I guess I'm the only one who agrees with this. Regardless of what Canon ended up marketing it as, the 5D Mark II was the cheaper of their full frame options and didn't have some of the "professional" features that the 1Ds had.
The 6D continues in this vein. I'd argue that it's precisely because the 5D II lured so many professionals into using it that the 5D III was created at a level far above the price point and feature set of the 5D II. But the 6D is in many ways a "replacement" for an inexpensive (by market value) full frame dSLR.
I think the 5DII was cheap because a lot of the tech used in it was basically left over stuff from the 5D and other Cameras in Canon's lineup. The original 5D ($3,299 at launch) cost a good bit more than the 5DII ($2,699 at launch), so really the 5DIII ($3,499 at launch) was just a return to the higher price point (all 3 were expensive at launch imo). I wouldn't call $2,699 for body only "cheap".