Essay: Hiroshima – Tibbets’ and Kawamoto’s accounts

On the 6th of August 1945 the world came to realise that the art of warfare would be dramatically transformed forever; nuclear weaponry had been introduced which several days later would be responsible for the war coming to an end. This essay evaluates the historical significance of the two contrasting perspectives of the interview with Paul Tibbets, pilot of Enola Gay, and the magazine article about the experiences of student, Yoshitaka Kawamoto, particularly in regards to the choice to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Arguing from conflicting viewpoints of the ‘generally accepted histories’ those primary sources are invaluable in the contemporary understanding of the event as they demonstrate the beliefs and values that the different cultures had at the time. Although both sources have their limitations, the combination of the two gives a more thorough and holistic representation of the events that unfolded.
Tibbets’ notions not only reflect what had been engrained in American society at the time but also what had been engrained in the mindsets of their allies; that the atomic bomb was vital in ending the war. The face contact within the interview allows the audience to discern Tibbets’ reactions and emotions towards certain aspects that were raised such as the questions of the necessity and moral consequences of releasing the atomic bomb. His perspective adopted the approach that the Allied Forces took whatever means to ensure that the war would end as ‘ending war would save lives… not destroy them’ (Tibbets 1989). Even nowadays, much debate surrounds whether the atomic bomb was crucial. Reaching a similar outlook to Tibbets, Miscamble has no doubt that many more lives, on both sides, would have been lost if it weren’t for the then U.S. President, Harry S. Truman, who decided to resort to more a more drastic and finite end to the war (2011). Being victors in the war, this attitude became quite a popular one in the days following with ‘85% of respondents [in the U.S.] approving use of the bomb’ and as a result were able to justify their actions (Reed 2015 p.18). This can be seen as Tibbets feels little remorse about his mission for ‘there is no morality in war’ and is adamant that ethics should not be evaluated during a time of war (1989). Nevertheless, these questions of morality and warfare have evolved since Tibbets’ time. Former U.S. President, Barack Obama, acknowledges that America’s position towards war needs to be altered to consider the ethics of their future actions and that ‘the memory … must never fade’ (2016).
Although thousands of lives may have been saved by ending the war, as we know from Kawamoto’s account, the disastrous effects of the bomb lingered for generations (1985).  He epitomises the other commonly accepted history, that the existence of nuclear weaponry should not have been introduced. Not only did Kawamoto face detrimental physical consequences from the radiation such as his hair falling out but also ongoing psychological ones from having distressing dreams about witnessing countless civilians being injured and dying around him. In his book, Reed explores the scientific components as well as some of political implications of the event (2015). He reveals that an ‘estimated 66,000 [civilians were] dead and 69,000 injured of estimated …population of 255,000’ (Reed 2015, p.15). Most of these deaths were thought to have resulted either from falling debris or burns, which furthers Kawamoto’s testimony of the horrific deaths he encountered. Interestingly, in contrast to Tibbets, Kawamoto felt immense guilt over his survival, which may have been partially linked to Japanese etiquette which ‘taught [children] that it was cowardly to desert one’s classmates’ and Kawamoto feeling as though he failed to uphold this tradition (1985). The article which includes Kawamoto’s story is not written by him, and hence this may allow the writer to take some liberties with the retelling of his testimony. However, it does encompass various other stories and statistics that mirror Kawamoto’s version of events. Kawamoto accepts that the Americans winning the war was probably best for Japan who were under the strict leadership of the military at the time, but wishes that the freedom and democracy had not come at such an extreme cost of losing so many civilians across the country (1985).
Both reports have similar degrees of authority about them as they both experienced the event first hand with Tibbets, the pilot responsible for releasing the ‘Little Boy’ and inflicting the damage on Hiroshima, whereas Kawamoto was a ‘hibakusha’ or survivor of the bombing, located less than a kilometre away from the hypocentre of the blast (1985). Due to the interviews with both Kawamoto and Tibbets being conducted over forty years after the bombing of Hiroshima, the accuracy and reliability of the details they provide about the event may be brought into question. As psychologist, Elizabeth Loftus, notes that eye-witness accounts tend to be inaccurate as both extrinsic and intrinsic factors such as time and mood may affect the recall of the event (1979). Tibbets admits he did not see what had happened on the ground after the bomb had been deployed, which limits his knowledge on the aftermath. Likewise, can be said in regards to Kawamoto’s perspective of the event, as his recollections were interrupted by periods of unconsciousness. However, as being one of the few American soldiers directly involved in the act of dropping the atomic bomb, there is much to gain from Tibbets’ insights. Yet, despite its shortcomings, Kawamoto’s descriptions allow those in the 21st Century a glimpse into the severe and long-lasting impacts of the almost complete annihilation of Hiroshima.
In spite of the limitations of these testimonies, both accounts showcase the ideologies and mindsets of the two different cultures and thus include some degree of authority about them. For every ‘Tibbets’, that believed the bomb was essential in closing the war, there was a ‘Kawamoto’, who endured the long-lasting consequences of the introduction of nuclear warfare. Although the move to bomb Hiroshima may have been considered to be the ‘right’ political move at the time, when modern ethical principles are applied, the decision may be viewed as a ‘wrong’ one, which still sparks much controversy within the global society.