Today many politicians and journalists in the West like reasoning about Russia as universal evil and about the USSR as a huge Gulag. But for some reason they almost entirely, with rare exceptions, fail to mention that official London is little or no different from the British Empire which was one of the most immoral and bloody state formations in all of human history and carries on its "glorious" traditions in this unfortunate field.

However, in these latter days, despite London resistance's, many secret atrocities by Great Britain around the world are gradually coming into the public domain. Today I would like to focus on just a few of them, but they do speak volumes after all.

Last week, Britain's newspaper The Morning Star, well known to the older generation of readers as one of the best sources to study the English language, published an article where the British Foreign Office is said to have been forced to admit that it gradually cleans out the history of war crimes committed by the United Kingdom's armed forces and intelligence services. In particular, the Foreign Office confirmed the destruction of 400 documents containing information about the unsavory role of the British government and intelligence agencies in suppressing the Tamil uprising in Sri Lanka late last century.

The remarkable thing is that this shredding of files took place just a few weeks after the Foreign Office publicly apologized to historians for burning a lot of documents relating to the violent suppression of the Kenyan revolt against British colonists in the 1950s, the so-called Mau-Mau Uprising. Back in those days Kenya's indigenous population opposed the seizure of their lands by British colonists. For eight years, the British army had been methodically eliminating the rebels and civilians who joined them. Tens (some historians argue in favor of hundreds) of thousands Kenyans were killed and tortured in death camps. And the British army used the most barbaric methods of torture and humiliation against those suspected of involvement in the rebellion. Westerners prefer not to recall those atrocities of the British. Perhaps because one of the victims of torture was the father of former US President Barack Obama.

Documents on crimes in Kenya should have been declassified long ago. But the British Foreign Office has been blatantly lying for decades about their being "lost", and only recently a few Kenyans who survived in those far-off years, brought the matter to a London court. The latter, in turn, compelled the Foreign Office to "find" some of those files that miraculously managed to survive. The documents confirmed both the Britons' brutality and concealment of atrocities by colonial officials. Apparently, London hates touching upon its nefarious activity both inside the country and abroad. For this very reason the current British government will leave no stone unturned in whitewashing the country's history even centuries and decades later.

Worth recalling in this regard is that ahead of the large-scale international offences, the British elite virtually carried out genocide against its own people in the 15th-16th centuries under the House of Tudor whose laws all but eliminated most of England's peasantry as a class, referring to the process as "enclosure". Then the so-called "Bloody Code" was passed against peasants driven away from their lands, which implied brutal punishment for those accused of vagrancy and begging. When caught, former peasants were scourged, branded and turned into slaves – initially for a while, but if attempting to escape they lost their chance to ever become free again, and the third capture entailed execution.

In addition, England had been carrying out genocide of the Irish for centuries, which began in the 17th century under Cromwell. Before having been conquered by the Englishmen, the population of Ireland exceeded the population of England manifold. As a consequence of the English invasion, the Irish people lost more than half of their population. Genocide on this kind of scale can hardly be found in the history of other countries. The Irish, even those who did not fight the Englishmen, were deprived of their lands and exiled to the barren and desolate region of Connaught in the island's West, and thus condemned to die of starvation. A substantial part of the Irish population, including women and children, was turned into white slaves and taken to the English colonies in the West Indies. Back in those days people in Ireland cost less than wolves – English soldiers were paid five pounds for the head of a "troublemaker" and six pounds for a wolf's head. And about centuries of genocide of their Irish neighbors there are no films or articles for some reason.

It is worth noting that England was the world leader as regards the slave trade with millions of dead and ruined lives. In their colonies in the West Indies, including the North American ones, Britons used the so-called "white slaves" – Scottish and Irish war prisoners. After that the Englishmen took the black slaves and brought to their colonies in North America, and later – to the independent States. A total of about13 million slaves from Africa were brought to the New World, but given the fact that for each slave alive there were 3-4 victims of the manhunt in Africa itself and during transportation, the figures of genocide are simply enormous.

