and to evaluate; which is why it is vital to teach our students the skills of proper critical thinking.

President Putin has obviously recognised the importance of the control of ‘Truth’ in peacetime, and this is evident too in the flow of disinformation around the Ukrainian conflict. An article in the Guardian ‘Analysts identify top 10 ‘war myths’ of Russia-Ukraine conflict’ cites a US-based organisation called NewsGuard which monitors the trustworthiness of news and information websites, and quotes the following -

If you want to discuss these myths with your students, you could project the list using Presentation Mode. It may be important to think critically about NewsGuard’s own refutations - which of these statements are evidently supported by factual references? Or ‘Truth’ as it is known in peacetime.