The only solid fact that can be gleaned from the Enola Gay Smithsonian exhibit controversy is that different groups have contradistinctive perspectives with respect to events in the past. As far as the specifics of this particular situation are concerned, both sides of the argument as to how the exhibit should have been portrayed are clearly logical and well developed, yet significantly charged emotionally in their own respects.

To modern day college students, the pathos of the original plan for the exhibit would probably have the most appeal as compared to the “official story” generated by the war veterans and government representatives through the letter correspondences archived in the Air Force Association’s Enola Gay data base. This is not to say, however, that the perspective of the war veterans is “unethical” or “biased”; rather, it suggests that particular experiences shape conceptions of events.

When taking into consideration such a delicate topic as war, conflicting opinions will undoubtedly emerge. In this, it is inherently illogical to allow a partisan group involved with a particular event to essentially dictate the historical context of an exhibit on display in a museum for the general public. The Japanese Times article sums up this idea brilliantly, as it completely ignores the internal controversy involving the exhibit, portraying it as simply “a failed attempt” (to exhibit the effects of the bomb).