Victims and direct descendants should be compensated.

The money to compensate them should be taken from the aggressors.

If there is a case to be made to compensate later descendants of the victims (which sometimes there is), then it makes sense that the money to compensate them comes from whichever money inherited by later descendants of the aggressors. It's about confiscating the proceedings of the crime if still possible, not about punishing the descendants - they had no responsability in the crime but if they are benefitting from it, those undeserved benefits should be taken away.

This last part is what threathens "old wealth", whose money is almost entirely inherited from their ancestors' victimizing of others, including things like Chattel Slavery and Indentured Servitude.

Those trying to difuse the responsability for compensation across some general groups (such as "national responsability" or even "racial responsability") are de facto protecting the main present day beneficiaries of such crimes by making those who gained nothing from the crimes, directly or indirectly, pay for it instead of those who still today live a life of luxury from the proceedings of those crimes.

This is especially applicable in Britain were most of the wealth is Old Wealth and most of that comes from all kinds of crimes against Mankind committed during the Imperial days. Unsurprisingly, British politicians are big on claiming "communal responsibility" whenever there are calls to compensate victims of past actions under British rule.

PS: As for your first paragraph, I totally agreed - there are far subtler and realistic takes, but the shit being pushed by these puppets of the main political parties in Anglo-Saxon nations are (very purposefully, IMHO) very specific takes on "who to blame" which protect the billionaires and divide the oppressed setting them against each other.