Really broad generalization here: The Chinese communist party came to power largely because a) China had been in a state of anarchy for about 100 years, b) Japanese invasion created some serious hardships, c) the KMT was horrendously corrupt.
The communists were a pretty good alternative to the above.
Mao was not always the first among equals. His personality cult didn’t start in 1949, but much later in the 1950’s. He was more a first amoung equals for the first 15 years of the PRC. Mao’s personality cult really took off during the cultural revolution from 1966.
Also trying not to get into GD territory, but I wanted to respond to this and clarify. I don’t think the notion necesarily is that a popular uprising would’ve taken hitler down had guns been more widespread - that’s not the case early in the war, certainly.
But those minorities that were being rounded up could go armed, and it would create a huge logistical problem for the German secret police. Those victims acting in self defense is the issue, I think, rather than a popular uprising. The Warsaw ghetto uprising serves as an example of what could’ve been widespread resistance if the means were more readily available.
I won’t say anything more unless this goes to GD - I just wanted to clarify what seemed to be a misunderstanding of what was implied.
Even the most generous gun-control laws typically allow governments to prohibit gun ownership by convicted felons, the mentally ill, enemies of the state, and numerous other groups. If the nazis had a more liberal gun-control regime, it is still likely they would have legislative means to prevent their enemies from possessing guns.
There were also numerous other prohibitions on the rights of Jews, who could not own businesses, work for the governemnt or later (at least in some occupied territories) use cars or bicycles. It would be highly incongruous for the German government to allow Jews the rights to bear arms in such a situation.
(And I am sure the nazis would have relished the opportunity to gun down armed Jews in the street rather than drag them off to death camps.)
The rest of your post makes sense, but I take issue with this.
Very few people want to risk dying when they don’t have to. If killing Jews meant exposing yourself to a firefight and death, people would’ve been a lot less gung-ho about it than if they merely have to round them up and throw them on trains.
To ascribe the idea that they relished at the chance to die when they could simply round them up is a gross mischaracterization. The people involved in this certainly mostly were evil, but that doesn’t mean that they’re not human.
This is outside the scope of the question, but seeing as we’re talking dictatorships and guns, let me add Fidel Castro to the mix. Since the Castro takeover in 1959 guns have more or less been outlawed in Cuba. I say more or less because guns are technically legal, as long as they are bought from a legal supplier and licensed. However the only legal supplier is the government, and the only legal licenser is, of course, the government.
Prior to 1959 gun ownership in Cuba was pretty much unregulated, but starting in 1959, in his famous, in Cuba at least, “For What?” speech Castro started down the road of gun confiscation. By 1964 possesion of unregistered guns was a crime punishable by death, and a number of people were executed because of it. Nowadays the penalty is not as severe, but possesion of an unresgistered/unlicensed gun can still get you 25 years.
Of course, we can’t make much headway theorizing about the obviously impossible (the Jews having guns in Nazi Germany), but how would history have been changed had Southern African-Americans had guns enough to fight the Klansmen who were coming to lynch them anyway? Would the sheet-heads have been quite so eager to string someone up had there been a risk of buckshot?
The factual question seems to have been answered here, so I’ll close this thread. Anyone wishing to debate the subject is directed to the Great Debates forum.