1. You seem to believe the Victorian fairy tale that natives really enjoyed being your subjects, and colonialism was a benevolent form of improving all those dark skinned lives. It wasn't, and just like the eastern European socialist regimes, colonies only looked stable. That should have been clear in 1945. The natives didn't change their minds after WW2, they just realised you were weaker.
No, I don't believe that and never claimed to do so: If you read my previous posts thoroughly then you'll see that I actually mentioned some examples of unrest myself.
However I know enough history to know that during the period in question -- which, you should remember was pre-WW1 rather than post-WW2, so that the balance of power between Britain and the rest of the empire was significantly more strongly in Britain's favour -- there wasn't anywhere within the Empire where a serious uprising would have been anything like as easy for the America-German Axis
(Don't mind if I call it that, do you? I'd rather save the term 'Allliance' for Britain's side of the dispute...) to stir up as you've been suggesting.
India had seen the 'Mutiny' suppressed within living memory, with the strength of British forces in India and (by a change in recruiting patterns, as well as improved conditions) loyalty of the Indian Army improved significantly since then, and with regular troops' advantages over irregular rebels clearly imrpoved too, and such 'national' politiclal leaders as its people then had had were generally thinking in terms of seeking peaceful progresion to self-rule rather than revolution.
The West Indies, British Guiana and British Honduras were a peaceful backwater. The only garrison that we bothered to keep in the entire Caribbean area was a single battalion of Afro-Caribbean troops under British officers, and that was more to train troops for their sister-battalion serving in Africa than for local peacekeeping duties. Considering how blacks were generally treated in the USA in those days, how many people there do you honestly think would have considered achange from British rule to American "protection" a change worth risking their lives for?
Over in West Africa, the colonies of the Gambia, Sierra Leone, the Gold Coast and Nigeria were also generally no trouble: We generally ran them (apart from some trading ports, whose existence really depended on their links with the rest of the Empire anyway) through existing native elites, who admittedly had to give up some of their more power but who then didn't have to worry about coups, invasions by rivals, or anything like that... and the most warlike tribes (such as the Ashanti), who'd been threatening their neighbours, had generally been suppressed by this time. Furthermore, there was no real sense of 'natioanl identity' in any of those places yet so any uprisings would almost certainly have been limited to particular tribes' or city-states' peoples and any leader who might consider rebellion
and was competent enough to pose a credible threat was probably bright enough to understand that the disparity in strengths meant they'd have no chance of success.
Kenya: More recently annexed, and less firmly controlled so far with warlike tribes who might have (and in some cases IOTL did) rebel. However with no 'national identity' developed yet, again, so that with the local history of inter-tribal conflict limiting their willingness to ally with each other we never had to worry IOTL about more than one or maybe two tribes at a time... and the USA of that period wouldn't have had people with the practice at "managing" tribal societies properly to persuade them otherwise.
Uganda: also a relatively new acquisition, but run as a protectorate mainly through existing local elites again... and, again, with no real likelihood of any trouble extending beyond a single tribe or minor kingdom at any one time.
Zanzibar: the Sultan
knew that his country couldn't fight the Empire... Google the 'Anglo-Zanzibar War' to see why.
Bechuanaland, Swaziland, Basutoland: British protection voluntarily accepted by local leaders who were worried about Boer, Zulu, Portuguese and/or German expansion and saw us as definitely preferable to any of those other possibilities; IOTL never any problem, and their leaders were bright enough to recognise that because we were so much more poerful they never
could be a serious military threat to our rule of South Africa.
South Africa (tribal areas), the 'Rhodesias', and Nyasaland: Some tribes might potentially rise up from time to time, but once again traditional hositilities always kept them from cooperating with each other and none of them -- not even the Zulu, or the Matabele -- were now strong enough to pose a serious threat.
Egypt (protectorate): Rule through established local elites who generally benefitted from this, but with a parliamentary system being allowed to develop too; 'Egyptian Army' composed mainly of Sudanese troops with British officers, and more loyal to the British Empire than to the Egyptian government; definitely quite a bit of unrest, but the only people who could have led widespread rebellions knew that they'd be defeated if they tried and so generally stuck to peaceful politial activity instead.
The Sudan: Mahdist rebellion recently and decisively suppressed, no other leaders with potential for country-wide revolution, unrest in some areas but nothing too well-armed or too well-organised for a relatively small British-run force to deal with quite quickly.
British Somaliland: low-level insurgency in the back-country, no real threat to British control over the bits that actually mattered.
Aden: Currently benefitting considerably from its place on the Empire's trade-routes, and peaceful: No local leaders capable of organising any widespread trouble, anyway.