The first large-scale concentration camps in the modern sense of the word were also created by the British (Lord Kitchener) – in South Africa during the so-called Boer War of 1899-1902. The Boers in those areas were actually doomed to death, because camp supply organization was extremely bad.

And how many millions were destroyed in Britain's colonies – the genocide of the indigenous population of colonies in North America and Australia (up to 95% of the natives were eradicated), as well as the Black War in Tasmania when the entire population was destroyed. Dozens of millions were killed in India (mainly by famine); hundreds of thousands, millions died in London's wars around the globe.

In Russia England managed to do dirt as well. As has been revealed, the British intelligence agencies are involved in the mysterious murder of Grigory Rasputin, since the fatal head-shot was made with a Webley revolver which belonged, according to some reports, to British intelligence officer Oswald Rayner. Another English spy who left numerous traces of his presence in Soviet Russia in the 1920s was Sidney Reilly. For the record: in December 2016, when the 100th anniversary of Grigory Rasputin's murder was marked, The Times newspaper urged the British special services to finally declassify documents about their involvement in this mysterious crime. However, the newspaper's call was left unattended by the British authorities. It is pretty obvious that London intends to keep protecting its own historical reputation. Unsavory, as we can see.

Here you can recall how nineteenth-century London had been for decades poisoning the Chinese people with drugs (the so-called Opium Wars), and the 1870s genocide against the Zulus in Cape Colony. Let us also mention the fact that Winston Churchill, seeking to suppress the Arab uprising in Mesopotamia in the spring of 1920, issued an order to use thousands of mustard gas charges against the rebels, thereby engaging chemical warfare agents. Let us also recall the camps on Cyprus and in Palestine run by the British government between the 1930s and 1948, where Jewish refugees were brought after attempting to immigrate to Mandatory Palestine, and where executions were widely practiced.

In her turn, British spy Baroness Park of Monmouth (Daphne Park), who was a clandestine senior controller in MI6 in Moscow for a few years, in 1961 helped to organize the murder of first legally elected Prime Minister of a newly independent Congo Patrice Lumumba, which she admitted shortly before her death in 2010. It is not inconceivable that this case involved a so-called "license to kill" which became popular after the release of epic James bond movie series. But author of the Agent 007 literary franchise Ian Fleming worked in the secret services archives and the "license to kill" was not a figment of his imagination. And strange London deaths of former Russian Federal Security Service officer Alexander Litvinenko and fugitive oligarch Boris Berezovsky, as well as the so-called "Skripal case" which is fictional and obviously fabricated by the British authorities, suggest that the UK intelligence community is still up-and-doing and inventive as regards all sorts of "sordid deeds".

Modern history has much to offer in terms of crimes by the United Kingdom. For one, 326 criminal cases were opened relative to abuses by the British military during the war in Iraq of 2003-2010, with compensations to the victims accounting for about £20 million. Or consider the case of Special Air Service (SAS), an elite forces unit of the British Army whose staff falsified reports on their war crimes in 2012-2013, concealing the homicide of unarmed civilians in Afghanistan and thus trying to shift the blame on their Afghan counterparts. The total number of countries with local conflicts where SAS conducted its shady ventures exceeds 30, in particular, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe).

It seems that the practice of using lies or concealment of facts is deeply seated in the current British establishment to disguise its own unsavory role in certain armed conflicts, many of which were initiated by London itself.

Thus, accusing other countries of violating international human rights or war crimes, Britain, who has been acting as the “penholder” on Yemen at the UN Security Council for a long time, prefers to prevent its multi-billion income from arms sales to the Gulf countries and the ongoing war in Yemen from public discussions.

If we try to take an account of the material damage caused by the United Kingdom to various countries and peoples in the course of London-provoked wars and local conflicts, it becomes simply surprising why we never witnessed any international proceedings to condemn a variety of genocides and crimes against humanity committed by Great Britain...