has denied that the Jews deserved it. He may have been simply (in his view, not mine) taking what he felt was the appropriate action for the future benefit of the German Genome, Germany (the nation, country, or both?) or the anticipated future glory of the 3rd Reich. "Collateral damage." German Jews may have simply been standing or living in the wrong spot.

This could be similar to the prevailing views American Indians encountered when U.S. Citizens wanted their land. Likewise the Japanese interned in California during World War II lost a lot of economic assets but who (as Jimbo has pointed out), were not exterminated in mass, although some died in the camps. A lot of them ended up in Idaho and Eastern Oregon creating new farms, their confiscated lands in California were never returned.

Likewise, the 19 terrorists involved in 9/11 presumably felt the "innocent victims" were either acceptable "collateral damage" or "deserved" what they got. IIRC, some of them left messages implying that they thought Allah would approve of their actions. If this is the case then this is a fact suitable for presentation within an NPOV summary of the 9/11 incident and subsequent events.

An accurate presentation of facts involved in history is going to require the presentation of various peoples views, when they are known, can be determined or possibly estimated with any reliability. Stating they are "offensive" and refusing to explore the details of the event merely allows similar incidents in the future via ignorance as well as design.

Such as the current internment of non U.S. Arabs (and U.S. Citizens of Arabic descent? I have not been following this closely) picked up for questioning in the U.S. Personally I can see no justification for this in U.S. law yet they have been repeatedly denied any relief by the U.S. courts.

Such as holding "terrorists" as POWs to claim that no trial is appropriate or required while claiming the Geneva Conventions do not apply because the U.S. does not recognize the government it attacked. The U.S. has never accepted other countries allegations that our soldiers are terrorists or war criminals. Very convenient that Al Quada troops captured in Afghanistan turn out to be "terrorists" with no rights requiring no trial as long as they are not detained on U.S. soil. Very convenient that Quantico is not U.S. soil (as Cuba as been alleging for decades) but is merely controlled by the U.S. military.

The Holocaust was deserved in the same sense that people camped in the wrong spot in the promised land aproximately 40 years after the Jewish exodus from Egypt deserved what they got. Somebody decided destiny was on their side and wanted somebody else's assets or needed a scapegoat or whatever.

It seems to me that in history, conflicts, etc. that the losers (victims) typically feel this was undeserved while the victors seem to have ways to feel it was justified or they (losers) deserved it.

Thus deserved and not deserved would seem to be inherently biased positions. I think that we should simply state what happened and who believed what (or state what they claim to have believed or what they wrote down as their beliefs and supporting and conflicting evidence, etc. etc.) and let the future readers decide for themselves what is "obvious" and "offensive".

I hope this clarifies matters regarding my personal opinions and philosophies, which in my view should be irrelevent to a discussion of "NPOV" policy, since you seem to feel they may be relevant.

If the fact that I do not view Jewish lives as inherently more valuable than other human lives (or discussion of events surrounding their death inherently "offensive") "offends" you or others then I feel that this is unfortunate.

I hope we can find a way to coexist relatively peacefully despite this little apparent or alleged (By you, me, or someone else? I seem to have lost track.) character flaw of mine.

Regards, Mike Irwin