I don't see how you figured there is a relationship between DDD and "make everything unit testable". DDD is about high level architecture. It's at the opposite end of the spectrum.
I agree, the crazy mock- and stub-heavy unmaintainable micro unit testing thing seems to have been an innovation that came out of the Ruby scene.
While I consider TDD the wrong approach in 90% of scenarios, in dynamic languages it works out much better because the object model is so flexible you can mock just about anything trivially. In C# and Java it's just boilerplate on top of boilerplate.
This realization is always endlessly infuriating to me as someone who was taught way to much Java in Uni, and had to intensionally push myself into other languages to realize why simple things like higher-order functions were subjugated under the tyranny of classes in java.
But far worse than that is the absolutely abysmal and destructive philosophy around types in java. Just mash em together with namespaces and classes, and then nerf type inference to the point that it couldn’t infer what is literally the most trivial reflexion-based equality: “Object o = New Object()”.
It definitely is the culprit. They didn't even want to add `var` to the language until recently, and let's not even go to the anonymous class vs lambdas retardation.
These are just the things that they eventually buckled on, but Java is extremely boilerplatey - the bad patterns and XML crap got invented to deal with that problem.
DDD and onion are another issue, mostly coming out of the TDD movement and "make everything unit-testable". If I liked one thing about working with Rails is that they just gave you E2E tests from the start. But if Java/.NET were more flexible (dynamic or FP do far better at enabling simpler unit testing from my experience) mocking would be simpler so the unit testing part would be simpler too.