Honestly...why can't England be written as the evil country and narrator at the same time?
But is an evil country even needed? I mean, there should be other conflict fuels.
Because people only like to do that when the point of the story is to see how ridiculously evil they can make the country.
Which leads the authors to ignore that according to their beloved balance of power theory, ALL the other neighbors should be horribly scared of that genocidal, militaristic, Nazi neighbor who won't stop screaming about how much he wants to massacre them all. And, of course, they should be trying to organize coalitions to destroy that existential threat, or failing that, contain it.
But that doesn't happen because what fun would it be to write the evil country if you can't massacre the whole world without getting any negative consequences from it.
In reality, in many cases what we see is that the strength, power, and wealth of the wicked country is DIRECTLY proportional to the extent and severity of their wicked deeds.
And of course there could and should be other forms of conflict. The problem is that it seems that fighting for pure strategic interests is ugly, so people resort to the opposing country desperately trying to outdo Hitler in evil. That way they can justify that you MUST GO to war because, of course, entry is more than justified because "we have to keep that evil country in check."