As a generalisation, that's highly questionable. Well, more than that, it's wrong. It's true that Christianity didn't make much headway in India: but elsewhere, particularly in Africa and the Caribbean, it's a different story. The history of 19th century British colonialism and its key figures is as much a catalogue of missionaries as of soldiers, administrators and entrepreneurs. Those missionary efforts tended to be more successful in cultures with animist or other unstructured religious traditions than those with systematically formalised religions like Islam or Hinduism.
Also your point 3 -
The British and Churchill in particular in WWI attacked the Dardanelles instead of targeting Antioch and thereby fracturing the Ottoman world into the Turkish and the Armenian-Arab worlds
The Mesopotamian Campaign, which lasted throughout WW1, hardly fits that thesis.
I won’t blame Churchill in WWI for that, when plainly the UK and French fought on the side of the Muslims in the Crimean War.
Also, o would credit American Christians, not Brits, for the Christianization of English Africa.
I respectfully disagree. In the Caribbean these were imported slaves for kinda forced. in Africa yes, but the majority of the conversions happened post independence.