From an online discussion on the project comes this very valid point:
“This kind of format tends to heavily reflect the biases of the author while at the same time implying that the chooser’s choice in some way matters. (…) You’ve created a somewhat crude Holocaust simulation that invites people to imagine what it might be like to make unimaginable choices; I think the nature of your medium (…) may compromise that vision by framing those choices as discreet, “imaginable” and in some way fatalistic.”
I see the problem.
The current design (which may very well undergo heavy changes) is a compromise based on the assumption that the participants will need a strongly structured form, since having a more open form will easily confuse people and disrupt the whole thing.
The choices presented, and the consequences of the choices, are so far primarily based on events from the Warsaw, Lodz and Lakhva ghettoes. It is impossible to say for certain what might have happened, had circumstances and/or choices been different. (It is possible to extrapolate and make educated guesses, based on Nazi policy regarding the ghettoes).
I am not certain what to do about this. Judenrat can’t be described, at present, as a perfect historical simulation. The current concept is good for showing the basic problems the Judenräte faced, and highlighting the deliberate Nazi tactics of tightening the grip and removing Jewish rights and property in steps. I believe this is worthwhile as part of a historical curriculum. Some of the choices presented may be useful for debate in a course on ethics.
But the main problem stands: In selecting and presenting the choices and their consequences, I can never be a completely impartial judge. My interpretation and judgment of the events will show through – even if I think through and debate that interpretation and judgment thoroughly. The Judenräte are controversial to this day, and I must take care not to attempt to “solve” the controversy by giving simple answers.
