WI if after WW1 & 2, the USA took a stronger stance against European colonialism?
There was a thread on here a while back about an ATL where the opposite was discussed, ie the USA openly supporting continued colonialism after WW2. The point was made that one of the reasons that so much of the Third World after WW2 fell to Communist or otherwise pro-Soviet governments was the wishy-washy policy of the US toward colonialism, ie the US didn't fully support British and French efforts to crush independence movements (and therefore not lead to pro-Soviets movements winning), nor did it provide any substantial backing for independence movements (and promote pro-American anti-communist movements).
Would this make many Third World movements become broadly pro-Western rather than adopting Communist ideology and rhetoric?
It must be remembered here that until at least the end of WW2 many Third World independence leader viewed the USA quite positively and in a somewhat idealistic way (much like how the world views many European nations nowadays).
WI POD would be required for the USA to take a stronger anti-colonialist stance? The common objection to this ATL is that the USA wouldn't have wanted to risk an alliance with the UK and France in the Cold War context. True, but what were they going to do, they wouldn't have sided with the Soviets!
An interesting POD IMHO would be for the USA in the 1920's to be less isolationist and want to assert itself on the world stage. At this time with the UK as still a quite a formidable force the two nations could be considered rivals. Perhaps the USA starts to support Third World independence movements in an effort to create its own sphere of influence (much like the Soviets OTL after WW2).