1) The Remembrance of Stalinism appears to be predominant, compared to remembering Fascism, which seems rather marginalized.
2) There are different discourses with different dominances among the narratives of the past. Here, the attribute “dominant” does not refer to the actual amount of people participating and forming the discourse but to the grade of subvention by ressources, money and govermental support.
3) We figured, that the process of remembrance and commemoration is still in a process. Looking back and reflecting history without the impact of state propaganda has now been possible for merely two decades. We assume, that it will take more time until a more balanced, factualized, open and even Remembrance can take place and be exercised.
4) Despite the criticism towards the historical sites we examined, they have supplied information that we can weave into our thoughts about the Hungarian past and present. The “House of Terror” for example does not tell us something about the past. What it does is telling us how we should see the past. If we regard museums as being institutions just as churches are, it is clear that we need to demistify their importance and challenge what they present and communicate.