Yes, I have (see
here). I think he presents a very compelling case, and he even agrees somewhat with a more "hyperdimensional" explanation of these long-running conspiracies (he didn't use that term, but alluded to it in
an interview).
Yet I think these sweeping narratives/conspiracies are just one angle, and this doesn't mean we can ignore the more mundane diplomatic and other dynamics playing out in history, because they are the vehicle to realize those long plans, exploiting the sentiments of those involved. So you can analyze certain decisions and dynamics somewhat independently from the "grand conspiracy", and ask questions such as how the German invasion of Poland came about. It's like with the Ukraine situation: on the one hand, it's a grand conspiracy by the US to weaken Russia, so in some sense Ukraine had no options but doing uncle sam's will; but on the other hand, we should still analyze the specifics of how it played out, why and how Ukraine did the things it did, who was involved, what were they thinking, and so on. And there are always many other aspects that play a role in these situations beside the "grand plan".
Hence I think that a take like Preparata (basically that Britain had a long-standing plan to crush the rising Germany and especially its alliance with Russia, and that WWI, Hitler and WWII were the vehicles of doing it) is valid and explains a great deal, but there are other angles from which to look at it that are important, such as internal German affairs, diplomacy, culture, various interests, etc.
It seems to me that to even approach something like historical truth, it's necessary to go at it from different, sometimes contradictory angles: conspiracy, economy, individual interests, group phenomena (mass psychology, collective karma...), culture, philosophy, ideology etc. And also compare the different "victim narratives" each nation puts forth, where each of those ignores a whole lot, but also expresses a truth, and can tell us something about why people acted the way they did. When doing that, hopefully at least a clearer understanding will emerge, even though ultimately we can never know the "complete true story" because as you say we can't read the minds of historical actors.
Indeed, but unfortunately almost all historians are like that (every historian presents a certain "case"), so we have no choice but looking at different "stories" historians tell about historical events, and learn to read between the lines. The problem is that someone who has a great command of the sources can almost argue for any "case" by selecting the sources and quotes that seem to support it, while withholding the sources and quotes that would contradict it. You can only spot this if you are familiar with the sources yourself. So yeah, it's a huge mess, and we really need to "think with a hammer" and try to put ourselves in the shoes of people in the past to get a read on "what's the overall picture here". It's desperate, but still worthwhile!
