The danger of historical excuse as an argument

There is a tradition saying that what happened in the past is less important than the present. For example, the German Nazi state with SS, concentration camps, the holocaust, and tens of millions of mercilessly killed people in Europe and Africa is the past and there is no responsibility of the current generation for these crimes. Borrell said yesterday that they doubled-crossed Russia with some promises, but it was in the past and the Russian military operation has no relevance to this lie. Jordan Petersson also put forward an argument that the current generation and he personally has no responsibility for the slavery and suppression of black people. US representative in UN General Powell lied to the UNSC and the whole world about the biological weapon in Iraq resulting in the complete destruction of infrastructure and a million people killed. Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria have a similar history. Other examples are well-known and one can recall more stories. The essence of such arguments is clear - time irons out crime. If this argument is correct then the logical application of such an approach is straightforward. The present time is the past in the future time. One can make any crime today and in ten-twenty-hundred days, months, and years it is possible to say that today's crime is insignificant. The bigger the crime now the more insignificant it will be considered in the future. The survivor/winner will sit in a safe armchair in the future and will be the only participant in the discussion defining the future narrative. The argument that the past is insignificant and excusable is equivalent to the insignificance of the present actions including crimes. Anglo-Saxons know this effect and use it always and everywhere. Other countries can use this trick and do what they have to do without remorse, at least in the future. I consider the historical excuse as the greatest danger to the future of mankind.