The parallel I had in mind was not WWII behavior but nation-building and class structure. East (of the Elbe) Europe was characterized by strong nobility, weak peasantry and weak cities - which was a result of "colonization" of that part of the world in the middle ages (cf. Brenner, Agrarian Class Structure and Economic development in Pre-Industrial Europe, _Past and Present_ 97(1982): 16-113; Gella, _Development of Class Structure in Eastern Europe_ Albany: SUNY Press, 1989). Migration weakened peasant resistance to the lords, which strengthened the power of the latter, giving them in turn an upper hand vis a vis the cities. Feudalism persisted in E. Europe until the 2nd half of the 19th century, as opposed to W. Europe, where it vanished in the 14th century. As a result, cities and urban classes in E. Europe were underdeveloped vis a vis W. Europe. The only exception was Bohemia, whose gentry was obliterated by the Germans during the reformation - which allowed for a greater urban development in the 19th century, and freeing the intelligentsia from the spell of aristocratic ethos.
That trajectory is quite similar to that of the US - where migration, both voluntary and forced (slavery + penal colonies) as well as from the east coast westward, weakened the community resistance to plantation owners, capitalists, and other entrepreneurs. Another parallel is the Civil War, which was mainly the war of northern industrial aristocracy on the southern agrarian aristocracy. In Eastern Europe, the indigenous agrarian aristocracy played the role of the south, whereas German and Austrian capital, later aided by the Russia (tsarist) government played the role of the north.
The end results are quite similar as well: both the US and E. Europe (except the Czech Republic) are not well urbanized (by W. European standards), the middle class/intelligentsia is coopted by the upper class, working class is not well organized - in a word, both suck in a similar way.
wojtek