When I was in Budapest recently the House of Terror both surprised and delighted me. This museum teaches its visitors about 20^th century Hungarian history. Through the many personal accounts that are on display, it provides a place for Hungarians to come to term with the recent past, of fascism and of communism. It perhaps fulfils a role similar to that of the Anne Frank House, and of former Camp Westerbork, in the Netherlands.

I would have liked to take Anthony there. Museums like these are rare in China. If exhibitions talk of recent Chinese history, then they always have ulterior – partisan or nationalistic – motives. It would be good for him to see how other countries deal with atrocities that happened in living memory, and how others come to terms with these parts of their past.

But it was the book of testimonials, a mandatory exercise just after the last displays and just before the shop with museum memorabilia, that caught my attention. As I skipped through the pages I made some observations that I’d like to share with you.

Comments seem to come in three categories, I wonder if this is true for all museums of this kind.

Roughly one in three comments are positive: “the museum is great, the displays are astonishing, and the narratives are moving. I’d recommend this museum to all of my friends.”

Another third of the comments go a little like this: “You’re English is terrible, the captions are completely imconpehrensable. Learn some English first.” (In one instance someone had replied with “Learn Hungarian instead, you idiot.” I concur.)

The last third are the most interesting ones though. These are the visitors’ who think the museum does a commendable job, they are moderately positive, but the exhibition is incomplete in some way.

Such comments go on to explain that part of history which the commentator wants to see under the spotlight. Without fail these commentators explain, possibly without realising it, why they feel this part of history deserves extra attention: “As a communist I think… Since I’m Hungarian I feel… I’m a Jew and therefore…” You get the idea.

It makes me question the motives of these people. Do they go to a museum to learn something, or do they go there just to see their believes and narratives confirmed by the exhibition?

Let’s take an example, a comment that I remember especially vividly. It read something like this:

The histories of those that were so affected by Hungary’s recent page are very moving. But as a Jew I’m shocked to find that this museum pays only lip service to the role of the Hungarian government in the destruction of Hungarian Jews. Instead you seem to put the blame solidly on international and foreign forces.

I would find such a comment very appropriate in the Anne Frank house, where a single narrative provides the context for the rest of the exhibition. The destruction of the Jewish community, that’s one aspect of Hungary’s recent past. But it isn’t the only aspect, and in my opinion a museum with the scope of the House of Terror is right to provide the international context, the rise of fascism after the first world war and Hungary’s subjugation to the Soviet authorities after the second.

That isn’t to say that those people from the Hungarian authorities, who were responsible for those horrible acts, are in any way absolved from the responsibility for their crimes. But surely the House of Terror would have been wrong to mislead its visitors by implying that these things happened in isolation?

Am I right, or is my international context just another narrative screaming for attention, to come to the forefront in the museums of the world, and in the critical analysis of historic facts?

You can judge the English captions for yourself on the House of Terror website. Click through the explanations to each of the rooms one-by-one, start at the top floor room 201 and work your way down.