That is true. Britain believed the colonies to be at the service of their mother country. Hardly surprising. But not sustainable in the face of a hardening definition by any overseas territory of itself as separate to the mother country.
The lesson Britain did learn was to loosen the leash as the dominions gathered momentum. Generally the dominions did not feel the need to launch a revolution to gain control of their own affairs, nor to attain independence. Instead a gradual process of self-determination and separate nationhood lead to the same outcome. From Wikipedia:
Dominions were semi-independent polities under the British Crown, constituting the British Empire, beginning with Canadian Confederation in 1867.[1][2] They included Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, South Africa, and the Irish Free State, and then from the late 1940s also India, Pakistan, and Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). The Balfour Declaration of 1926 recognised the Dominions as “autonomous Communities within the British Empire”, and the 1931 Statute of Westminster granted them full legislative independence.
Of course India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Ireland can all point at an independence struggle - none of which attained the status of revolution.
The same is not true to the non-dominions within the British Empire and it is to these I think you are primarily referring Marc. Wars (or emergencies) in Palestine, Kenya, Malaya and elsewhere. However, even in the non-dominions the BE conducted a largely orderly retreat in a very short time frame - about 30 years to move from ruling one quarter of the globe to merely a few residual island protectorates - and in most cases without the countries concerned needing to fight to gain independence.