No subject

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