was poisoning the profession of history in Germany. Meir stated that historians had to explain events that they may disapprove of to the best of their abilities, saying that not all scholarship was political. Meir used as an example that intentionist historians did not benefit conservatism, arguing the willingness of "power elites" to obey Hitler's orders does not support a conservative position. Meir defended Hillgruber, saying that the criticism of him by Habermas as a Nazi sympathizer was "nonsensical". Meir ended his speech with a call for German historians to continue to study the past in a professional manner, and argued that pluralism was necessary for the historians' craft. "Under the Domination of Suspicion" The conservative German historian Thomas Nipperdey in an essay first published in Die Zeit on October 17, 1986, accused Habermas of unjustly smearing Nolte and other right-wing historians via unscholarly and dubious methods. Nipperdey argued that Habermas had crossed a line in his criticism of Hillgruber, Nolte, Hildebrand and Stürmer. Nipperdey wrote that historians often revise the past and blasted the "critical" historians for their "moralizing" which did more to hinder than help understand German history. Nipperdey accused those historians "critical" of the German past of making that the "monopolistic claim" that its "damning judgments" of the German past were the only acceptable version of history. Nipperdey defended Stürmer's thesis that "there is a political right to memory" as it was a "simple fact". Nippedery wrote their history rested on the basis of "secured knowledge" with "stronger and weaker perspectives, more objective and less objective portrayals". Nipperdey concluded that the "great debate" started by Habermas was "unfortunate" and should not have been started. "Auschwitz, an Asiatic Deed" In letter to the editor of Der Spiegel on October 20, 1986, Imanuel Geiss accused Augstein and Habermas of trying to silence Nolte and Hillgruber. Geiss wrote that revision of history is "normal" and did not justify Augestein's essay. Geiss accused Augstein and Habermas of threatening "our scholarly and political pluralism". Geiss argued that it necessary for historians to reexamine the past, and that Nolte should be allowed to ask questions, saying that people "who desire to defend liberal values in this country must also practice with them in dealing with dissenters". "Standing Things On Their Head" In another feuilleton entitled "Standing Things On Their Heads" first published in Die Zeit on October 31, 1986, Nolte dismissed criticism of