I’m not entirely convinced of my own credentials as any sort of Wells expert (not by a long chalk), but I’ll have a stab at the War of the Worlds thing … Wells was a social idealist, and a modernist, pretty much all his life, though his views developed and changed over time. His thinking is fairly evident even in early works like The Time Machine (basically, the whole Eloi/Morlocks thing is about class distinctions … the portrayal of the lower classes becoming literally submerged, hidden from view in subterranean compounds, crops up in other stories too, for example “A Story of the Days to Come” and The Last War).
It’s pretty reasonable to suggest, then, that The War of the Worlds is an allegory on imperialism - not necessarily British imperialism, though; I think by 1898 Wells was at least well on the way to regarding imperialism as a bad thing in itself, and the methods of its practice as pretty much unimportant. Certainly, by 1906 (In the Days of the Comet), he’s criticising prevailing social systems without reference to nationalities.
So … War of the Worlds … an alien force lands on Earth, its superior (and largely incomprehensible) technology allows it to brush aside any opposition*, as it sets about exploiting our resources without consideration of customs or even basic morality … yes, the Martians are imperialists, at their most basic and repugnant. (And Wells pulls no punches in making them repugnant; they’re physically repulsive, they make no attempt to negotiate, they use poison gas, they’re vampiric, for Heaven’s sake … ) The narrator’s bafflement at the Martian technology is intended to reflect the savage’s bafflement in the face of the mechanisms of European civilization.
What I guess is unusual about War of the Worlds is the negative view on technology … as a modernist, Wells tended to believe that technical progress inevitably implied social progress as well (once the old order could be persuaded to let go and put the technicians in charge, that is). It’s unusual for the technically superior types to be the villains in a Wells story - unusual, but not unheard of; Griffin (The Invisible Man) and Moreau are both streets ahead in scientific terms, but morally reprehensible characters, and there are other examples. But I think that War of the Worlds is not only an allegory, but a cautionary tale, about imperialism - after all, the Martians lose; they fail to foresee the effects of Earthly biology (thinking about it … all that stuff about the red fungus, in addition to making for some striking visual images, is also a neat piece of foreshadowing; the Martians are established as being sloppy about quarantine procedures.) Viewed in that light, it’s as much a story about misapplied power as anything else - and that is very much a standard Wellsian theme (the quintessential expression of which may be found in “The Man Who Could Work Miracles”)
So … if Lundwall’s saying War of the Worlds is an anti-imperialism fable, he’s got a point. If he’s saying it’s specifically an anti-British imperialism fable, he’s probably wrong. Wells knew perfectly well how the British operated in India, and if he’d wanted to write a book about that, he would have done so.
*There’s also a sort of “boy’s toys” feel about War of the Worlds which I find interesting. You can almost see the action figures range - Martian spaceship! Three-legged war machine! Five-legged construction machine! Collect the set! Did you know that Wells produced two books (Floor Games and Little Wars) which may be the earliest known sets of rules for miniature figures wargaming? It’s a side of his personality which comes out in War of the Worlds rather clearly.
