recital of names, without any investigation of historical context.
The Nazi seizure of power, for example, did not occur during the period of greatest chaos, namely the so-called "revolutionary period" after the Great War, but after a period of relative prosperity during which the potential opponents of the Nazis were too occupied with fighting amongst themselves to unite against a party whose organizing efforts they had more or less completely ignored, and from the beginning the Nazi consolidation of power included constant terrorization of opponents through political violence.
Mao came to power after winning a civil war, which started in the 1920s and which was interrupted by WWII: to summarize this biography simply as a ruthless power seeker taking advantage of "change, disruption, and hardship" ignores essential political elements of the specific history.
You similarly recite Saddam's name. Yet, neither does the history of his rise to power appear result from masses clamouring for a strong man:
Roger Morris.
"A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making," New York Times, 14 March 2003
... In 1963 Britain and Israel backed American intervention in Iraq, while other United States allies -- chiefly France and Germany -- resisted. But without significant opposition within the government, Kennedy, like President Bush today, pressed on. In Cairo, Damascus, Tehran and Baghdad, American agents marshalled opponents of the Iraqi regime. Washington set up a base of operations in Kuwait, intercepting Iraqi communications and radioing orders to rebels. The United States armed Kurdish insurgents. The C.I.A.'s "Health Alteration Committee", as it was tactfully called, sent Kassem a monogrammed, poisoned handkerchief, though the potentially lethal gift either failed to work or never reached its victim.
Then, on February 8, 1963, the conspirators staged a coup in Baghdad. For a time the government held out, but eventually Kassem gave up, and after a swift trial he was shot; his body was later shown on Baghdad television. Washington immediately befriended the successor regime. "Almost certainly a gain for our side", Robert Komer, a National Security Council aide, wrote to Kennedy the day of the takeover.
As its instrument the C.I.A. had chosen the authoritarian and anti-Communist Baath Party, in 1963 still a relatively small political faction influential in the Iraqi Army. According to the former Baathist leader Hani Fkaiki, among party members colluding with the C.I.A. in 1962 and 1963 was Saddam Hussein, then a 25-year-old who had fled to Cairo after taking part in a failed assassination of Kassem in 1958.
According to Western scholars, as well as Iraqi refugees and a British human rights organization, the 1963 coup was accompanied by a bloodbath. Using lists of suspected Communists and other leftists provided by the C.I.A., the Baathists systematically murdered untold numbers of Iraq's educated elite -- killings in which Saddam Hussein himself is said to have participated. No one knows the exact toll, but accounts agree that the victims included hundreds of doctors, teachers, technicians, lawyers and other professionals as well as military and political figures ...
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/morris.htm While I'm somewhat inclined to share your pessimism, politics is not deterministic: ordinary people can and do learn from history ...