Who says they aren't all right? It is a matter of historical record that original intentions were to use the EU as a means of subduing Germany and having it subsumed into an American-led "alliance" with the British holding a privileged position in the make-up of this new European order. That could easily fit both of the first two allegations. It is also definitely the case that many pro-Nazi and ex-Nazi individuals held prominent positions in Germany after the war and also built up alliances with various groups outside Germany. Said people, including the head of German intelligence, obviously played an important role in shaping the new Germany and that would include European integration. Those elements, who may or may not have lingering sympathies for the old Nazi Germany, would certainly see an opportunity in a project like the desired European Union a chance to regain Germany's power and dominant status without firing a shot.
Well, this goes totally against my perception of German politics and my knowledge of German post-war history. It's true that until the late 60s or even early 70s, many former low-rank Nazi party members held certain positions in West-Germany. But I never came across the slightest indication that they still embraced their Nazi ideas so much that they would form revisionist rope teams behind closed doors, especially not on highest levels. That notion seems so outlandish to me that I'm inclined to think it's a mere paranoid anti-German conspiracy theory (of which there are plenty in Britain, as far as I know).
Add to that the fact that there was even no EU before 1993. And at that point, the old Nazis had long died out in public positions in Germany. Nazis were reduced to a small number of fringe nuts by then, outcasts, and the established German parties took all efforts possible to keep them down, from attempted party bans to surveillance and infiltration of the Nazi groups by German intelligence.
Time and again, when there was a new EU treaty, Germany accepted voting mechanisms inside the EU which give Germany much less power than it deserves, if you take Germany's population or economic strength as a yardstick. Due to EU mechanisms, Germany even has less power than it would have without the EU (for example, Germany has only 96 seats in the EU parliament, but France, Britain and Italy have 87 each, IIRC, although Germany is more than 25% more populous than these countries. In the Council, Germany even has only the same number of votes like the named countries).
The euro currency was not a German invention, but a condition France insisted on in exchange for allowing Germany to reunify in 1990.
And also, during the euro crisis, Germany did not evoke the slightest impression we want to dominate or lead Europe. On the contrary. The whole world criticized Germany for its alleged reluctance and refusal to take the lead in Europe. I remember even British papers blamed Merkel for that. IIRC, it was the Economist that accused Germany of being so trapped in a guilt complex over WW2, that Germany now refuses to take a leading role in the EU to save it.
So where do you get your info from?
Well, you have to recognize that it was more about insuring their own economic survival as well. I mean, they wouldn't have had a direct problem from Greece and the notion of a "sovereign debt default wave" was probably an exaggeration (sovereign debt markets don't really work that way), but the resulting implosion of the Balkan economy brought on by a Greek economic collapse would rapidly come home to Germany.
Fair enough. But at that time, it was seriously discussed in Germany, and supported by several politicians in Germany, that an "orderly default" of Greece and taking it out of the euro zone was the better solution.