That is your interpretation, and mine
Not his
His was that the geography of Europe is special
But it is not. Even in his speciality, geography, he gets it wrong
Because he cannot bear that "...Europeans just lucked into it. "
His thesis is precisely that, so he can definitely bear it.
Ultra-summarising:
- The Americas fell behind because they eliminated large mammals before inventing domestication, and not having horses and cows is a huge setback.
- Sub-Saharan Africa fell behind because it is oriented north-south and there are a lot of different climates you have to travel through, and therefore technology exchange is harder.
- Eurasia had the east-west orientation that enabled tech exchange, so it was going to happen there.
- Of the Eurasian regions, China could have been first but being too unified meant that they were less competitive and less likely to repeat high-risk ventures until they worked. Europe was fragmented and competitive which led to faster innovation, including more focus on turning anything into a weapon (e.g. gunpowder, invented in China but turned into war devices in Europe) or a disruptor (paper & printing press).
All seems pretty logical, and does not ascribe Europe any superior moral character. It's just luck.
Unless, of course, you believe that being born in the right place at the right time is related to moral character rather than luck. But I don't think Diamond does that in his book.
But given that humans are equal, with a equal history of violence and conquest. If geography was not a factor. Then what was? We can't just blame Europeans for being successful. If we can't find any external factors, then we are left with internal, and then we'd have to do some logic around what makes them specifically different. Culture? Genes? Those also don't seem correct.