If the purpose for 'historical investigation of the consequences of past actions' is to rally anger and hate in the present, then no, I would prefer it kept 'secret'. Mainly because I would have no faith that the investigation would be objective or have any redeeming qualities.
> If the purpose for 'historical investigation of the consequences of past actions' is to rally anger and hate in the present
That's exactly what many 'investigations', which are not always historically accurate, are about: Stroking nationalism, hate, and a sense of revenge on the one side (and we can see good examples of that in the comments here), and shame on the other side.
The UK and Europe have nothing to be ashamed of (which isn't to say that past actions cannot be criticised). Stroking hate and revenge is taking a path of perpetuation of aggression.
Certainly, this article is crass propaganda and not journalism. I flagged the submission to no effect.
Even true facts can be used for bad purposes, and even uncomfortable facts are worth knowing. This philosophy is what leads to things like denying the Armenian genocide, or denying the rape of Nanking.
Are those atrocities being used to demonize the descendants of the perpretrators? Not that I can see. Therefore, I take no issue with bringing them to light.
It seems you'd be okay with using true facts to incite racial or religious hatred, something which is against the law in most western countries.
