Every rich nation on earth became rich through exploitation and genocide.
Vietnam - as one prominent example - has had repeated bouts of internal exploitation and genocide throughout its history, including in the post Vietnam War era by the ruling CPV dictatorship. That treatment didn't make them richer or more developed, the opposite did: liberalized markets, increased protections for property rights, global trade, manufacturing, paid labor with rapidly increasing wages, rapidly increasing productivity, and so on. The approach of exploitation and genocide destroyed potential and held them back, as it similarly did to numerous other Communist nations.
You have to pretend that all worker wages are inherently exploitation (that the business to worker relationship is always structured on worker exploitation), to believe that every rich nation primarily got there via exploitation.
Merely that exploitation is more common than a fair trade where both parties can afford to walk away.
How often is it historically that a person can quit on the spot without fear of becoming homeless?
A quick search finds this article that suggests that in US today 40% of people have negative net worth: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/02/the-costs-of-...
Exploitation is not a good source of wealth for the country, of course. For people working minimum wage jobs their time would be more efficiently spent on education. But it's a great way to accumulate wealth that exists anyway.
Every nation has committed exploitation and genocide but that that is the cause of their wealth is a stretch. Most wealth is generated peacefully.
Iceland has one of the highest GDPs per capita (in the top 12 says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... ) and high median wealth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_pe... ).
That was through exploitation (power generation and fishing), but not genocide.