The British Empire controlled something like ~20% of the world and other European powers were adding in 10% here and there. Probably more than that weighted by economic and military strength. It is kinda on the British elite that the world wars even started. Even with the most charitable read we're talking about a situation where the message was "lets not break the power of Europe" and they couldn't sell it to Europe.

The world wars were a crisis that caused change, but that is a bit like going bankrupt. Just because the crisis is fast doesn't stop the process being slow.

> Even with the most charitable read we're talking about a situation where the message was "lets not break the power of Europe" and they couldn't sell it to Europe.

That feels like retrofitting a modern frame onto a very different situation? I don't think any of the European elites thought in terms of "the power of Europe" as any kind of unified front vs the rest of the world until after they lost the world wars. It was intra-European conflict as it always had been. England/France/Germany(+)/Spain/Austria against each other; those elites that were unhappy with the fallout of the last great redistribution of power at the Treaty of Utrecht.

(there's probably a chunk of history I'm missing as to how Russia went from enemy of Britain at the Crimean war in the 1850s to the ally in the Triple Entente which caused France and Britain to go to war with Austria-Hungary; but WW1 is definitely not the fault of the any kind of British elite, we can blame it on the Austrians and, of course, the Serbs and ultimately one guy with a gun)

The rest of the world wasn't conceived of as independent powers until the Russo-Japanese war. They were prizes to be allocated among the (European) players. At that time, it was even conceivable that the European powers might take and divide China as they had done with Africa and India.

(+) strictly, Prussia; remember German and Italian unification happened during the Victorian era.

Ww1 and ww2 had a lot to do with Germans lusting after British Imperial greatness (having missed out on large colonization due to lack of national cohesion prior to 1870)

> That feels like retrofitting a modern frame onto a very different situation?

What, the British weren't up the challenge of forecasting a major war in Europe might end badly for them? I mean, I'm sure their leadership didn't, but that is why they don't get to run an empire any more.

> but WW1 is definitely not the fault of the any kind of British elite, we can blame it on the Austrians and, of course, the Serbs and ultimately one guy with a gun

It looks a lot like the fault of the British elite. They failed to use their influence to get a positive result in Europe; which descended into a bonfire over 40 years until it ran out of fuel to burn and half the continent was under the thrall of communism. And if they were doing something productive in the mean time overseas it didn't deliver much result. There'd be an argument that their laissez faire attitude was a problem except they kept actively declaring war on Germany over and over until their empire fell apart.

That generation of British leadership demonstrated no capacity to get positive results apart from a remarkably swift decommissioning of the largest empire ever built. I suppose history can remember them in the positive light that as group they could have failed even worse except they at least had the good sense to bring in US management before the situation became unrecoverable.

The article mentions Churchill who was a major leader in both world wars. He also served as a lancer at the Battle of Omduran and grew up during the time of Empire born smack dab in the middle of the Victorian Era (1870s). His generation formed the leadership of the empire during that period.

The generations BEFORE the Victorian Era enabled it excesses. People who were born IN the Victorian Era (which this article seems to argue were responsible for Britain's success) formed the leadership caste of Britain's ultimate downfall in the World Wars.