Various other Arab states: locla rulers had accepted British protetction (and subsidies) as an alternative to worse possibilities. No unity, no strengthm,and no problems.
Ceylon: see India.
Burma: parts of it only a recent acquisition, some hostility to British rule that led to outbreaks of violence, but with the old royal family removed there was nobody whose leadership would be accepted on more than a local basis, the Burmans didn't seem to be very good fighters anyway, and we were keeping a strong enough garrison in the country to keep order more-or-less effectively.
Malaya & thereabouts: a collection of trading ports, that found membership in the empire very useful, minor states whose rulers had chosen to accept British protection for safety against Dutch or Siamese expansion, and North Borneo which was run by a British company but populated by a number of different ethnic groups with no intrinsic unity. No rebellions IOTL until the one after WW2, and even then that was only by a small minority from amongst the Chinese settlers (who were proportionately less numerous anyway at this earlier date) and was promoted by an international Communist movement that didn't really exist this much earlier on.
Various grous of islands in the Pacific: Some joined us for protection from other powers, some saw economic benefits in doing so, some had already been heavily penetrated by settlers before we took control and their natives were generally grateful that we legally restrained those settlers from exploiting them any further... IOTL, no rebellions.
Was there anywhere else, in particular, taht you had in mind?
(And before you say
Ireland, the situation
there during this period was basically one of working peacefully towards 'home rule' too. You
might be able to trigger a rebellion, but you'd almost certainly need to commit a sizeable force of American troops in order to do so and the Royal Navy would keep you from doing that.)
Seriously, your claims about how easily the USA could have brought about empire-wide rebellions against British rule in those days are almost as unfounded as
my claims would be if I were to claim that Britain could easily have brought about a USA-wide rebellion by the oppressed African-Americans and 'Native American' peoples in that period...
2. In a world that went to war and self destroyed to find out if Austrian police could search for terrorists across the Serbian border, going to war for conflicting economical concepts would make sense.
A world that went to war because the nature of warfare in those days meant that once unfriendly neighbours had started mobilising their forces you had to do the same promptly or risk being at a serious disadvantage if they then attacked you, in which nations had understandably formed alliances with each other for mutual protection, and in which Germany saw a potential way of gaining both colonies and a slice of what was then the Russian Empire by encouraging Austria-Hungary to push the Serbs too hard because they knew that this would bring both Russia and France into the war too and thought that they could beat those countries withotu too much trouble... Not quite the same thing, that, and blatantly announcing that you'd gone to war with another 'civilised' nation simply in order to seize colonies had just about become unacceptable in international relations by then...
3. Colonies were a hang over from the great exploration voyages, not conducted in English, by the way, and somebody should have called them into question in the early XX century.
Oh, good grief, go away and learn a
lot more history!
The idea of colonies goes back at least to the Classical period, a fair proportion of the great exploration voyages
were carried out (or at least, in some cases, financed) by the English/British, the Empire had been accumulating colonies on-and-off from quite early on during those voyages right up until the period we're talking about (and didn't actually stop doing so until even later on...), and some people
had already started calling them into question by that point but in wide swathes of the world they seemed the best option available at the time. You do realise that a lot of the countries involved would just have fallen apart back into clusters of rival (and often warring) 'pre-industrial' tribes or petty kingdoms if the Europeans had withdrawn, right? I'm certainly not trying to claim that colonialism was carried out for the sole benefit of the native populations, by no means so, but it is a fact that a lot of those areas would be significantly worse off today if they never had been colonised...
4. The colonial powers would initially rule the seas in 1905, if we stick to my line up, but how long until the combined german, Russian and Austrian armies overrun France and Italy. With the non colonials on the Pyrenees would Spain held. In a matter of weeks it would be Britain and Japan against the world. Wouldn't the natives get restless then?
As I pointed out, the likelihood of you getting "combined German, Russian and Austrian" armies all fighting like that just so that Germany and the USA can grab colonies for themsleves, with neither a better-sounding reason put forwards nor anything obvious for the either the Russians or the Hapsburgs to gain from doing so, is pretty minimal.
The world could have gone straight to 1991 in the first decade of the XX centuries,
Bullshit! A lot of the world would have gone straight back to 'pre-industrial' times and to numerous widespread wars anyway if the colonial powers had simply abdicated their power... and the economies of all the industrialised nations, including the USA, would have suffered badly too.
My country had it's share of colonial atrocities. We just don't pretend they never happened.
If your country happens to be the USA then a lot of your fellow countrypeople
do make such claims: In fact I've even seen that happen in this very forum, within the last couple of weeks...
You honestly don't know how few Indians were prepared to listen to Christian missionaries in those days?